n investigation showing how aol misuse accounting the few its disastrous merger with time warner which one the gerald loeb award. he taught journalism at wesleyan university and graduated in new hampshire. to larry, first of all propublica seems to be the hottest discussion item among research and polling communities. so what in the world is propublica? how are you funded? who is your audience? what is your overarching asian? -- what is your overarching goal? larry: thanks, jack. appreciated being here with the consumer federation and with this cluster's panel of reporters. as a lowly editor i'm somewhat , of an odd man out, but propublica is a nonprofit independent newsroom that started about six years ago. and that was in the midst of the real upheaval in the way the internet was changing the news business. there was real fear among many of us at the time that the traditional news organizations

because of the change in a business model were not going to be able to devote the amount of resources and time to investigative reporting in the sense of long-term in depth work that takes reporters months to produce. and at the time a lot of different kinds of elements of a noose ecosystem started to spring up. propublica raised money from foundations, from individuals, and has built over the last six, seven years a newsroom of about 50 people, focused only on the journalism in the public interest. and that, of course, includes a big swath of reporting on consumers, on how abuses unfairness, abuses of trust, fraud, and what propublica brings to the table is a

long-term commitment to working on stories, however long they take to do. a big commitment to data collection and analysis, and a feeling that every time we produce the story, that is based on the huge amount of data, we try to extend that reporting to local communities by partnering with people across the country who can do their own versions of it. for example, we recently started a series on workers compensation compensation, took a reporter named michael graybill about a year to produce, and he analyzed how workers caught laws and rules have changed in all 50 states, sure these enormous disparities on how people are treated if they are hurt in oklahoma as opposed to new york. and build this into a big

database, an interactive chart and now we are working with news organizations, local and regional around the country where they would do their own versions of the story, sort of based on the research that we have produced. and that's been kind of replicated along a number of stories like how pharmaceutical companies pay doctors, which has up until now been sort of a hidden, you know, a hidden thing. so, propublica is like a couple of other nonprofit news organizations, some of which were mentioned before, the center for public integrity which is the one brian worked with, the center for investigative reporting based in san francisco. as the internet has changed things and produced a lot of problems for what we call legacy news organizations, it's also

opened up a lot of opportunities for different kinds of organizations to spring up, and we are one of those groups. jack: so larry, in your reporting does propublica see as one of its roles the object as to influence and change public-policy? >> yes. that's right. it has a much more sort of focused way, i mean, implicitly in all investigative journalism that's done by anybody from the "washington post," "new york times," "wall street journal," abc news, there's implicitly this idea that if you expose things that are hidden or the people don't want to be known for that are abuses of consuming or abuses of power, that that may lead to change but with a much more explicit mission which is that when we tackle a topic we want to take it to the point where if people want to act on

reform for change, they can do it. so what that mainly means is that in the choice of what we choose to pursue, we are looking for things that could lead to actual action. jack: fascinating. next we have a brody mullins and it has a good reporter for "the wall street journal." prior to joining "wall street journal," a reporter for the "national journal" and roll call. at "the wall street journal" he first covered tax legislation and then get investigative stories about congress, lobbying and the culture of washington. recently his examination of how wall street minds govern for information to trade stocks helped inspire congressional legislation known as the s.t.o.c.k. act that band members of congress and other aid aid from trading on stock based on insider information. in 22 new series of stories on lawmakers covet overseas on official government business expose a series of abuses, prodded congress to cancel plans to spend $500 million on new luxury jets and led to reforms in how congress traveled abroad.

brody has twice received the everett mckinley dirksen award this to -- award for distinguished reporting on congress and the national press club award for the best political reporter under age 33. did not know they had the age bracket. [laughter] brody: i think it's a 34. jack: okay. it gets older as you do. he also received the george polk award and was a finalist for the gerald loeb award, along with michael is the washington magazine called him one of washington's 50 best reporters. he is a true d.c. native graduated from gonzaga high school and also northwestern university. so, brody, as a paper focus on business and business people for many advocates "the wall street journal" is somewhat of a mystery. yet much of the investigative reporting done by you and your colleagues has resulted in very consumer-oriented reforms.

sort of like the "rachel maddow show" resulting in more government, less government regulation so it's kind of an oxymoron, but in terms of investigative reporting how important is it to the fundamental mission of the journal? brody: how important is investigative -- jack: to the journal. brody: i think to "the wall street journal" investigative journalism is incredibly important in part because the problem we've had with investigative reporting overall, a decline in the media and regional newspapers which is greater a vacuum or opening for people doing big broad stories about problems in the government or abuses by lawmakers. these types of stores were the bread and butter of the "washington post," "the new york times" and bloomberg and the journal years ago as well as dozens of regional newspapers. the problem is the regional newspapers don't have the money

anymore to invest in these types of stories. the issue is that you were him and talking about putting reporters for all three of your talk about putting reporters on stories for upwards of a year. i think that if the regional reporter went to the boston some good work on something for you they would be laughed out of the building. i certainly would be. so that has great sort of an -- that has created sort of an opportunity for abuse. i think lawmakers know at the state level or the national level that no one is watching them. that's a real problem. jack: so do you see the center for integrity or propublica to be competition to your investigative reporting? brody: i certainly do. i think there's enough out there that people can stay in their own lanes. there's enough to cover. i think i know another problem is that people doing this well right now are nonprofits. we work in businesses. we need to make money.

hopefully over the next few years, coming years, newspapers and journalism overall will figure how to make money for these types of stories. the problem is if you invest in a reporter to cover a story for a year, you could use the same resources to hire five people to write 500 stories. so the challenge is how do you try to make money by investing longer-term stories? jack: i think "the wall street journal" is somewhat unique in terms of being able to make by a because one of the first and continues to be successful at generating enough revenue from its online subscription to be viable. when you are proposing and developing investigative story ideas to editors, do you ever run into pushback that was often

in the local press where, you know, that's a great story but i'm not sure our advertisers are going to be comfortable with that? brody: i have not dealt with that at "the wall street journal." i'm sure that other people have this. certainly regional papers have done that for a long time. i think the journal is big enough, it hasn't advertisers that they are not dependent on one or two individual subscribers to carry the paper. but that is a big problem also. jack: going back to brian. so we have one million story ideas in this room. how do you decide which story ideas you are going to pursue? what kind of things are you looking for from advocates to get you started on a story? brian: i guess i start with am i interested, have i heard this before, and then as a tv report er to be honest, are there

pictures the so decent -- pictures associated with it? are there people who are hurt? do we have some representation of that? what's going to make a story that will work on television? i think part of it, i think we've done well because we have to get out a way to make almost any story visual. it's not easy but it's a challenge, part of a craft. those are the questions, am i personally interested, don't -- do i want to spend the next three months on something that is interesting to me, that hasn't been out there before, that would have an effect on people, that could have an effect on policy? those are the essential questions to me. jack: the big question many of us get is are there any victims? do you know the victims? where are the victims? and i think, larry, this is were you come in. you seem to have the pull together the data. how do you go about pulling together the data that shows that there are victims out there

and it does affect x number of people? larry: it's sort of a very methodical process to collect data on a topic where we think there might be something new there. one of the things i wanted to point about the internet is that while it initially was seen by us in the news business as something that was disruptive to what we were doing, it also presents this enormous opportunity to reach people and have a two-way conversation with readers of the news, consumers advocates and judges and everything else. so once we sort of embark on a story line, we often will put in our stories, hey, if you know more about this, or have something to tell us, contact us . that has become an enormous source of stories, as you say of , victims, individual stories, examples of things that are happening in places that in the old days would've taken a lot more time and effort to reach. jack: well, you know, going back

to brody, again "the wall street journal" is known for precision, you know, for its expertise, sort of a no-nonsense approach. given what larry said, what do you think about the concept of crowd sourcing for information and some are testing whether not that information is real or legitimate? >> it's not something we've done directly but part of the problem with information that goes out on the internet, news on the net sometimes, is credibility. and i think that sometimes that is why you need a dignity -- need a big name behind some of the information that goes out. people don't know what to believe. in the 24 hour cable environment we live in, const information and even a television that turns out to be not true. yesterday there was a big story that was basically not true. and i think that, i think

readers at some point will say i will look to name brands or brands they trust and say ok so , and so is saying this, i trust that is true. that puts the burden on us to make sure we don't try to follow a story by 30 seconds, that we make sure it is right. jack: so that brings me back to you, mike. obviously, you are one of the more trusted reporters literally in the world. thinking about this trust in thinking about yahoo! and the internet, what kinds of differences have you experienced? you have had amazing experiences. "post," abc "newsweek," and yahoo!. was there different editorial policies? were you under different guidelines to come and how are you going to create this credibility that some people wonder about the internet? >> first of all, in terms of guidelines, the short answer is no. there are standards in our profession and standards of

professionalism, and i pretty much had that in all of these experiences. actually, my direct editor now at yahoo!, danny, was my editor at "newsweek." he was former bureau chief and managing editor at "newsweek,." the editor is megan, former editor of "the new york times" magazine. so it's the same sort of professional ethos and standards, and i think to a large extent your work speaks for itself. people can read a story and get a pretty good sense once they start delving into it. of whether the work is there whether it is corroborated whether the source is good whether the information can be trusted. now, i do think, as i think when you do good work, regardless of

where it is, people to recognize it. and if you've got something that people have not seen elsewhere it'll break through. there is a lot out there, and this is, i think this is true for all of us. there is so many sources of news now, so many, not just the traditional legacy news organizations, but a whole range of, ranging from nonprofits to blogs to regional news services to ideologically-driven news organizations. there's just a lot of noise, and a lot of stuff can sort of slip through the cracks. this is my frustration. as a reporter trying to keep tabs on everything that's out there, you know, have i missed something?

very often it's just word of mouth, did you see that? because if i missed it on my twitter feed, i may not have seen it at all. brian just did a great piece on human rights violations by the iraqi army. i happened to see it on twitter, watch the whole video. it was really good. i did not even know it was on world news tonight. i had to ask him. [laughter] i'm kidding. but i mean, that is the way we are getting our news these days. i was not watching "world news tonight" last night. i was traveling at the time but i was able to see it, but it also means that very often there's so much out there, that good stories get lost that way. jack: i think it's very good

because it gives huge numbers of new platforms. stories that make -- brian: stories that do not make it on the world news, we will have on twitter. apple tv, a whole sort of magazine stand of investigative stories. i just think it's a very exciting opportunity are all investigative reporters. because there are fewer limits on space and time, and great opportunity. our company and i think others we have partnered with yahoo!. we are raising to be part of the digital future. we can see that's where it's going. so that's something we embrace. we are not afraid of. larry: the other thing, too, i think that's all this noise is going on, i think one of the trend that i may be a pollyanna about this but what instructed knows if there's a growing sophistication among the news consuming audience about what is credible and what isn't. so i think that some years ago it was much more of a free for all where something would pop up and people would believe it for a long time or it wouldn't come

from an organization that no one ever heard of. but now i feel as though there's this sort of coalescing of some sense of what a credible source is and what isn't. i think that's a great trend. brian: can i just add -- brian -- mike: can i just add, reince and something to me that registered to me as a former tv reporter myself, which is one of the frustrations, i was at nbc is to get into the nightly news or the format, the story got shorter and shorter. two minutes is like a huge takeout on tv news. i don't labor under the same encumbrances at yahoo!. i just got back two weeks ago from cuba and was able, actually , it was a fascinating trip to a -- trip.

i had the first interviews with the cuban five spies since they've gotten released by obama. and we were able to put together a seven-minute video that ran on the web that had really great stuff. both from interviews and walking the streets of havana with these guys who were celebrated as national heroes down there. if i had to do that for one of the network news, it would have been, if i could have gotten two minutes, it would have been a real gift. but i was able to do something much more in depth, and much more satisfying actually. jack: brian, is that proliferation of what you're able to expose the public to one of the reasons why abc chooses to make a very large investment in your team? brian: i think so. jack: if you just had the nightly news maybe you wouldn't , be able, they would want to make that investment. brian: i'm not sure about that

but i know that we are encouraged, almost demanded of us, for instance, the story about the iraqi army and allegations they're committing war crimes just as bad as isis itself, that was not particularly the kind of thing that would be desirable at the breakfast hour as people are watching, having dinner. and so we had a shorter piece on the world news but nevertheless that was 9 million people watching. a much longer piece that appeared online, facebook. that kind of reach, i think justifies the investment that , abc makes in its investigative unit. for us there's almost no story we can tell or find a place for. that gives us the opportunity to expand it. in terms of the business, they make a lot more money from television than they do right now from what's online but that is something that will evolve. we figure if you do good stories and they are available, people will find them. jack: brody, following up on

larry's comment about the increased, and i'm not sure i would agree with this, but the increased sophistication in the news consumers, starting to be able to differentiate on the internet, what is a legitimate source and what is an illegitimate source, how does "the wall street journal" deal with that in the sense that, like you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of all the comments about reports because that can be hard to listen to and hear. but the bottom line is, how does "the wall street journal" differentiate itself from, first of all, a myriad of a trade association magazines that are starting to look like "the wall street journal" and starting to sound like legitimate news publications, as well as all the other stuff that is out there? brody: we have a big advantage

in that we have a brand name. we have been around for 100 years. people know "the wall street journal" is. a lot of people trust "the wall street journal." a lot of people don't trust the wall street, but they know they are and they can make a decision. you can read in it to say this is coming from a can somebody point of view. i agree or i don't. on editorial, on the journalism side of it as you said earlier we've been a lot of stories sort of more pro-consumer stories that are intended to or you hope that they do affect public policy for good. find and root out wrongdoing and lead to policy changes that tell that. i'm glad you mentioned the reputation because that is what we would like to have. it goes back to my point about credibility and being careful that you don't make mistakes or that you were a credible messenger. all you have is your brand name. as soon as you make some mistakes or report things that

incorrect use that and then you will not have the trust of readers. >> so that goes back to you, lou. a lot of people are concerned that much of the information on the internet and internet news sources is unfiltered. you are an editor. is it because of folks like you and editors that are starting to clean up some of this information that's increasing its credibility? larry: i'm not sure. i think what's happened is the dynamic of what the web is very, the sort of quick accountability and quick response and dissemination through twitter and other means of, you know questions but something that popped up tens to kind of clean things up on its own a little bit. if somebody comes out with something that's not right or that is clearly wrong or from a source that is questionable, the accountability that happens much quicker. i think that over time that's my sense, it's built up that if something comes from the abc news or the journal or "the new york times," it's got a stronger bedrock of credibility if it comes from someplace that no one has ever heard of.

because people to experience have learned that a lot of these reports are built on very flimsy evidence. jack: now i'd like to open it up to all of you. we have, you know, incredible opportunity to figure out what it is that these four gentlemen are looking for from us. >> [inaudible] speaking of regional publications -- jack: if you could identify yourself. >> ted knutson, advisor magazine. was in chicago talking to some online invested reporters over the weekend and they raise the question. speaking of regional papers "st. louis , post-dispatch," the regional paper for ferguson to do you think if they had a strong

investigative team there would have been a ferguson? >> who wants to take that one? brian: i don't know enough about the st. louis post to answer that. i think they've done some very good work there. larry: i think they just got awarded the national press foundation for their coverage of this matter. brian: well, are you talking about prior to the event? prior to the event. >> [inaudible] brian: it's hard to know what i know, for instance, the "milwaukee journal" has been great reporting on their police department. it has faced their own struggles. i think they have shown themselves to be very tough. >> jonathan harris, commission

of consumer protections. i think you do great work and what you want to come up changing minds is a really crucial part of our democracy. i want to flip that on its head, especially comes to regional papers. in our state there is a regular column that is supposed be a watchdog on government. the journalist is top-notch. is excellent, both in his investigations in general and in his writing. the fact that he has to produce every single week, i don't think always gives him the ability to drill down, one. there is a pressure to always have content on a regular basis. it seems like at times one stories that might have validity to it keeps getting twisted around with maybe a different little fact, a different angle and i fear, and i've experience,

that it actually does the opposite and building this trust in government where it should be an something we do not need now. is that something you have seen as an editor? how do you deal with something that? larry: perhaps. [laughter] there is no question about talking about the advantage of the internet in terms of people having access to a lot more news and news organizations may be able to distribute their news more widely. that is all true. the downside has been since the beginning, as you say, the 24-7 cycles, the need for quick updates and the competitive landscape, which means that any scrap of news or information you have if you don't get it out quickly somebody else is going to get it out there quickly first and you will get behind the curve. all those forces are pressing against giving in-depth, thoughtful, long-term work and even on the deep reporting

level, not just sort of long-term investigative work so yes, it's been a problem. i think what has happened is that as that ecosystem created some of these new organizations to fill some of these gaps it seems there is an adjustment going on that will preserve accountability on watchdog work, but it's still a work in progress. mike: i just wanted to chime in. the tension between taking months and months to do that really in-depth investigative piece, between that and covering the news when you get it and when you get a nugget of interest putting it out there is something i think we all faced throughout my career. -- i think we all faced. i faced it throughout my career. i am not sure the answer is one or another.

i remember having this conversation with a boss of mine , bob woodward who actually , first hired me when i worked for the "washington post." he reminded me that watergate was an incremental story. they didn't take months and months to do the take out. they covered developments as they covered developments as they covered developments as they cover them. that led to more sources. more stories. very often covering it as you get it can be just as productive and informative for the reader as spending a long time to do those kinds of in-depth pieces. >> first, it has been interesting for me. god bless you on the issue.

the future of investigating journalism, right? investigative reporting. i would like to have your take or opinion on what about what i believe many americans now do not believe that the news media in general has much integrity or ethic or whatever? examples are you have got an anchor that tried to make himself a war hero. you got the far right high that far right guy saying he was in the middle of a combat ring and wasn't even in the falcon islands and all that crap going on it they make their own news. then to follow-up on the

ferguson thing, my god, that has been going on for so long and took the justice department to find out it was a cash generating trap in ferguson. in that context, what is your take on the integrity of the sources in the people that are presenting the news to us and what not? [laughter] >> 30 seconds. [laughter] >> whatever the shortcomings of reporters, nbc news is full of integrity. there are shortcomings. we all make mistakes. i think that is not there to say that it is a place not full of integrity. i think viewers trust it. they have a new anchorman now. doing a terrific job.

their view is haven't abandoned them. not convinced that is the case that one flawed person and one flood story suggest the whole place is bad. that is to brought of the brush. >> [inaudible] brian: i don't know the details. it is a place of integrity to this day i think. >> i appreciate you all being here. i have got two questions. one is about non-sexy stories that possibly need to be retold. the things that don't have some of the common attractive things and sort of a good follow-up.

some things can be -- it could lead to change. some of our social problems are huge and you multiple following up. i just mentioned gerrymandering. that is a profound national issue and yet, where will be get the commitment from the media to look at something like that that needs to be done? one is non-sexy news and sort of long-term things that need a real commitment from folks like you to follow them. which is the tooth those issues?

-- would you speak to those issues? >> that is what we specialize in. [laughter] let's look at the workers compensation system. that seems like a headline. we are not alone in this. you try to see, is this a real social issue? is this something that needs to be looked that? that is why you do this methodical data digging to find out what is really there. once you do, and unsexy store becomes an important story. you are seeing a credible disparities in the system. i think a lot of good journalism work starts from their. it is not just the big nonprofits that are doing it. >> chicago consumer correlation. consumers are always concerned these days about the sources of

sweatshops and shoes. most of your articles are international about the kind of news climate internationally that comes from the work that you do. my inbox had 20 different request for research about journalists who were assassinated or injured because of stories that they did. from the good work that you do abroad, what impact does that have a brought in terms of the kind of investigative reporting that could and should be taking place there? >> you have done a lot of that. >> certainly. i wish i could say the start has had more impact. the workers are really at the mercy of the coalition of the government and the manufacturers. a lot of stories have attempted to put pressure on the american

companies that take advantage of the cheap labor frankly. that is how we have had the greatest impact. i don't think -- i think if we could influence as we have, tommy hilfiger and other companies, have gone to bangladesh to make their clothes. that is the pressure point. it is very dangerous for journalists in those countries sometimes to tell the truth. easy journalist killed in mexico on a routine basis and trying to tell the truth of the drug cartels. certainly in the middle east. don't get americans who were murdered by isis tied to report on what was happening in syria. it can be very dangerous. i remember waking up for there were tried to tell the truth and not face retaliation.

it is a test environment. we live in a country with a first amendment that protects us. are those who don't use it to their full advantage, shame on them. >> good morning. consumer protection office. we as consumers love hidden camera stories. they are inherently so powerful. you cannot capture audio in some states. how does that interfere with what you do and to what extent would you like those laws changed? >> we are very aware of those laws. you can do it hidden cameras, but not hidden audio. we have a whole list when we are considering doing stories that involve hidden cameras. where can we not operate? it does have a direct impact on the ability to catch people in the act. it is a challenge.

we are very -- in maryland and california, it is a felony to record some of these audio without telling them. >> a quick interruption. as a printer reporter, do you find yourself getting involved in stories that need visuals that you decide not to do it and maybe vice versa? are there great visual stories that are too long, so you don't do them? >> not as much. and on think we had pictures until five years ago at all. [laughter] right. drawings. they spend a lot of time on the layout of it. it is not quite a television where your approach a story looking for visuals to go with it.

they encourage us to try to do online videos or accompaniments good to have video or videos. advertisers are paying for those sorts of things right now. it is not something i set out to do. >> high. i'm asking this question as individual not representing any organization. >> ic that it is all men. -- i see that ist is all men. it is all white. all the people who choose the stories, they are issues that are going on. this is the future, what is the problem? when you talk about people sidelining the law to other sources, it is because you are

going to telling the stories. decisions are not being at the top level that are broad. if you're talking about the future and what the demographics are going, this is disheartening. >> fabulist question. it would be great if each of you could delve into that as you look forward and as you look backwards and see who is coming up high and you. >> excellent point. you're looking at the past of investigated reporting. [laughter] despite the makeup of the panel things are changing in the newsrooms. there are a lot of women and african american and hispanics and asians taking responsibility in all of these groups. while we have been behind the not as aggressive as we should have been and being more diverse

, that is very much a topic. in terms of the topics that are toppled, it is a fair point that the people who are in the decision making are perhaps not as in touch as they should be for some of these other questions like inequality and race but i think by and large the main organizations are making efforts to address that. >> it is an absolutely excellent point. never city is important not just for the sake of diversity, but it does give you other perspectives on what is the story? this doesn't speak directly to the issue of women or african americans or minorities. how you view something is very

much you could do something a little bit differently and feta made what use north of my not think of the store could become an incredible story. i remember covering the boston marathon a bombing. at the time it was a terrorism story. everyone was focused on who did this and where there are links were abroad? i remember watching when they identified the suspect brothers and are searching for the one who is now on trial and is seeing all the humvees and

national guards and troops coming in heavily armed, it was amazing. it was like being in a war zone. at the time, i wasn't thinking about the militarization of our police departments and what kind of environment that was creating . i was covering a terrorism story. in retrospect, there it was. the same story that got a lot of people alarmed during ferguson. it was fully on display in boston. that is not what people are talking about the time. i use that as an example of how you look at something. your eyes open. you see a major story. that is something that diversity can contribute to. it is sort of the onus on us to take a step back and look at what we are seeing.

you suddenly see there is lots of other things to report. >> thank you for all the good work you have done. i would like to get more collaboration on the question of how you prioritize your work? do have anything that says you're looking for the greatest good for the greatest number? >> that is a good question. i think the heart of the issue is that it is hard to figure out what the priority should be on a day-to-day racist. i come into the office and make a list of the stories i want to do in that year. if you days later, it is a little bit of a different list in a few days later, it is a different list. i try to look for stories i can

do on the short-term that stays relevant in the news. i try to pick for five stories whether sexy are not to do in that year so while you get distracted with the noise that is out there, you try to keep your eye on the ball and a good story can do on a monthly or quarterly basis. i think every good reporter has to do that. few people are getting a year run to work on one story. you need to compartmentalize yourself. i think that is what you have got to do, otherwise you're constantly writing 300 word stories. >> stories affect millions of people. stories that have visuals and stars we haven't heard of before

-- stories we haven't heard of before. it are threshold questions i would ask. how many people are affected? how do we tell the story? has someone else done this before? >> thank you. >> anything? well, this has been phenomenal. brody, larry brian, thank you very much for spending time with us. [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] >> on the next "washington journal" the latest on your on nuclear negotiations with douglas shaw -- on iran nuclear

negotiations with douglas shaw. and discussing the 2016 republican budget plans released this week in the house and senate. also, a look at u.s.-venezuela relations. carl meacham joins us. we take your phone calls and look for comments on facebook and twitter. live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. he was look at what is coming up tonight -- here's a look at what is coming up tonight on c-span. prince charles speaks at a recent gala in washington, d.c. also, social media and its impact on free speech.

prince charles was honored this week in washington, d.c. with international conservation award. it was hosted and co-chaired by udall and royce. >> i would like to bring the other co-chair s of the caucus. [applause]

prince charles: ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great pleasure to join you this evening. i must say coming back to the united states is always an enormous pleasure and to be met by such kindness and hospitality and friendship is a was wonderfully encouraging. i suddenly realized the other day that i have been coming to the united states for 45 years. look at what it has done to me. [laughter] i must admit my only desire the about this evening is that i might possibly put my wife to sleep during my speech.

i'm sure you all know would be a fate worse than death. whatever the case, i could not be more touched and flattered that such an important and bipartisan group of international conservation caucus and the supporting foundation should have decided to give me so special and accolade, awarded in the name of one of the greatest of conservationists, president theodore roosevelt. if i may say so, i am even more touched that you should have even noticed some of the things i have been trying to do over the years. at the beginning of the 20th century as the frontier of the americas was disappearing, once common wildlife was disappearing

with it. president roosevelt intervened to hold -- to halt this trend and created what has become known as the conservation movement in the united states. the action he took laid firm foundations for conservation action over subsequent decades and in many other countries around the world. the national parks and other protected areas that he had the foresight to establish are being replicated worldwide, leading to perhaps the greatest conservation success that the world has yet seen. nearly 15% of the earth's land is under some form of protection which has helped to stem the

loss of many ecosystems and species. in the early 20th century, many americans saw nature as limitless and write for exploitation. -- ripe for exportation. roosevelt understood and he said the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets and it was turned over to the next generation. the generation increased. during his presidency, roosevelt created five national, four-game refugees, 51 national bird reservations, and 150 national forest, protecting a total of 230 million acres of public land. he set in motion a positive worldwide trend of enormous

importance. yet, we see all too clearly now that in the 21st century, nature is nonetheless in a serious face of decline. the question that has exercise me for many more years than i care to remember is why this might be the case. one conclusion i have reached is that a large part of a challenge relates not so much to whether we sufficiently appreciate the beauties and wonders of nature but whether we regard nature as essential for human well-being. i repeatedly hear it said, as i am sure you do, looking after nature is too costly, it is a growth to economic competitiveness.

as long as this perspective prevails, then i fear the destruction of natural systems will be seen as some way rational and an unavoidable price of progress. as president roosevelt himself pushes, the conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem, unless we solve that problem, it will prevent us from solving all others. in today's testing times, i believe we need a renewal of the kind of foresight demonstrated by president roosevelt. we need to move beyond creating reserves from nature to a new approach that places our relationship with the natural world much closer to the day today conservative -- conservation of humanity.

to help with nature and the security of humankind are more links than we sometimes realized. it is essential to our well-being and ultimately, to our survival that we address those together. this connection is something that i have sought to advance through my own modest efforts, including the work of my international units. the great-great nephew, the governor of pennsylvania, who also under the leadership of resident was established the u.s. for service. i have sought, then, to advance this connection because i believe the primary challenge of our times is to find ways in

which the natural systems and resources on which we depend can be sustained to support our needs indefinitely into the future. while maintaining the incredible diversity of life on earth. despite the evident challenges there are nevertheless signs of the seeming insuperable problems, then they can be addressed in a number of areas. one of the greatest challenges and priorities is the establishment of genuinely sustainable fisheries. at a time when so many fish stocks are in serious long-term decline. since 2010, we've been working to establish consensus on our goal to rebuild stocks, as well as to protect the livelihoods of communities and to enhance food

security. the potential to do this is underlined in many examples where it is already happening, including here in the united states, such as the recovery and sustainable use of the morrow bay fishery, gulf of mexico red snapper, and pacific halibut stocks. so much can be achieved through taking an approach that goes beyond trading economic and ecological goals against one another, and instead finds ways to integrate them. as i see it, these and other breakthroughs such as the u.s. magnuson stevens act, are not a barrier to economic and social aspiration, but rather a means to achieve them. i was delighted to learn of the

recent announcement by the u.s. government that it would require all u.s. agencies to track all fish and seafood imports, and establish a system for american consensus to determine where fish and seafood have been caught, by whom, and how. this, if i may say so, is a tremendous step forward in the fight against illegal fishing. i very much hope it will be copied by other countries. now i need hardly say that collective action by governments is absolutely crucial when

natural and marine ecosystems are under such pressure globally, including through treaties such as the law of the sea and the agreement on the conservation of albatrosses. while i am well aware that united states has not yet ratified these important measures crisis back that with the help of the international consolation caucus, the kind of leadership you have showed at home in protecting the marine environment would be a welcome inspiration towards making these international agreements more effective. effective. president roosevelt -- [applause] prince charles: president roosevelt was very much ahead of his time in saying that conservation means development as much as it does protection. in some cultures i am led to believe that these beliefs are somewhat controversial, but i'm encouraged by the way that people are working to end deforestation, in particular

and seek to embed economic rational strategies simultaneously to achieve development and economic outcomes. what became known as the princes rain forest object saw positive action in this arena through the aim of making the forests worth more alive, then dead. -- than dead. the progress throughout the world shows what is possible with good leadership. the former prime minister of norway, who achieved so much on his agenda was not able to be here this evening. his work helped to establish the fundamental economic connections between forest conservation and human well-being.

and if i may say so, he is a far more worth the recipient of the award you have so kindly just a stone on me. his current role as secretary general of nato is one of supreme importance, and we are all incredibly fortunate to have someone else his stature and wisdom in such a position at this time. in the last year, we have helped to be a series of international conferences. that for the first time, addressed the linkages between the illegal trade of wildlife and the economic stability and national security. if i may say so, it is enormously heartening that united states is providing such great leadership in this area, through addressing the threat of skyrocketing demands facilitated by organized criminals and then some cases terrorists groups for elephant

tests, rhino horns, by creating a presidential task force and the national strategy on wildlife trafficking. it is clear that both parties are working well together to develop solutions to this most dire problem, and i can only hope that the international conservation caucus will build on this very important work at home and overseas while continuing to integrate into international defense programs. together with eight the world largest financial institutions the u.s. has issued a report that would allow the financial system to use all available tools against financial crime

related to the illegal wildlife trade. in response to these governments, key governments participating next week, will pledge for the first time to aggressively follow the money. i am pleased to say these are becoming a hereditary issue in my family, and my son recently formed a task force to examine the transport industry's role in the illegal wildlife trade and identify ways that we can break the chain between suppliers and consumers. [applause]

prince charles: he will be very pleased to know you all agree. [laughter] prince charles: i am also pleased to be able to tell you after attempts in the past years to gain enough support, isu has embarked on a new work stream to look at solutions to the problem of plastic waste in the environment. [applause] prince charles: just yesterday here in washington, i attended a meeting that they are loaded with the global mission to discuss this enormous challenge.

the participants, representing private companies, and governments, expressed their willingness to work together to scale up of immediate actions to stop the flow of waste into the oceans, and those longer-term actions needed to begin the transition across the plastics value chain to a more -- less wasteful system. they have equally embraced activities that at first sight might seem a little remote from traditional conservation concerns. this involves joining with my foundation of building community in looking at the case of cities and the worldwide problems. by addressing the question of how towns and cities might be developed in harmonious coexistence with their rural hinterlands, we're finding ways to coexist, and a positive synergy arises from how they can gain a better understanding over rural ecosystems and the supply of food and water. while the issues might seem a

desperate hotspots of the governmental concerns -- hodgepodge of environmental concerns, they can only be solved through the kind of integrated thinking and planning that includes genuine participation, aided by the realization that at the end of the day, these issues are also at heart of security, social and economic matters. the question then, is how can we speed up that integrated thinking while there is still

time to do so? one thing i believe to be vital is leadership. it is one of the reasons why so many people around the world are waiting to become participants. i know how fostering leadership, that all too rare quality is one of the core concerns of international caucus. it seems to me that your bipartisan efforts in this arena, which are unique in this day and age, could not be more important. the same thing must be said about your work to show how, in the end of a conservation relates to the fundamental concerns of societies and governments, including the

well-being of citizens, the health, security, nutrition, and prospects for continued economic development. all of which, ultimately, depend on the successful functioning of nature's own unique economy and biodiversity. ladies and gentlemen, the world has look to united states or -- the united states for leadership and 70 shouting circumstances in the past. however, today, we are faced by truly exceptional challenges and threats, a veritable perfect storm which, if not met by strong decisive and farsighted leadership, could overwhelm our capacity to rectify the damage and thereby destroy our grandchildren's future. america's impact is profound

and it is my and many others fervent hope that you will continue to inspire others, both at home, and on the global stage. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on newsmakers this weekend, california congressman adam schiff is our guest. he talks about the isis threat cyber security, and the recent controversy over hillary clinton's e-mails as secretary of state.

>> this weekend, the c-span cities to her partnered with media life to learn about columbus, georgia. >> right here is the remains of the ironclad, the uss jackson. those oval shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. jackson is armed with six brooke rifles. the particular brooke gun we are firing today is one of those built specifically for the jackson. it was built in selma, alabama and completed in january 1965. there are only four ironclads

from the civil war that we can study. the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and let people that -- to let people know that were more than just one or two, there were many. >> watch all of it on c-span and c-span3. >> next a conversation with twitter chief communications officer gabriel stricker. he talks about the impact of twitter on free speech. this is just under one hour. host: today it is an absolute delight for me to introduce and welcome gabriel stricker. he is a cal alum.

some of you already know that. he is chief of communications on twitter. chief communications officer. he also has been helping berkeley think about and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the free speech movement, quite an important your -- year in berkeley this year. his bachelor of arts was a latin american studies as an undergraduate at work with. -- at berkeley. his current role as to communications officer, he leads the global teams for media relations and public policy and media partnerships more generally. he first came to twitter in 2012, stepping into the world's absolutely highest profile roles in the communications field. he has in fact been credited by many as the driving force behind turning around twitter's public reputation. gabriel has been well recognized for his success. he was recognized as one of the

top communicators, one of "pr week's" top 20 digital influencers and one of the 20 most effective communications insiders. he was a director of global communications and public affairs at google where he was active on the issue of free expression and defended the company's refusal to censor information. he accepted the first amendment award. his earlier work was in campaign politics. he developed his expertise in the strategic communications for his work in the electoral arena. today, we have a chance to talk to him on a variety of topics, of course free expression and free speech but also leadership and how he thinks about culture and what makes organizations work better. we have a chance to celebrate with him has i mentioned this 50th anniversary of the free speech movement.

so it was that 64 or 65 year. those of you who know, the free speech cafe, i am sure most of you have been there. a remarkable tradition for this institution. one that lives on for all of us. it is an important part of this institution, of our society. it is the notion of freedom of expression. it is not equally appreciated throughout the whole world. and part of those different value judgments on one where one draws the line is a very active area worldwide of policy and management. there is much to cover. let me introduce to you gabriel stricker. thank you for being here. [applause] host: so let me start with the free speech movement. i mentioned it a couple of times. you worked here in the 1960's.

but you, like a coma were here after that. can you say a bit about how you think about free speech as it relates to twitter and also the fine line between freedom of expression and some of the things that happened when expression is too free? gabriel: thank you for having me. it is always lovely to be back. the free speech movement definitely predated me but i think even when i graduated as an undergrad in the early 1990's, that spirit and the disruptive spirit of the free speech movement still lived on and i think at the time, and i think today, on campus there is an attempt to figure out how to keep that culture going. that exists beyond this place. where still trying to figure out how to ensure those values are a part of what we do.

i get to go to work everyday at a place that i think is one of the most extraordinary, viral platforms ever to exist. it has been those amazing vector that has facilitated free expression around the world. the mythology is we create these technologies with free expression in mind to create a platform that would let all of these flowers bloom. we had the idea of what the impact of a platform would be but we never thought that it would be used the way it has and facilitate revolutions as it has. it is getting people voices where they didn't. it is an ongoing commitment to upholding the platform as we do. and as you say, it is a tricky one, too because for those of

you less familiar with twitter one of the parts of it that has allowed the rise of it is that we support pseudonyms. unlike other platforms that require your actual identity because we allow pseudonyms, if you go into cases like the arab spring, for example, it turns out that if you want to take down the man, it is easier to do so if you don't have to give your actual identity. the flipside of that spectrum is that if you do not have to give your identity, it makes it easier to express yourself in less constructive ways, not bringing down an oppressive regime but potentially just controlling and abusive ways. that is a tricky balance.

one that we, today, are grappling with. our ceo actually had one of our internal e-mails leaked out. he said we had been falling short on striking that balance and it is something we're trying to figure out. what are the ways to figure out -- preserve the beauty of the platform as a vehicle of free expression while having boundaries that prevent people from engaging in what is really abusive behavior? it is a daily challenge. rich: part of it --if you thought the pseudonyms would allow a lot of things, there might be other tools to allow these unfortunate outcomes. could you give us an example of when it is trolling? where you say, we have tried to address that issue in a more targeted way.

>> the things we have done, the kinds of things you can expect from us going forward. some of you may look at this as fixing bugs. some of them have been more or less difficult. we historically, we have done a pretty lackluster job of making it possible to even report abuse. the amount of hoops people had to go to through to even just be able to say people were engaging in an 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, it was easy to engage in the abuse and hard to report it. that has been something we have gone out of our way to fix. the next step is, i think in again balancing the ability for someone to express themselves

freely but giving someone the ability to not have to be exposed to what is abusive behavior. the next step is -- for those of you less familiar with twitter one of its hallmarks is we have an asymmetrical follow draft which means we can follow each other but it can also be the case that you follow me but i don't follow you. part of what we are thinking is if you are sending tweets to me throughout the day saying you are a jerk, if we follow each other, i am presumably saying i want to tell me i am a jerk. but, if i don't follow you and you are telling me throughout the day i am a jerk, maybe there should be ways that if you are bombarding me with this that i should be able to have greater control to tune that out.

that is what we are trying to pave the way for. rich: for those of you who are tweeting, we have a hastag. #hotspeakers. -- #haasspeakers. i always take notes and i always tweet after talks and i will do it again. i personally so appreciate twitter. a quick aside. when i first became dean, people were saying, you should do these blog posts. i am thinking, holy smokes, i could spend half my day doing that. but 140 characters once or twice a day, it is a great bite-size. for putting out thoughts. for a lot of us that get to hear a lot of interesting things every day. that is one of the functions i feel i am serving. let me bounce them back out so other people can hear the things

i am hearing. now with recently twitter sued the government over the ability to disclose more information. could you talk more about that public policy interface? gabriel: i should just say that twitter was not the first to have a transparency report. i think actually when i was at google, we started that process of issuing these transparency reports. and what the transparency reports are is simply when technology companies get request from governments around the world specifically to take action on certain content and it could be to remove content because it violates local law, to suspend certain accounts similarly because it is against whatever their local policies are. a lot of the companies in our space have felt there needs to be a way in some centralized

fashion to disclose to the people of the world, we are getting these requests and you should be aware of them. not just to say that we are getting the requests but here are the nature of the requests and here's what governments are giving us and here are how many of them are and how to categorize them and what action we took coming off of these things. and i guess without getting into too much detail, regarding a lawsuit, but just on a high level, it turns out there is a government, it is ours in the u.s., that wanted to limit our ability as a company to tell people -- and again, it is not just twitter users. it happens to be there are individual users impacted by this, we take action on posts that have made. but, if you are -- i would argue

if you are a user or if you are 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 are doing with that. and we should be able to disclose in a reasonable amount of detail what is this sort of boundary surrounding these requests. what is going on there. and we had engaged in conversations about this in terms of our ability to be more transparent in our transparency report. and finally, when we reached an impasse, we said we are going to, 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. and so that is what motivated it and it continues to motivate. i think there are other

companies that i think share our opinion. i think we took it another step and forced the issue that way. rich: could you -- we had an earlier conversation about values. when one thinks about the culture, the shared values that hold twitter together, that make it what it is, i would imagine when you are making a decision about how aggressively to pursue an issue like that, it does come back to very fundamental values. so can you talk a little bit about how that particular decision about transparency to -- connects to the values of the from? gabriel: at the end of the day some of this is not that complicated. we end up running the company in some sort of golden rule type of way which is as we conceive of and implement these policies would we as users want to exist

in a product that has these policies? and by at large, that is what we are trying to do. or if there is an environment surrounding us unfavorable, we try to change those things. i would say some of these decisions, including the decision to sue our own government are internally pretty uncontroversial because i would say as a leadership team, we have aligned values. i think we have got about building the team. we have values and we believe they are values that we embody and reflect the value of the users we have on the platform. 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, and you can probably count them on two hands, that transcend just being companies and become themselves a movement. i think twitter is one. with a that comes real responsibility. people are depending on us to be able to achieve things that go far beyond business or just culture. it is actually achieving higher purpose. and so, as we go about our business, these are the types of fairly weighty things we are considering. rich: an interesting notion when an enterprise becomes a movement. twitter is a great example. how about the public offering of twitter? does the change of ownership and control -- did it have an effect? gabriel: you know, i think -- when we were in the process of

going public, a lot of people, there were a lot of folks on the sideline saying all of twitter's talk of being purpose driven get ready because it will go out the window. and i actually think that when part of the significance in some ways of our lawsuit was eye-opening for many of these people. these people will stick to the values they had all along. the speculation that existed on how becoming a publicly traded company would change us, i think somehow, this was the conspiracy theory premise of it all. oh, now they become a publicly traded company and are beholden to invest your interests, -- investor interests, they will sell out their values in order to adhere to all of these financial pressures which have existed all along. p.s., those pressures have not existed all of the time. it was never the case that the

sort of tension we experienced day in and day out was a tension somehow between every day users and business interest. that was never the source of the that was never the source of the tension. the source of the doctrine was sort of what we talked about earlier which was -- tension was sort of what we talked about earlier which was the tension existed between one group of users and another group of users. how do we navigate those waters? those tensions still exist. but being a publicly traded company i don't think hasn't done anything to change our values or how we approach going about our work. i think it has brought maybe a slightly brighter spotlight. for those of you who go out and see parts of publicly traded companies pre and post ipo, i hope you realize it is just a part of the evolution.

and then you go public and you wake of the next day and go to work, that is how that is. rich: you obviously love your job. what do you love most about your job? gabriel: i do think it goes back to the idea of it being a movement. because i think you can work at any number of companies or organizations but there are few opportunities that you have in life -- earlier before we were onstage, we were talking about these four precepts you have at the business school and i love this point of being beyond yourself. what an inspiring plank to have on your platform. what i love about my work and what i really just have long been inspired by in technology generally is if you are lucky, you get to be part of a company that is a movement that is beyond itself, beyond any one of us.

and the impact you get to have on the planet starts to go beyond, yeah, ok, i went to work and sold a widget versus i want to work and change the world for the better. it sounds trite but i think for us, we get to see this and the technology, in twitter's case begins to take on a life of its own and be used in ways that we would have never anticipated. and it is inspiring. absolutely inspiring. rich: it really is. this gentleman spoke for us not so long ago and i was walking back and one of our employees here who had grown up in iran walked up to us and she talked about how influential twitter had been for her family.

and she had some remarkable stories. it was just right there, someone i see everyday talking about her family and the role twitter played. you hear those stories often but it was very poignant. gabriel: we hear them often. we see this unfolding. i was actually just talking to a group of employees who started yesterday and they were asking basically about does this ever get old? do we ever come to work and get jaded? no, we don't get jaded. it does not get old. i mean, i came to work a couple of weeks ago and as a user, got to see somebody who is tweeting images of our planet from orbit. that does not get old. hopefully if it does get old we should do something else. because i think no, we never thought these things would be

used in this way. but yeah, it does change the world. and now, sometimes, more trivial ways. but sometimes extremely profound ways. rich: absolutely. absolutely. your job is different than a lot of people's roles. can you talk about the personal advice front some risks you took that opened out some pathways that might not have been there in your career? gabriel: yeah, so, and please, becuase another plank is to question the status quo so do not take my status quo. now my responsibility at twitter is overseeing our communications team and public policy team and media partnerships team. it is a departure from what i was doing earlier which was working on political campaigns.

look, electoral politics is a perfectly noble profession. my hunger for participating and that process was facilitating some form of social change. what i realized at a certain point was that the impact i myself could have on that social change was pretty limited and i was living on the east coast at that time. and i was looking back to the west coast where i grew up and i was like, that is where the change is happening. those are the people who are really revolutionizing the world. i want to be part of that. and i say coincidently, it is not that unlike what happened during the free speech movement where you had people who were literally watching newsreels at the time on the east coast of what was happening and berkeley

and saying they wanted to be a part of that thing. and i guess the lesson that i would give on this is that -- when i look back on it, i have known for some time that electoral politics -- i was not getting what i wanted out of it. i think it probably took me longer in hindsight than it should have to make the change. and i think -- i talk to people, particularly new grads that work with us a lot about this where you may not be certain what your calling is and in that case, keep experimenting. the flipside of that is there are many people, and if you push them on it, they will tell you they will say i don't know what my calling is but what i am doing is not that. and yet they don't have the courage to make the change.

and so for me, the main lesson was when i knew that that was not my calling, it probably was -- i don't know, a year, a couple of years before i really owned that and said, you know what, i'm going to honor the fact i know this is not the right path for me. and go pursue something else. rich: part of that transition for all of us is, the kernel of that notion of facilitating social change. we don't always know what the kernel is. once we identify the kernel, the options that are likely to be more aligned become more clear. gabriel: for me, part of the insight i had came out of trying to create a little bit of distance from it and saying, ok, what is it i am doing? what is the pleasure i derive from this? what is it that is inspiring? is this the best venue for me to be living that out?

and even in the world of media and communications and public policy, i didn't necessarily know that was the job for me. but the insight i had was it seems like technology is the general venue for me to live this out. >> you as a leader, as a manager, what is your leadership style? how has your thinking on leadership changed? gabriel: my thinking on leadership and management is in some ways formed by my experience in political campaigns, which if you were going to have -- first on management. and then i would just say on leadership. but if you were to create a petri dish of how not to manage people, you would have created a political campaign. [laughter]

it is -- and i suppose to be fair, it has been a longtime since i worked on a political campaign. so let me just give that the benefit of the doubt and say maybe a lot has changed. but at the time, in this country at least -- you have environment where it is very transaction-based, a bunch of people trying to win something by a certain date. it doesn't lend itself to really nurturing people over a long pe riod of time. it is really transactional now. for me, so much of my approach to management and leadership was informed by what was not happening. and i think the beauty of the technology industry is you end

up getting a lot less experienced people who bring really, really new ideas to the table and if you can embrace that -- i would say to the question of my leadership style, i really try to get people a ton of room to make a lot of small mistakes. and i believe that as leaders and managers -- and again, sometime from now you could have someone else on the stage who says i want people to fail and it is easy to say. you cannot just say that. you need to, especially for less experienced people, you need to go out of your way to force them to make mistakes. i remember i had someone who would work for me who was -- who i would say, you need to be

taking more risk. and we have these quarterly objectives and measurable goals. a lot of companies have these things. and i said to her, here is what is going to happen. for you, when you set out your quarterly goals, i want you to to put in there that you will make a certain number of mistakes. then, we will revert back to the mistakes and what you learned from them. unless you are really deliberate with people about this, it is not going to happen. so i guess my style is letting encouraging people to take risks, encouraging them to make mistakes, and make sure they know they are unable to make a catastrophic mistake. if someone makes a catastrophic

mistake, that is your responsibility as a leader when they can make a catastrophic mistake as a leader. you can put them in a position to make a small mistake and if there is something cataclysmic on your watch, it is up to you to take responsibility for. >> also the stretch assignments as well. it just popped into my head that one of our faculty, he was giving a speech, a commencement speech and there was a project in the phd student said i don't know if i can do that. he said i would not have asked you to do that if i did not think you could do that. there is a profoundly validated element pushing places. that is a great management style.

can i ask you one more question before we open it to the floor? you think about your role in the senior team in helping to keep the culture, the norms and values within twitter. can you talk about how you keep and think about that part of the inward-facing role? gabriel: culture is a living breathing thing. especially in the technology world where you have companies like twitter that are young -- twitter is going to be nine later this year. you imagine this has been there forever but it has not. not even close. yet, because of the cycle of our role in the media and technology

world, there is a sense of attachment to things, including culture. even in companies like ours, there is this pull to preserve parts of our culture. dean lyons: are they well identified? gabriel: they are. we have these core values. we want to create a culture where those values can continue to exist but that is different from preserving a culture. inwardly, our responsibility on the leadership team is to create an environment where those types of values can continue to flourish and also, being really

open-minded about when some of these things are falling down. i'll give you a specific example. we had two core values which are deliberately in opposition to each other. one of which is to be rigorous and get it right. another is to ship it. we talk about launching things as shipping things. ship it is just get it out the door. get it right is a different, thoughtful value. those two things are at all the with one another. when as a company we felt like the fact these things are at odds with one another is slowing us down, creating tension we don't need and building headwinds that are counterproductive. then it is our responsibility as a leadership team to acknowledge it.

i think where companies tend to fall down is these things possibly exist. you are building this. you sit at that table. if you are doing nothing, you are just standing by, you are facilitating this counterproductive thing. acknowledge what is going on and acknowledge for everyone outside of that room it is going on and say, even if it is the case we don't have an answer, this is something we are thinking about. we are trying to address it. part of us as a culture, we were talking earlier about our external transparency report. we try to be radically transparent internally also. as a leadership team, we are deliberating over a number of things that impact our culture but we try whenever possible to share that with the company as it is happening.

>> that is great. a great internal norm. those are some of the difficult conversations not usually framed that way. usually, we are thinking about a manager and a direct report and something that is not go right. but this notion of saying, this is a tension in our work environment. we don't have the answer but let's talk about it. that is a great example. questions from the audience. let's open it up. we have a couple of microphones. we want to make sure to capture it in the video. we have the capacity for questions to come from remote. >> a recent article on npr highlighted the role twitter was playing in journalism in mexico with the cartel violence that was erupting. one woman's account was hacked and it was reported she died.

what response does twitter have in that situations? gabriel: the account was not true? >> she was reporting on the violence. no one was entirely clear if she ever was a real person or not. gabriel: i would say in the context of violence or any kind of crisis kind of situation, part of -- we get this question a lot. i will give you another example. it relates. in the aftermath of hurricane sandy, there were accounts on twitter of flooding in this place and people had these falsified photos of certain places underwater.

there, you have questions like twitter and other social media seem to be giving rise to potential misinformation. as i was saying earlier, i really believe it is one of the most extraordinary viral platforms ever in existence. it can be a vector for the viral spread of misinformation. what i always point out in this context is the spread of misinformation in the context of some kind of crisis breaking news situation is not new. it far predates certainly social media. the example i would give from sometime after i graduated from here was the bombing of the federal building in oklahoma city. before social media, you had established media and news accounts at the time were that there were people of a certain

ethnicity who purportedly executed that bombing. the difference, and i think this is the key distinction, it can be this vector of misinformation but the difference is i don't remember the confines but if you go back it was not minutes that that misinformation was out there. perhaps someone knows how long the duration was. it seems to me it may have been days. the fundamental change is that you have on one hand, with platforms like twitter, an opportunity for incredible on the ground reporting. i am standing on the hudson river, there is a plane. it just landed. here is a picture. we later find out this is true. or, i am standing on the corner of bleaker street and we are underwater. ps, it is not true. the beauty of social media is it

has accelerated the time of the debunking of these things. if we could rewind to the oklahoma city bombings, with that tragedy, with a platform like twitter, we might have accelerated the time it took to debunk the misinformation. it exists but it can get put act -- put back in its place better and mark quickly now. dean lyons: thank you for that. can you use the microphone? thank you. >> thank you. what is your view on google withdrawing from china? more specifically, to provide limited but still superior service to 1.4 billion people compared to no service at all.

gabriel: that was definitely the most challenging chapter of my time at google without a doubt. you know, it was a source of real soul-searching at the company. first, let me tell you where we stand on this at twitter and i can try to shed some light on how that went for us at google. twitter is currently blocked in china. as much as we would love for people in china to be able to freely access twitter, they cannot. what we said is that we are unwilling to make the kinds of sacrifices that we believe we would need to make in order to be unblocked there. perhaps there is a world in which twitter can be unblocked but it would require sacrifices that were just not prepared to

commit to because of our values. in the case of google, i would say it was similar. the difference was for us at the time to continue to operating there, it was requiring levels of sacrifice that we were unwilling to continue to sign up for. you can absolutely argue as it was argued extensively internally at the time that being there even in this diminished capacity and giving people some access to the service is better than nothing but what i will tell you about the experience of the time was the premise of it was we will be there and hopefully, the trendline will be one of greater and greater openness. yet, we view the opposite. coinciding with our presence was a move towards more and more

closed behavior and limited access and then finally, at the time when we decided to take the action that we did, actual targeting of activists and dissidents, the question was what is the benefit coming from our presence? it didn't seem like it was benefiting the people in mainland china and it did not seem like it was benefiting people outside either. it is a perfectly valid question. it was one that required years of deliberation on our part. that was a conclusion we came to and it is a similar conclusion we have come to at twitter. dean lyons: thank you for that.

feel free to line up. >> one of the things with twitter that is interesting is you have seen a decline -- or not the growth people have wanted to see for monthly active users. one of the trends is around syndication, how is twitter being integrated into tv shows etc. it is a greater measure of the impact twitter is having. now that you are talking about the free speech movement, i have been wondering, do you have any thinking about what metrics you could use to more quantitatively measure how twitter is being used as a movement and whether it is where you want to see it and the impact it has had as a company? gabriel: this is a great question. before when i was saying that i feel like being a publicly traded company has not changed us but the spotlight as maybe

brighter, this is a great example. we love the growth we see with the company. there are people who have their own ideas of what that growth should look like. the disconnect is if you just view twitter through the lens of monthly active users, it is missing the whole part of the equation and it is certainly missing it in the context of a broader movement. for us, when we think about the impact we had and how best to measure it, it is much more to do with the audience associated with any moment than it does the specific number of monthly active users exposed to something. it has more to do with the number of people who got to view and interact with a tweet associated with the oscars or the super bowl or elections in

the u.k. then the individual number of people who produced a tweet. it has more to do with the audience than it does this limited slice of a user base. that is more how we think about it. most recently, you saw it is hard to experiment with different kinds of logged out experience that would allow you to experience this. that is how we are thinking about it. hopefully, it will let people experience that part of the global conversation. >> when you use the term audience, you are not just thinking collective followership. it is retweets, expression of engagement with the content. gabriel: if you are barack obama and you want to tell the world you have just and reelected as

president of the united states you take to twitter to do so and you tweet out four more years, as he did so, but you take to twitter to do so because it is not only your x million followers could see that. you do that because that tweet gets syndicated around the world, around the web, broadcast on television. that is your audience exposed to that particular expression. our users already think of it in this way and it is just a question of what are the ways to quantify that and we are certainly thinking along those lines. dean lyons: great question. we have time for some more questions. can you give us examples of things that might be worrisome?

gabriel: the china example is a fair one. we have been blocked at various times by other countries around the world also. these are things that keep us up. suddenly, people are unable to access this platform that gives their voice this broader megaphone, it is really challenging for us. and how do we do that well continuing to uphold our values? yeah, those are things certainly for me, those are things that are really, really challenging. dean lyons: especially for you you get the first call. gabriel: yeah.

dean lyons: how often do you tweet? gabriel: several times a day. one of you was tweeting you were excited to have me here. i responded. was that you? good to see you in the world. just to tread lightly and question the status quo, partly for me what i feel is a visible position, i am a private person, and i use twitter more for professional services, so you will see me tweeting things like we issued our transparency report. that is the kind of thing i want people to know about. i know there are a lot of other people tweeting about seeing