♪ tonight on kqed newsroom, jackie speier weighs in on the latest news from washington. facebook under fire following a tamassive breach and growing questions aboutwhether the company has done enough to protect user privacy. plus, judy woodruff on the role of media in today's political environment. we begin with a white house shakeup and intensifying concerns over data manipulation. yesterday the h committee voted to release the republican majority report on its russia .investigation that report found no evidence of 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

campai and russian-linked operatives. i'm joined by jackie speier of san mateo county. we do want to talk to you about the russia investigation. first of all, there's beenot a l of back and forth about t budget. president trump tweeted earlier today that he might veto the $1.3 trillion spending plan. there are reports now that he may sign it after all. what do you make of this back and forth? >> i refer to them as unsupervised tweets. a lot of times early in the morning after watching fox, he will twee then his staff will come rushing in to explain to him how government works. i don't think he had any of what happens and how the governments shuts down, how literally everyone has to leave,e parks close, the social securi checks don't go out. i think he was given a lesson. >> you didn't evenhe support house version of the spending bill in the first place. why now? >> you i could give you a

list of probably 10 or 1 elements. first of all, the defense budget was increased by $58 billion. meanwhile, our veterans were given cump change. the daca kids were supposed to be protected. they are not. andyet the president did get a couple of billion dollars for his wal i objected to the process. it was 2400 pages long. it was filed at 8:00 the ni wht before a voted on it at 11 w 12:00 the next day. >> the really nothing there addressing sexual assaults or sexual h as well.in congress i know that's an issue you've been working on. >> there was hopes that we would take the sexual harassmentti legis that passed the house bipartisan my bill, me too congress act. and through negotiations, it was not successful inetting included in the omnibus. my hope is that twe're going

take it up and go to conferencee so that sen will take it up. the house has already passed it. it will go to conference and we'll get it on the books before the end of t year. >> i also wanted to talk to you about some high profilepa ures this week. hr mcmaster is now out.go he'sng to be replaced by john bolton. he has beenscribed as the hawk among hawks. what does this change mean forr aan foreign policy? >> i think everyone should take a sedative. i really think that it's going to require us to calm down and th become very vigilant. because john bolton, along with dick cheney and donald rufeld are responsible for taking our country into the longest war in history. that's the iraq war at over 5 years. what do we have to show for it?

isis, syria, middle eastern chriians being discriminated against and illed. so i hope and pray we are in a position where we can forestall what could be a very aggressive stance taken by the president. >> what is tha aggressive stance mean for our relations with north korea? are you concerned thy we come closer to war with north korea, because mr. bolton has said in the past he supports the idea of preemptive strikes against north korea. he's not big on negotiations. in fact, he's kind of, you know, ridiculed south korea for being too soft. h >> has a fatal flaw. a negotiations in the end are the way you settle wars. i mean, you have to use diplomacy. when yo now dealing with

circumstances around the world where so many countries do have nuclear weapons, we can't havel mut agreed to destruction, conceivably would happen if we engage in a nuclear war with north korea. so it should have started differently. it should have started with lower level but senior persons witin our state department negotiating with north korea. that hasn't happened. we're going directly to the president and kim jong-un. and then we'll have to see. hopefully we'll -- what kim wants is he wants identificatioa as bein world power. by meeting with the president,e he'sing that. the question is what are we going to get? e end we're k in going to get very much. >> on russia now, you said on the house intelligen committee the panel voted in week along party lines to release the majority report by republicans. it finds no evidence of collusion between russia and

president trump. also effectively ended the russia investigation. you and othts democn the committee disagree. why? >> first of all, it wasn'tjust whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia. it was to look into the russian meddling. how much had thend cia their intelligence community known about it before and not taken steps, what are we doing about the election machines in this country, how do we make sure they're fail safe and can't be hacked into. most of those issueseren't discussed. social media and the role it played, all of that ner really saw the light of day. they went through the motions. but in the end they did not subena documents when persons showed up for their interviews without providing any documentation. they've refused 30 additional witnesses that we want to have come testify. we just had a whistle blower

from cambridge analytica that came forward and said they we manipulating all of this or ition. he has now agreed to come and meet with the minority members of the co yittee. >> think social media companies like facebook and twitter should be regulated? >> i doul think they sbe regulated. i do not think they're just benign platforms. the american public that engages in facebook that has a facebook page needs to recognize that they are n the customer, they are actually the product. and the customer to facebook is theadvertiser. so we need to have a better sense of what information is being shared. and we should not allow, i think, for our very personal information to be used without our know certainly. and that we should have an opportunity to opt out. we should probably have a subscription for mmat for

facebook. if theyred not inclineto offer that, maybe there needs to be another startup to offer to do that. turning to tech now, facebook is facing backlash, again, for faing to preve a massive data breach. a british consulting firm hired by t trump campaign cambridge analytica reportedly harvestsp sonal 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 hird party apps. some lawmakers want zu terberg tify before congress. there's now a social media campaign urgingo users delete their facebook accounts. joining me now with more on this are silin valley bureau chief tanya mley. jeremy owens and jenny gipheart. welcome to you all. >> thank you.

>> there are so many issues here, trust, regulation, data privacy, how facebook is responding. we'll get to all of that. tanya, i have to ask you first of all, lay out the scene for us. the misuse of data involving cambridge lyaca happened in 2015. when did facebook know about it and why did itt notify users earlier? >> facebook received word that cambridge analytica had that data around 2015. said ent to them and please you need to destroy that. cambridge analytica said they would do that. they found about out about it from reporters a the guardian andoo notified fac this was happening. i think the million collar question is why they didn't notify the public until now. we received word before the "new its piece published

about all of this that facebook was going to deny cambridge t analytica oir platform. and we received that in a facebook post as well as on their newsroom blog asl. we 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, or 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 in 2015. what's really clear to me pticularly in zuckerberg's statement was that i think facebook is still not takisi resplity for the fact that not only do they not notify users when it would have been appropriate to do so before, it was really too little too late, also they didn't follow through on ensuring that cambridge analytica wasowing their policies around not storing and notti retaining that cl user

data. >> jeremy, as we mentioned in the introduction to this segment, mark zucke fergnally spoke out after several days of silence. he posted a statement on facebook, of course. what did he saybout this exactly? and what are the fixes he's ugoposing? >> he went th a timeline of everything they did and everything that happened. and then he suggested three fixes. one is that they're going to stop any access and do an audit of old ta this is 2015 we're talking about. and even prior to that, they made the rule this cannot be done anmore. ut they did not go back and double check that all these apps and develope had actually destroyed the data. they say we asked them if they destroyed the data. they said yes. w many other apps did that go through? now they're going to audit all those apps and attempt to keep that frn happeninghe future? >> do the fixes that zuckerberg laid out go far enough protecting data privacy and

people's profiles, do yo >> absolutely not. i think they're a good start, but they absolutely do notgo 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 wec not trust them to deliver reliable information. what we need is not trust. we need transparency, we need accountabilit and i think that one form that could take is independent audits. i want audits by ay pa that is not accountable to facebook but to thers andir privacy rights. >> one of the challenges, though, around going back to before 2015 to those third party ap is that there's still no way even with an audit, i mean, that we can think of and experts that have much more brilliant minds than us that you can go back in that ctta andlly see all of the ways it was used

and all of the different parts a where it went. that train has left the station. it already out there. now we're at a point where we're looking to the future on exactly how from this point forward facebook is going to operate while they're still looking backwards and trying to figure out how they're going to fix the mistakes happened in the past. >> as i read mark zuckerberg's st on facebook describing this situation and what facebook plans to do about it, the one gaping omission is he never really explained how the economicok model for face works. i mean, there was little transparency 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 t's selling to advertisers and developers to make money. so that user data helps advertisers taget and better target their customers. >> i think what's really interesting objt what you're tying is that so many people are learnings for the first

time. those who have reported on facebook know about it and we're ill learning more about it. but the average user had no idea this is how the model worked. and so a big part ofhis is ducating the public along with there's already been skepticism around the 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 we've been reassessing our relationship. with techno my grandmother called me last night and said are you going to stay on facebook? she's 93 years ol ill want to be able to read what 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. so for someoneo doesn't, it's really impossible. >> a general rule of thumb is that if you're getting the service for free, you're the product. any service u're getting on your phone for free, they are

selling advertisements based on datar they're selling your or anything else they can to make money. >> can that business model then coexist with data ivacy? >> well, we're going to see. europe is about to install a very new and restrictive data privacy regulation in may. all of these companies are going to have to change how they operate in europe to align haemselves with that. ands a big problem with this is we don't have that type of regulan the u.s. we talked about facebook not telling people. there'so regulation that they have to. right now in europe thereill . so we'll be able to see does that hurt their profits andin revenues europe and what could be the effect overall. >> we've also got t 2018 midterm elections approaching, right? and in a "new york times" interview respondingo this crisis mark zuckerberg revealed something that was new, that ahead of la year's special senate election in alabama that

facebook detected a significant faker of macedonian accounts intended to spread fake news. facebook did disable them. the question then becomes as governments became more sophisticated, russia and othere govers, how does facebook stay ahead of that? or can it? that is another kind o question of the moment. the reason which is such a watershed moment is because users are waking up to all the ways this platform can be abused. inpaicular, how their information can be coopted their attention manipulated to serve that kind ofas use. to stay ahead of that as far as delivering reliable information in termslefion and politics, facebook has tofigure out how to deliver a more trustworthy stream of information that is not hidd behind a black boxed algorithm into which we have no

transparency orcontrol. until then i would not recommend that users get political information from facebook. >> what can users do to keep information safe on facebook if they decide to stay? >> i generally approached o two angles. one is thinking about the type of information you're sharin another is thinking about where it can possibly go. i think those angles of what urs have agency over only goes so far. that applies to ativeharing or i want to share this picture and i want to share it with my friends. ivacy settings have real meaning. when that information is being taken from eyou, when you ho knowledge, agency or informed consent in it, that's not t somethiat privacy settings or individual actions can fix. that is a huge collective privacy harm that is facebook's job to prevent. >> it goes way beyond facebook.e if you look ifax and all forhe data that's out there us -- orbit's lost a bunch of data that was also old. as we movealong, we're going to

s these old caches of datare that vulnerable that people can go into. that's going to be an issue for a long time that all of this information is sitting out there and vulnerable. it's not a question strictly for facebook. but what are we going to do as a people and wt is our government going to do to try to protect us from anybody who wants to get to this data. >> how are facebook employees reacting? >> insiders inside of the company off the record have been saying they have known about these issues for quite some time. but they felt that the higher ups have not been listening really to the point ofaking true change. it has taken something like this to really blow t t lid from outside to have the internal dialogue about it. >> thank you all. nice to have you here. >> thank you. w> and no a journalist who should be very familiar to our pbs audience

judy woodruff. she madeen history wh they became the nation'srs all women network news anchor team. this week it was announced she will officially be the show's so anchor. i sat down with her recently when she visits the bay area and reflects on her journalism such a pleasure to have you here. >> it's great to be here. always wonderful to ctoe back san francisco and to see kqed. >> you've been covering washington since 19d77. you've seen many administrations. how would you assess the political climate today? >> how much time do we have? >> not nearly enough. >> people often askme how do you compare this? is this anything like oth presidents? the fact is i've covered democrats, carter, clinton obama. i'vevered republicans, reagan, bo bushes. and nowd donaltrump. donald trump stands alone. he was not a politician.

he was not in public politician. he didn't have a background in government of any kind and he's brought this unique personality, his show business background, uns reality tv background, his business backg he's a completely different kind of president. and we're all -- we'vehad to fasten our seat belts. >> during this administration the term fake ns has become very common place. disfg disinfomation, there's a hot of th -- lot of that going on. what challenges do they present? >> there are enormous challenges. ihat'shappened, it's now been planted in the ms of many americans that they can't trust much of the news media. it's not that the news media has ever been perfect. media reporters make mistakes, but not on a whole scale level and not at a dimension that this president and others around him have portrayed. the reporters i know in washington who cover the white

house, who ver the congress by and large are there to do their job. t they're the report the news, to get it across in as accurate a way as possible. this now new charge that's where around every day people say we don't know whether we can believe you or not has put all us on the defensive and i think needlessly so. we havto now take that into consideration. we are now called on more than ever to be accurate, to make sure we provide context, accurate context, that we don't make any s,mista because our credibility in the end is all we have. i know we at the news hour take that very seriously. >>ou and gwen became th first all female anchor team. we all miss gwen. if you could take us back to that moment,hat was that like? this was such a milestone for womenournalists likeme. >> gwen and i had to look at

each other and practically pin ourselves. we were part of history. we were the first two women to anchor together 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 justn enormous privilege for me. gwen is somebody who will live forever, i think her legacy will live on forever in shnews. was not only a great journalist, she was a remarkable friend, larger than life personality. >> great sense of humor. >> we misser everyy. and one of the reasons we are determined to work so hard to do good job and to make sure that we are holding ourselves accountable i u to li to gwen's legacy. >> we now have the me too movement sweeping the country.ng you've been d news for more than four decades as a woman journalt. what has that been like?

have things changes? >> i hope so. i certainly hope so. i like every other women i tiink now in our business and frankly working woman has had some kind of experience with sexual harassment, with beingd trea differently because we're women. yet those of us who are doing it haver vered. now we finally have gotten to a place where what happened was so egregious starting with the harvey weinstein revelation. th it southwest across the news industry. we now know many of the men i knew -- >> including charlie rose.t >> mlauer, nbc. i think it's a turning point. why? because i think enough women havecome 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 of advisors of a group fcalled preward 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 goingto be olerated. >> speaking of women journalists, you graduated fromy duke univerith a political science degree. did you always want to be a journalist or did you want to be a politician at some point? >> i didn't necessarily wato be a politician, but i thought i would work in politics or public policy. this was after thinking i was going to go into math. that's a long story. but i just sort of tell int journalism. i had a professor who said, didk you ever t 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 fnetic than ever, the chase for online clickse and ase 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 and the next a minute the next

minute, which is what our commercial friends are doing. they have to worry about ratings. it's how themake their living. we have the great luxury, the great ability to sit there every morning and throughout the day nd look at what are the most important stories of the day, what shoulde be covering, what do the american people need to know in our hule opinion and how can we best cover it. that's how we ke our decision about what to cover, not to be driven by the silly story of the moment or whatever's getting a lot of chicks, but to think about what matters here and what do we owe people, time ando informationcover. that's what our job is. >> on a personal note, your oldest son jeffrey was born with si spina biffida. >> it changed everything. he was our first born.th

born something we had not even heard of. fortunately he had aairly mild form but then jeffrey was injured as and teenager is now someone with significant disabilities. what it's taught us is that we have to treat people with disabiliti we do anyone else. they want as normal a life as possible. they want to be contributing members of our society and i think too often people look away om them or look at them and just sort of pat them on the shanulder. they to be treated like you and me. >> thank you so 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 ourra co at kqed.org/newsroom. thank you f joining us. ♪

robert: turnover in the white house. ident trump reshuffles his national security team ahead of critical negotiations. i'm robert costa. what it means for u.s. foreignc po plus the president's lead attorney in the russia probe resigns. tonight on "washington week." president trump: i say to congrs i wil never sign another bill like this again. robert: a defiant president trump pushes back against signing a budget bill. the threat of a government shutdown capped off a wild week of staff shakeups and surprise resignidions. the prent continues to reshuffle his foreign policy be , n john bolton t his third