♪ tonight on kqed newsroom, jackie speier weighsn onthe latest news from washington. facebook under fire following a massive data breach and growing questions about whether the company has done enough to protect user y.priv plus, judy woodruff on the role of media inoday's political environment. we begin with a white house shakeup and intensifying concerns over data manipulation. teyesterday the house iigence committee voted to release thea republic majority report on its russia investigation. ence ofport found no ev collusion during the 2016 elections. democrats contend the committee overlooked mostlin links betwee president trump's campaign and moscow. they say there were dozens of

contacts between the trump campaign and russian-linked operatives. i'm joined by s jackier of san mateo county. we do want to talk to you about the russia investigation. first of all, there's been a lot of back and forth about the budget. president trump tweeted earlier today that he might veto he $1.3 trillion spending plan. there are reports now that he ay sign it after all. what do you make of this back and forth? >> i refer to them as unsupervised tweets. a lot of i times earlthe morning after watching fox, he will tweet. then his staff will come rushing in t explain to him how government works. i don't think he had any understanding ofat happens and how the governments shuts avwn, how literally everyone has to the parks close, the cial security checks don't go out. i think he wasiven a lesson. >> you didn't even support the house version of the spending bill in the first place. why not? >> you know, i could give you a

list of proba 10 or 15 elements. first of all, the defense budget was increased by $58 billion. anwhile, our veterans were given chump change. the daca kids were be protected. they are not. and yet the president did get a couple of billion dollars for his wall. i objected to the ocess. it was 2400 pages long. it was filed at 8:00 before and we voted on it at 11 or 12:00 the next day. there was really nothing there addressing sexual assaults or sexual harassme congress as well. i know that's an issue you've been working on. >> there s hopes that we would take the sexual harassment legislation that passed these hipartisan my bill, me too congress act. and through negotiations, it wae not sful in getting included in the omnibus. my hope isre that we going to

take it up and go to conference so that senate will take it up. the house has already passed it. it rell go to cone and we'll get it on the books before the end of the year. >> i also wanted t talk you about some high profile departures this week. hr mcmaster is now out. he's going to be replaced by john bhaton. hebeen described as the hawk among hawks. what does this change mean for american foreign policy? >> i think everyone should take a sedativ i really think that it's going toequire us to calm down and then become very vigilant.be use john bolton, along with dick cheney and donald rumsfeld are responsible for taking our country into the longest war in history. that's the iraq war at over 15 years. what do we have to show for it?

isis, syria, middle eastern ng christians b discriminated against and killed. so i hope and pray we are in a position where we can forestall what could be aes very agve stance taken by the president. >> what is that aggressive stance mean for oelions with north korea? are you concerned that we may come closer to war with north korea, because mr. bolton has said in the past he supports idea of preemptive strikes against north korea. he's not big on negoations. fact, he's kind of, you know, ridiculed south korea for being too soft. >> he has a fatal flaw. all negotiations in the end are the way you settl wars. i mean, you have to use when you are now dealing with

circumstances around the worlds wherany countries do have nuclear weapons, we can't have mutually agreed to destruction, which is what would conceivably happen if we engage in a nuclear war with north korea. so it should have started differently. it should ve started with lower level but senior persons within our state department negotiating with north korea. that hasn't happened. we're going dirtly tohe president and kim jong-un. and then we'll have to see. hopefully we'll -- what kim nts is he wants identification as being a world power. by meeting with the president, he's getting that. the question is what are we going to get? don't think in the en're going to get very much. >> on russia now, you said onou the intelligence committee the panel voted in week along party lines to release they majoreport by republicans. it finds no evidence ofbe

collusioneen russia and president trump. it also effectively ended the russia investigation. you and other democrats on the committee disagree. why? >> first of all, it wasn't just whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia. s to look into the russian meddling. how much had the c and their intelligence community known about it before and not taken steps, what are we doing about the electioin ma in this country, how do we make sure they're fail safe and can't be hacked into. most of those issues weren't discussed. social media and the role it played, all of that never really saw the light of day. they went through the motions. but in the end they did not subpoena documents when persons showed up for their interviews without providing any documentation. they've refused 30 additionals witneshat we want to have come testify. we just had a whistle blower

from cambridge analytica that came forward and said they were manipulating all of this information. he has now agreed to come and meet with the minorerty me of the committee. >> do you think social media companies like facebook ander twithould be regulated? >> i do think they should be regulated. i do not thithey're just benign platforms. the american public that eagages inbook that has a facebook page needs to recognize that they are nothe customer, they are actually the product. and the customer to faceboo the advertiser. so we need to have a better sense what information is being shared. and we should not allow, i think, for our very personal formation to be used without our knowledge, certainly. and that we should have an opportity to opt out. we should probably have a subscription for mmat for

thfacebook. if are not inclined to offer that, maybe n thereeds to be another startup to offer to do that. turning to tech now,is facebook facing backlash, again, for failing to prevent a massive data breach. a british consulting firm hired by the trump campaign cambridge analytica reportedly harvests personal information from 50 million facebook users without their consent. after days of silence, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg responded to the growing scandal. he said facebook will take new security measures and restrict access to some user data by third party apps. some lawmakers want zuckerberg to testify before congress. there's now a social media campaign urgingsers to delete their facebook accounts. joining me now with more on this are silicon valley bureau chief tanya mosley. jeremy owens and jenn gipheart. welcome to you all.

>> thank you. >> there are so many issues herust, regulation, data privacy, how facebook is responding. we'll get to allat of tanya, i have to ask you first of all, lay out the scene for us. the misuse of data involving cambridge analytica happened in 2015. when did facebook know about it and why did it not notify users earlier? >> facebook received word that cambridge analytica had that data around2015. they went to them and said please you need to destroy that. cambridge tiana said they would dothat. they foundbout out about it from reporters a the guardian and notified facebook this was happening. i think the million collar question is why they dn't notify the public until now. we received word before the "new york times" p published itsce

about all of this that facebook was going to deny cambridge analytica on their platform. and we received that in a facebook post as well as on their newsroom blog as well. so that's the big question, is why we didn't know about this sooner. >> what do you think the answer is? i mean they wanted to protect their profits,r what do you think happened here? >> i think for me from where i sit it's hard to dig into the internal workings of facebook 2015. what's really clear to me particularly in zuckerberg's statement was that i think takingk is still not responsibility for the fact that not only do theyototify users when it would have been propriate to do so before, it was really too little toot also they didn't follow through on ensuring that cambridge yt ana was following their policies around not storing and notng retai that critical user

data. >> jeremy, as we mentioned in tothe introductio this segment, mark zuckerberg finally spoke out after several days of silence. he posted a statement on facebook, of course. what didayhe about this exactly? and what are the fixes he's proposing? he went through a timeline of everything they did and everything that happened. an then he suggested three fixes. one is that they're going to stop anyo access and an audit of old data. this is 2015 we're talking about. and even prior to that, they mhe the rule cannot be done anymore. but they did not go back and double check that all these apps and developershad actually destroyed the data.sa they we asked them if they destroyed the data. they id yes. how many other apps did that go through? now they're going to audit all those apps and attempt to keep that from happening in the future? >> do the xes that zuckerberg laid out go far enough in protecting data privacy and

people's profiles, do you think? >> absolutely not. i think they're a good start, but they absolutely do not go far enough. one of the main reasons,my biggest problem with his statement and the fixes proposed is that zuckerberg is asking us to trust facebook when this whole scandal has shown us we cannot trust them to deliver reliable information. what we need is not trust. need transparency, we need accountability. and i think that one form that could te is independent audits. i want audits by a party that is not accountable to facebook but to usersnd their privacy rights. >> one of the challenges, though, around going back to before 2015 to those third party apps is that there's still no way even with an audit, i mean,c that we think of and experts that have much more br minds than us that you can go back in that data and actually see all of the ways it wased

and all of the different parts and where it went. that train has left the station. it's alrea out there. now we're at a point where we're looking to the future onxactly how from this point forward facebook is going to o rate whilthey're still looking backwards and trying to figure out how theyoe going fix the mistakes that happened in the past. >> as i read mark zuckerberg's post on facebook describing this situation and what facebook plans to do about tit, one gaping omission is he never leally explained how the economic moor facebook works. i mean, there was littlear trancy there. i mean, how facebook works and how it makes money is that the users are the product. i mean, it is the product that it's selling to advertisers and developers to make money. so that user data helps advertisers target and better target their customers. >> i think what's really nteresting object wh you're saying is that so manya people learning this for the first

time. those who have reported on facebook know about itnd we'r still learning more about it. but the average user had no idea this el how the m worked. and so a big part of this is educating the public along with there's already been ske ticism arou platform for various different reasons. of course after te election, that became a huge issue. when people learned about the russian meddling. there's been overall a sense of fatigue as we've been reassessing our relationship with technology. my grandmother called me last night and said are you going to stay on facebook? she's 93 years old. i still want to be able toha re you have to say. but explaining to her those details on how facebook works, it's difficult even if you have a deep understanding of it. f so someone who doesn't, it's really impossible. >> a general rule of thumb is that i you're getting the service for free, you're the product. any service you're getting on your phone for free, they are

selling aedertisements b on you or they're selling your data or anything else they can to make money. >> can that business model then coexistaith privacy? >> well, we're going to see. arope is about to install very new and restrictive data privacy regulation inmay. all of these companies are going to have to change how they operate inpe to align themselves with that. and that's a big problewith this is we don't have that type of regulation in the u.s. we talked abo facebook not telling people. there's no regulation that they have to. right now in eure there will be. so we'll be able to see does that hurt their profits and revenues in europe and what could be the effect overall. >> we've also got the 2018 midterm elections approaching, nright? and "new york times" interview responding to this crisis mark zuckerberg realed something that was new, that ahead of last year's special senate election in alabama that

facebook detected a significant number of macedonianake accounts intended to spread fake news. them.ook did disable the question then becomes as governments becamemore sophisticated, russia and other governments, how does facebook stay ahet of t? or can it? >> that is another kind of question of the moment. the reason which is such a watershed moment isecause users are waking up to all the ways this platform can be abus. in particular, how their information can be coopted and their attention manipulated to serve that kind of abiause. to stay ahead of that far as delivering reliable information in terms of election and cs polifacebook has to figure out how to deliver a more trustworthy stream of information that is not hidden behind a black boxedhm algor

into which we have no transparency or control. until then i wouldmm not red that users get political information from facebook. >> what can usersto do keep information safe on facebook if they decide to stay? >> i generally pproached it from two angles. one is thinking about the type of information you're sharing. another is thinking about where it can possibly go.i ink those angles of what users have agency over only goes so far. that applies to active sharing or i want to share this picture and i want to share it with my friends. privacy settings have real meaning. when that information is being taken from you, when you have no knowledge, agency or informed consent in it, that's something that privacy settings or individual actions can fix. that is a huge collective privacy harm that is facebook's job to prevent. >> it oes way beyondfacebook. if you look at equifax and all of the data that's out there for us -- orbit's lost a bunch of data that was also old. we move along, we're going to c

see thesehes of data that are vulnerable that people can go into. that's going to be an issue for a long time that all of this informati sitting out there and vulnerable. it's not a question strictly for facebook. but what are we going to do as a people and what is our government going to do t try to protect us from anybody who wants to get to this data. >> how are facebook employees ? reacti >> insiders inside of the company off the record have been saying theyo have about these issues for quite some time. but theyt felt t the higher ups have not been listening really to the point of making true change. it has taken something like this to really blow the lid from the outside to have the internal dialogue about it. >> thank you all. nice to have you hahere. >> you. >> thank you. and now a ournalist who should be very familiar to our

pbs audience. judy woodruff. e made history when they became the nation's first all women network news anchor team. this week it wasun and she will officially be the show's sole anchor. i satdown with her recently when she visits the bay area and reflects on her journalism career. such a pleasure to have you here. >> it's great to be here. always wonderful to come back to san francisco and to see kqed. >> you've been coveri washington since 19d 77. you'v seen many administrations. how would you assess the political climate today? >> how much time do we >> not nearly enough. >> people often ask me how do you compare this? is this anything like other presidents? the fact is i've covered democrats, carter, clinton i've covered republicans, reagan, both bushes. and now donald trump. donald trump stands alone. hes not a politician.

he was not in public idlitician. het have a background in government of any kind and he's brt this unique personality, his show business background, his reality tv backgrbund, his ness background. he's a completely different kind of president. and we're all -- we've had to fasten our seat belts. >> during this administration the termake news has become very common place. disfg disinformation, there's a hot of th -- lot of that going on. what challenges do they present? >> there are enormous challenges. what's happened, it's now been planted in the minds of many n't trust that they much of the news media. it's not that the news media has ever been perfect. media reporrs make mistakes, but not on a whole scale level and not at a dimension that this president and othersun a him have portrayed. the reporters i know washington who cover the white

house, who cover the congress by td large areere to do their job. they're there to report the news, to get itacross in as accurate a way as possible. this now new charge that's frying around every w dayre people say we don't know whether we can believe you or put all of us on the defensive and i think needlessly so. n we have to take that into consideration. we are now called on more than ever to beaccurate, to make sure we provide context, accurate context, that we don't make any mistakes, because our credibllity in the end is we have. i know we at the news hour take that very seriously. >> you and gwen f became therst all female anchor team. we all miss gwen. if you could take us back to that moment, that was that e?l this was such a milestone for women journalists like me. >> gwen and i had to look at

each other and pctically pinch ourselves. we were part of history. re the first two women to anchor gether a national news broadcast. it was both a natural thing to happen and it was a remarkable thing to happen, to have two women sitting there night after night. and it was just an enormous privilege for me. gwen is somebody who will lve forever, i think her legacy will live on forever in news. she was not only a great s journaliste was a remarkable friend, larger than life personality. >> great sense of humor. >> we miss hervery day. and one of the reasons we are determined to work so hard to db a good and to make sure that we are holding ourselves accountable is to live up to gwen's legacy. >> we now have the me too movement sweeping the country. you've been doing news for more than four decades as a woman journalist. what has that been like?

have things chges? >> hope so. i certainly hope so. i like every other women i think i know in our business and frankly working woman has had some kind of experience with sexual harassment, with being treated differently because we're women.t hose of us who are doing it have persevered. now we finally have gotten to a place where what happened was so egregious starting with the harvey weinstein revelation.ut then it sest across the news industry. we now know many of the men i knew -- >> including charlie rose. >> matt lauer, nbc. i think it's a turning point. why? because i think enough women have come together and said we've had enough, this is it. we're going to support each other from now on. we're not going to feel like we have to be quiet. i've recently joined the board calledsors of a group press forward that's going to make sure in newsrooms across the country and for young women

journalists coming along that they know that we have their backs and that no longer is this going to be tolerated. >> speaking of women journalists, you graduated from duke university with a political science degree. did you always want to be a journalist or did you want a politician at some point? >> i didn't necessarily want to be a politician, but thought i would work in politics or public policy. this was after thinking i was t goi go into math. that's a long story. but i just sort ofl t into journalism. i had a professor who said, did you ever think about covering politics. i did and i've never looked back. i feel so fortunate. >> in the modern news cycle now it's now more frenetic than ever, the cha for online clicks and the chase for ratings is more intense. how is news hour's approach different? it's important that people watch us. what we don't do is worry about how many eyeballs at this minute an the next minute and the next

minute, which is what our commercial friends are doing.ha the to worry about ratings. it's how they make their living. we have the great luxury, the great ability to sit there every morning and throughout the day and look at what are the most important stories of the day, what should webe covering, what do the american people need to know in ourio humble op and how can we best cover it. that's how oe make decision about what to cover,iv not to b by the silly story of the moment or whatever's getting a lot ofbuchicks, to think about what matters here and what do we owe people, time and information to cover. that's what our job is. >> on a personal note, your oldest son jeffrey was born with si spina biffida. >> i changed everything. he was our first born.

born with something we had not even heard of. fortunately he had a fairly mild form but then jeffrey was injured as ana tr and is now someone with significant disabitities. what taught us is that we have to treat people with disabilities as we do anyone else. they want as normal a life as possible. they want to be contributing membersu ofsociety and i think too often people look away from them or look at them and just sort of pat them on the shoulder they want to be treated like you and me. >> thank you much for sharing that. >> thank you. it's just been great to be here. and that will do it for us. you can find more of our coverage at kqed.org/nsroom. thank you for joining us. ♪

robert: turnover in thee. white ho president trump reshuffles his national sity team ahead of critical negotiations. i'm robert costa. what it means for u.s. foreign policy, plus the president's ad attorney in the russia probe resigns. tonight onon "washineek." president trump: i say to congress i will never sign another bill like this again. robert: a defiant president trump pushes back against signing a budget bill. the threat of anm govt shutdown capped off a wild week of staffkeups and surprise resignations the president continues to reshuffle his foreign policy team, naming john bolton to be his thi