facebook has used data. outsiders may have gotten information from as many as 87 million facebook users. mr. zuckerburg will appear at the rare senate hearing of the commerce committees and that will be tuesday april 10th. c-span 3 will have live coverage be going at 2:15 eastern. then on wednesday, mr. zuckerburg will testify between the house energy and commerce committee and live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> steven brill is back with us on the washington jurn until and join us this morning to discuss the latest venture newsguard. the idea to use journalism to fight fake news. steven brill define that term for us. fact news. >> guest: well, i our case what we're hoping to solve is news that reports to be news that is deliberately fabricated or is

propaganda that doesn't reveal itself as propaganda. it is not, you know, the occasional the occasional inaccurate story somewhere, or a orally that has headline that is slightly exaggerated. it is really clear blatant hoaxes and propaganda. and a lot of it on-line and many people can't or are unable to tell thetive rens because the whole point of fake news that it poses as real news, sometimes it do that effective. >> host: does editorial bias count toward what you are talking about? >> guest: not really. unless it is so bias, it is just ridiculous. you know, if you have a headline in the story that says that president obama was not born in the united states, some people you know, may say that is just their opinion. s that just their bias. that is just fake. >> host: how prevalent is falk

news right now? >> guest: well prevalent in the sense that while the timing -- the tiny minority of news and information websites that people consume every day are fake or propaganda. they tend to be shared out of proportion with how many there are because their headlines are so provocative and the stories that they ped are so provocative, and that causes people if they are deved to share them because it is big news. >> guest: with what do you in vision newsguard doing as you wade into this environment? >> guest: what we're going to do is look at rates and review the approximately 5,000 to 7,000 websites consumed in the united states that are responsible for 98% of the engagement on-line in

the english language. we're starting in the english lan gag in the united states. obviously, we're going to expapped. we are going to have two journalists each independently review those sites and give them either a green or a red rating and then write something called, called a nutrition and if you mass over the red or the green you get two or three or 400 word description of what the site actually is who is bea hyped it, how is it and how are the people and heavily trained or account who is in charge and it basically asks and answers the questions who are these people who are telling me this? >> host: do you envision this to be a money making adventure? >> guest: yes, we do. because we envision that we're solving a problem that has been created by some of the richest

companies in the world and we are in discussions with them. we anticipate that some or all of them will license the data so if you do a sen or look at our news feed. our red and green dots will be this as will, as will the nutrition labels. what we're going to be is the opposite of a black box the algorithms that they now use with the platforms saying we have algorithm. that is how you see the news that you see. we can hot tell you how we do it. we can not tell you who is dict because you would then gan the system. we're the opposite of that. we're going to tell you exactly who read and rated the site and exactly why they gave it the rating that they did who they are, what the by ohs are, if you have a come plaip, we will post that so it us the exact opposite of what is going on today to solve the pron, ap what is going on today to solve

the problem is clearly not solving the problem. >> host: you are hoping the green and red ratings will show up on facebook and twitter feeds as people share the stories? >> guest: exactly. we will also have a way for consumers to sign up to get the plug-in version on this if they would like it and we will not be charging consumers for that. that will be free because we will distribute to literate sy groups, to school systems, but the real place where it needs to be and will be will be in the search platforms and the social media platforms. we see ourselves as the perfect placed in the middle of regulation by the government which we don't think is a good thing and the constitution doesn't think is a good thing, and leaving it to the platforms and the search engines to solve the problem on their own which

clearly they have not been able to do and unwhich they don't want to do because they don't want to be in the business of being the editors, we want to be in the business of being editors. we're editors. and if there are, you know, companies that start up to do the same thing we're doing, we would orange the platforms to start a competition where they can compete. >> how much do you think facebook needs to rebuild trusts in the wake of headlines like this one from this morning from the washington times, 87 million facebook users swept up in the data scandal that is tens of millions more than had been previously reported? >> guest: well, i think, you know, the hadline answers the question you just asked. you know, whether it is their fault or not, they have clearly suffered through having a rod duct that turns out not to be

quite. if you want to check out and the idea behind news guardguard some of the nutrition labels, some of the examples of what steven brill is talking to us about this morning this new have been ture that he is beyond, who else is bea hyped it you with you? >> guest: well, my partner was an editor on thed toial page of the journal and the publish herb of the journal, and he is my partner in the venture we are hiring lots of experienced editors and journalists to supervise, then we are looking for, you know, journalses who want to help us do this, who have the common sense and the reporting aches to write the nutrition labels and to be able to participate in what we think

is really exciting and necessary venture. >> host: and you raised over $5 million for this project from who? >> guest: yeah. we raised a total of $6 million. then investors is also listed on the website, so that that is also completely transparent. one of the larger ad agency holding companies is the lead investor. the ad agencies and advertisedders have a stake in this too, because you know, this major brand names do not want to have the ads ending up on fake news sites. and right now, with program attic advertising the wait is. that often happens without the kind of protection that news guard will be able to provide them. >> host: we're taking this call in this segment of the washington journal. steven brill with us until 8:45 this morning. republicans can call in.

pents 202-748-8002. stephon brill, you mentioned the nutrition labels. i want to show viewers an example. this is for rt.com. several paragraphs long. the website that it is the website of a leading russian propaganda effort which focus on social media in addition to the broadcasting channels known as russia today and rt uses the tag line question more. consist ten with the policies of the russian government under president putin raises doubts about other countries and their in citytutions and then goes through the history of rt and the controversies that it has been involved in and how did you come up with that label? who came up with it? >> guest: that is called reporting, you know, i actually drafted that one myself, and its

the same kind of reporting i would do with anything else looking at all different sources. the reason that is a good ex able pell of a necessary nutrition label is that nowhere on their website do they tell you that this is financed by the russian government. that it is controlled by vladimir putin and the really interesting thing is that the rt.com's videos are frequently the second or the third or even the first most watched news videos on youtube, you know? running neck-and-neck with cnn and yet, it is a propaganda arm. and the average consumer, if they go there, and do something called rt.com, how would they snow if they see our red dot they will be warned if they see the red dot and if they mouse over the red dot, they will read

the nutrition labels that labels that you just read and know that this is something that, you know, is different from a normal news website. whatever you think of cnn, it is not, you know, the propaganda arm of the russian government. >> host: steven brill and newsguard want to make the nutrition label for 7500 websites. are you going to extends this to television stations as well? radio as well? >> guest: well anything that is on-line, so that, you know, c-span.com will obviously -- >> host: c-span. org. >> guest: c-span. org. sully me, i forgot. obviously get a rating and a label as will, you know gao. gov which is really terrific, i think, a really terrific news and information site about, you know, the inner workings of the agencies the government so they are all different kinds of news

and information sites on-line and they will all get a rating, so that people who go there if they are look at news feed now, they only thing they see is a headline and they have no idea of who is behind it. >> guest: we have a few calls. sue sains up first. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i didn't hear all of you you what said. i heard the beginning. i am wondering, i meant, where do you stand? where you really in the mid? >> host: mr. brill? >> guest: well, i in the middle. you know, my background and the background of everyone else involved will be completely transparent on-line, you will know exactly who we are, what we are. i have the good fortune or the

bad fortune in the journalism work that i have done, i have been criticized by unions on the left and by drug and pharmaceutical companies on the right, so you know i think i can say i am in the middle, but that is really not the point. this is probably the one conversation where c-span count need the republican line and and the democratic line. this is simply about basic common sense and truth. the cite the sites that are going to get read are blatantly deceptive, that the judgments we are making are going to be far less disputed and controversial than you might think. and yet, it is a major problem. people again, don't know, that

rt is, you know, vladimir putin's propaganda arm. >> host: i wonder how you beal the criticism you have received over this venture, the media research center whose tag line is exposing and combating liberal media bias did a write-up of the latest venture and they note your past campaign contributions, the democratic candidates. do you think those matter? >> guest: i think the last one was sometime in the '90's that was about the time i also made contributions to rudy giuliani who is a republican. we will exist and have credibility based on when i think will be the obvious common sense of what we are doing. we are not out there saying "the

boston globe" is more reliable than the baltimore sun or that this particular stories accurate or not accurate. what we're really doing is separating the weak. wham we're doing is saying that the denver post is actually a newspaper and the journalists work there and the denver guardian which was a hoax site that popped up just before an election day in 2016 that the denver guardian is not a newspaper, it is not anything, it is a phony website that put up a bunch of, you know, hoaxes simply to got the advertising machine nay came with their traffic, so it is basically what is the difference between the denver post and the denver guardian? again, i don't think that is a republican or a democratic cause, that is a cause that is an american cause. >> host: guy, a democrat, good

morning. >> caller: i would like to have everybody ask a question, just go to the fcc. gov and read the history of the scc. if they hadn't gutted the fcc starting in a's 84, russ limbo wouldn't be on this gentlemen here wouldn't be on because failed to stop the propaganda. i heard you say propaganda. what this is doing is turning over propaganda to a handful of people. >> host: thank you for the call this morning. steven brill, i want to get you to respond. >> guest: i didn't understands the question or the comment so i cannot respond. >> host: what is your take on the fairness doctrine and

whether it should be -- whether it should come back? >> guest: well the fairness doctrine was end acted based on the notion, it was enacted by the fcc based on the notion that the fcc and others was licensing airways, licensing peck spectrums, radio and television spectrums than was scars commodity, so to have the priv lens to have that license, you had to pledge to do certain things. you had to do certain things in the public interests and you had to be fair or so-called fair because if you were using a public property, which was the airwaves, you could not use it in unfair way. that is the core of the fairness doctrine. its now basically just not relevant because um, there is no scarcity in terms of, you know, cable channels, and streaming on-line there is, you

know, very little in the way of a barrier to intrigue to someone who wants to communicate, you know his or her ideas or entertain am, so the famous doctrine, whatever you think of it and whatever you think of the legitimacy of the roots it is just really not relevant and when it was operating, there were all kinds of problems and, you know, what is the definition of fair? does that mean if you have a democratic on, you have to have a republican on? or what about someone in the green party? what about someone in some party you never heard of because it was just started yesterday. so it had its own problem the intentions were good and the in tensions were logical at a time when the spectrum was really scarce ain't is not any more. >> host: wan days in chuckco california, republican good morning. >> caller: yes, the first thing i have to say ises the one who

presents himself as you do is the one that i distrust the most and my question is: do you think that sheriff's computer analysis video where he proves that barack obama's birth certificate is fake scientifically, do you think that sheriff arpaio is a liar? guest gist haven't soon the analysis or his video but i do think, you know, call me bias, call me crazy, buy think barack obama was born in the united states. >> host: can i ask you wanda why did you say what with you started with? someone who sprens yourself as you do that you don't trust. >> caller: because he presents himself as the final arbitrator of who is lying and who is not. it sounds like is trying to be a big deep state liar.

>> host: mr. brill? >> guest: no, i think there should be companies that will compete with us and attempt to do what we do and you should have the right to decide which one you want to rely on. i just think you should not want to rely on the government to decide what is true and not true. relay on the platforms which are technology companies and which they they don't have a responsibility to do that job. buy don't think we should be the final arbitrator. i think you should be able to choose any you want to choose but i don't think you want to choose the government or you want to choose some engineers. how will you be choosing the reporter that you are going to be hiring to write these nutrition labels and to make these ratings? >> guest: based on their experience, where we are giving them, you know, all kind of assigns as on tryout basis and to see how well they write to

see how they perform the tasks of writing labels that are straight down the middle, and if they, if they have any you know biases in their writing that persists we just, we will not hire them, but again, when people read the labels and see what we're doing, i think it is going to be a lot less of a controversy than you might think because this stuff at least at the stage in which we are doing it today is pretty straight up and down, you know, something is either a hoax or not and having said that, um, you know, contrary to which x percent of the people after 9/11 thought that/11 was a an inside job to the bush administration, and y percent of the people including apparently one of the callers we just had think that barack obama

was not born in the united states we are not going to please ebb, but we think we will be credible, and useful to a broad swath of this country, and ultimately we hope to prevued the same kind of a service, you know, in other countries. >> host: you have been in the news business for long time, did you think we would be further along by now when it comes to news websites and what you are saying is just the basics of distinguishing a hoax site from a news site? >> guest: well, to the extent that any us, including me, were able to give this, that kind of a thought early on, i guess, i did understand that if, if you create something where anybody can be a pub blusher, that is, first and foremost, a really good thing, because the problems we had in, you know, the '60's

and the '70's that this were four, five, or six media companies, that basically in the united states dominated the news. david, as you know, wrote a fabulous book about that, so that is a good thing, but with that good thing came a bad thing. if anybody can be a pub blusher that means that vladimir putin could be a pub blusher. it means that, you know, someone who is, you know, obsessed and crazy and wants to spin out all kinds of conspiracy could be a publisher and it means that teenagers in macedonia, who want to make money by getting ad revenue by posting, you know, crazy headlines on the website they can also be pub blushers. so we are trying to do is to create the tools by which users of on-line content can have some sense of what it is they are

about to read. we're not trying to block anything. but we are trying to give people a better sense of who is behind and what is behind what they are about to read. guest: well, i wasn't that surprised, because i read the questions very carefully. you might answer, yes, to that question if you simply thought of, you know, one inaccurate story recently on one of the networks or in one of the newspapers. and if that's your standard, you know probably all of us could say that they published, you

know fake news. i didn't really put much credence in that poll. but i do put credence in the idea that people -- not so much distrust in a negative way but they distrust in the sense that they just don't know what they're getting when they're looking at headlines on a facebook news feed. they just can't tell what it is. it used to be that if you, you know walked into a magazine store or, you know into a big newsstand, you could sort of tell by looking at, you know, the racks of magazines and newspapers, you could tell what brands they were. you could tell, you know, the philadelphia inquirer was not the national inquirer, but if you're just looking at little headlines in a search or a feed, you don't know that. and if you're younger and you haven't really grown up around these brands, you don't know that either. host: a bit more from that poll. 31% of respondents saying they

believe the media outlets spread fake news regularly. 46% say it happens occasionally. yea is waiting -- jay is waiting in virginia, an independent. jay, you're on with steve brill. caller: isn't it foundational that everything we experience enters our brain through our emotion? and ever more efficient communication platforms lock us away from our logic? and shouldn't it be foundational on your website to give us some type of a primer in how our brain works so people know that they are going to have to learn to regiment their logic so they

aren't like the -- well, like, for instance, since genesis we've been warned that we've got a serpent in our tree of knowledge and we were ejected from the garden because of that serpent. so -- host: jay, the idea that news readers should beware? caller: well we've known -- it's a -- science has progressed to the point where maximum promotion of communication platforms has given us the ability to maximize emotion so we can't regiment our logic. host: mr. brill? guest: when i heard you begin to ask the question, i thought maybe we should have something on our website or some link to

some of the very good material that some of the media literacy groups are publishing that are primaries in how to -- primers in how to read stories and look for fakery. so i think that's a pretty good idea. host: who are some of those media literacy groups that you look to for guidance in what you're doing? guest: well, they're cropping up all over the place. the center at the kennedy school is working on this. i'm going to get in trouble because i'm going to screw up their name. i think it's literally the media literacy group news literacy. there are all kinds of groups associated sometimes around some of the educational institutions and some of them are independent nonprofits that have been doing this for a long time.

and the original mandate that they took on was to help middle school kids and high school kids, you know read stuff more discerningly. now that's actually become, you know a much broader problem. host: what is the trust project at santa clara university? guest: that's a project that is supported by google and facebook and others that is attempting to get, in their case, mostly newspapers that have gone online. but, you know, newspaper news organizations, to adhere to certain standards of accountability and transparency. so if you go to the newspapers' website, like the washington post, one of their standards of transparency is, do you have a

bio of other journalists who wrote the story that you just read so that you can see how long that journalist has been on that beat, how much experience he or she has. and what we're doing with them is we're going to use participation in the trust project as one of the indicators that we use in forming our ratings. host: other indicators, whether the website lacks basic professional standards, whether it has a hidden mission whether it's publishing fake news, hidden advertising, deceptive headlines, you can see all 11 indicators that newsguard will be using on their website. again it's newsguardtechnologies.com. here's a democrat. good morning. caller: hi! good morning. what an interesting show. i have a question. now, mr. brill is also

interested in american lawyer and court t.v., previously. and how does your group maintain objective journalism standards or how... how do you present partisan politics from -- how do you prevent partisan politics from entering your company? what do you use as a preventive measure, from allowing partisan politics to overrule journalism standards? guest: well, i think the first part of your question was something to do with the american lawyer and court t.v., both of which i sold now 20 years ago. so i have nothing to do with them. so independent of them. again, i don't think this is a

matter of, you know, partisan politics. i think, to the extent that he's registered, my partner, is, you know known as a conservative republican. i'm not known as anything, i don't think, you know, based on the journalism that i've done. i'm known as -- i'm a critic of the health care industry. i'm not sure, you know if that's republican or democratic. i'm known as a critic of the teachers unions. i'm not sure anymore if that's a republican or democratic position since there are, you know, democrats who also favor the kind of education reform that i've written a book about. we will keep politics from entering this by being totally transparent about what we do. if one of the publishers, you know to whom we give a red rating or to whom we say they're not adhering to one of our

standards and we say that in the nutrition labels, if they have a complaint, we will publish the complaint, we will answer the complaint. and i don't think it's gonna break down in, you know, republican or democratic lines at all. the notion that, you know, a hoax a story that happened before the election, that said the pope was endorsing mr. trump, saying that is a hoax website, is that a republican position? do the republicans actually think that the pope did endorse trump? is that a democratic position? i don't know. but i don't think this is gonna be nearly as partisan as it might seem at first look. host: would you hire a reporter from breitbart or the huffington post to write your nutrition labels? guest: well, i'll tell you this. we have been recruiting among

you know -- we have been asked by conservative groups and liberal groups for suggestions on people we can hire. we've been reaching out all over the place. host: why do that? >> the answer, would i hire someone from the huffington post it depends on who the person is. would i hire someone from breitbart? it depends on who the person is. host: less than 10 minutes left. guest: i will tell you this. but, you know, you won't see the mission of breitbart or the mission of the huffington post, one way or the other, reflected in the work that newsguard does. host: less than 10 minutes left with steve brill of newsguard the co-c.e.o. there. we'll get through as many of your calls as we can. theresa has been waiting in tennessee. republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. it may just -- give me just a few seconds to make a statement

then read an article. first of all, you showed your liberal bias in the first few sentences when you said cnn is not fake news. cnn has been proven to peddle fake news. and in an article dated march 4 2018, it says that newsguard is a start-up company evaluating and rating the reliability of thousands of news sources. and it wants to sell this data to tech giants like facebook and twitter. host: you're going a little in and out. where did you get your story that you're reading from, just so we know? caller: from cnn. are you a for profit data-mining corporation? host: mr. brill? guest: we're not mining anything. the only data we're mining is

published journalism online the most-unprivate journalism availability. we're not mining any data not keeping any consumers' data. you also, i think misquoted me. i didn't say anything about whether cnn was fake news or not. i just -- what i did say, and i stand by it, and i think you would probably agree is i said i think, quote, whatever you think of cnn, it is not the propaganda arm of vladimir putin. i don't think you'd disagree with that. i don't think anybody disagrees with that. as far as data mining, again we're not data mining anything. we are a for profit company. we think the best way to attract talent and keep talent is to be a for profit company. and we don't think -- you know it's kind of surprising to layer someone calling -- surprising to hear someone calling in from the

republican line worrying about a for profit company. host: st. louis, missouri. lloyd is an independent. good morning. caller: congratulations and good morning. thank you. this is very interesting. mr. brill, i appreciate everything you're doing. the main problem -- question i have is a lot of these people that are calling in, or some of them, are probably followers of -- you know, they'll watch a sinclair broadcast, daily news feed where they apparently are dictated scripts to read about the news. and then you have -- which president trump is supporting by the way. and then on the other hand, you have at&t, which is trying to merge with cnn and he's trying to put the plug on that deal, because he doesn't like cnn telling the news. and so we're in a real quandary. we need people like you to step up. and i am very concerned about

the russian involvement in fake news. and the trolls and everything that's going on, and especially this last election, which was horrible. i think the american people will see right through what is going on. but anyway i want to just say i appreciate what you're doing. and could you comment on the sinclair broadcasting issue? and the cnn-at&t merger issue? host: thanks for the question. guest: well, i'm going to really disappoint you. when i -- now, this may have been deliberate on their part and clever on their part. but if you read, just read a transcript of the sinclair -- the editorial that they made their anchors read -- now let's separate the question of whether someone should dictate -- whether dozens of anchors all over the country should be reading the same editorial. but if you read a transcript of

that editorial it's an attack on fake news. you could read it as an attack on fake news that is put out by the right, you know, the far right or put out by the far left. so -- caller: just one -- host: one part of what they said in those broadcasts, they said they were quote concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible one-sided news stories plaguing our country. our commitment in factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility now more than ever. guest: right. so depending on your view of the world, you could listen to exactly those sentences and say boy, they're attacking fox news or boy, they're attacking msnbc. i mean, just literally depending on your view of the world, that would be how you might respond to that. now, the way newsguard is going to deal with the question of sinclair broadcasting is they have -- what is it, 143 or 203

local television stations? they each have a website. our job, our mandate is to review, read and rate each of those news websites affiliated with each of their local stations. so if they have a local station in milwaukee that reports, you know, news of, you know, police actions and fires and the local zoning board and the local mayoral election as news, they're gonna get green. we might mention in the nutrition label that the parent company is sinclair broadcasting which generated some controversy in 2018 because of blah blah blah. but that station is gonna get a green if they're reporting the news the way they should be reporting the news. the nutrition label may add color and elaborate on what their ownership is. so that's how we're gonna deal

with sinclair. host: if all goes according to plan when will we start seeing these red and green ratings pop up? guest: sometime in the fall and certainly in time for the midterm elections. host: we have time for just one or two more calls. rob has been waiting in austin. democrat. go ahead. caller: yes. i just want to thank you. i think you're doing a great service for our country. we do need somebody to support the facts, no -- report the facts, no bias, report it as what it is. and i wanted to ask what you thought about, you know -- right now, a source of good news. politico, wikipedia, something like that, is that a good way to get news or what? guest: well, i don't want to be commenting on any individual sites until we've actually gone through the process of having our professional analysts, who

are journalists we're hiring, read them, look at all the criteria. i'm on the air today telling you we are going through a serious objective process, so if i simply responded saying, oh, gee, politico is a terrific site that would not be in keeping with what we're actually trying to do. the one thing i'll say about wikipedia, which brings up another kind of issue we have to grapple with, and we really haven't figured out the answer to, wikipedia, as you know, is kind of a wisdom of the crowds kind of process where members of the public can go in and edit the various entries on wikipedia. so some of that may be unreliable and some of that may be quite reliable. we haven't quite figured out how we're going to deal with those kinds of questions yet. host: mr. brill, we'll leave it there. but viewers can continue to check out

newsguardtechnologies.com on twitter, at newsguard rating. thanks so much for your time this morning. guest: you're well come. >> and coming up, live in about 10 minutes, we'll take you to the university of maryland in college park for a debate between former mexican president, vincente fox and former leader of the u.k. independence party on nashvilleismnashvillenationalism and globalism. then life on c-span 2, a discuss about u.s. foreign policy and u.s. influence in the world, hosted by the council on foreign realrealrelations, live at 6:30. then local, state and federal actions combating the opioid epidemic. and on c-span 3, it's american history t.v. with a look back at 1968. when new york senator