i'm joyce vance. i'm okay. how that. i'm a professor the university of alabama law school and i hang out with barb mcquade a whole

she's the show she's why we're tonight i have got some reminders that i have to read to you are you guys the obedient type? will you follow directions? oh, rebels. all right. i love my group already. i'm told to remind you that tonight's is being recorded. so we kindly ask that you silence your cell phones for the duration of the program. and most importantly, if you have questions for barb, please fill them out on the questions cards that were on your seats or if you're joining us through the youtube chat, they will bring the questions up to me so i can ask them periodically. um, it really is a pleasure to get to introduce to you. she's terrified about what's going to come out of my mouth. yeah i think. i think she's said enough you. so look barb and i serve together united states attorneys during the administration, i was in birmingham. we love the applause for boss

barb was in detroit. and what you may also know is that melinda hague, who's seated in the front row, was the us here in san francisco who lined up. barb, my understanding that you a bet to melinda recently and you're about to pay off. is that true? i did. i did, unfortunately, am a detroit lions fan any lions fans in the house? all right. i see you we had an amazing year. it was our year. and i was feeling really about that nfc championship. until we came to san francisco. and so melinda hague, our former colleague here and i put a little wager on the game and i talked a little tough and i said, i am down whatever. you name your stakes, melinda hague because am very confident in the lions victory and so it was agreed that the loser would

wear the winners attire in very public forum. and it occurred to me what could be more public than tonight. and so melinda hague. congratulations. congratulations. course we all had our dreams crushed by the city chiefs. later. and speaking of crushed dreams, do we have anybody the house who cares more about college football? pro football? because close to home, i got this one baby, which is the university of michigan national champions. any fans in the house? go, go, blow, go, blow. joyce, i'm sorry. i know your alabama tie. it's still a little too soon. i'm sorry about that. you know, was going to start off by warning barb that we wouldn't talk alabama and michigan in football. it is, in fact, too soon.

tide. but she went there early which the bar is already low and. we'll go ahead and dig right into things. so listen, you tell barb and me apart, barb is the smart one. you know, people always get us confused. this is a tall one. we answer i answer to barb, she has been known to answer to joyce. people confuse us in airports they confuse at football games it's crazy but i'm delighted be confused with barb mcquaid because. she has written a smart, straight forward, important book for the times that we live in and i'm now delighted to be confused back, she says. so look, we're in san francisco. we not been to san francisco together before, but you guys are pretty great. pretty great. i have watching you on social media every place. you've gone on your book tour, you've done cool. what's the san francisco thing?

oh, you know, i had a great day. i'm here for the day. but i asked, know the people of san francisco to give me some suggestions. and so pete's was right up there. i had a dark, delicious, some sour dough bread. i went for a run down the embarcadero, one of my favorite words to say, cordero, is pretty fine. down to fisherman's wharf, to ghirardelli square and got some chocolate. it was so i had a wonderful afternoon here. what about you? what do you think about it? you know i like everything about san francisco. my childhood best friend is out there. i can't see anything right now. and going to spend a couple of days reliving our childhood badness. so if you all have suggestions, places to eat or shop or hang out when you ask barb questions, i'll take your suggestions. well, as we do with hashtag in law. so i finish telling you a little bit about barb. you know that she's a law professor, the university of michigan school of law.

she also, like me as analyst, a legal analyst for nbc and msnbc, and she's despite all of her commitments written this book and it's a prop that we're here, by the way, on super tuesday eve. right. you all celebrate in califor? yeah. is it the jungle primary. is that what it's. and so is a great book to talk about tonight attacked from within it tells a lot about who we are as americans right now and also about the challenges that we're going to face in the coming election. so you ready to dig right in. let's go you're background at the justice department before you became a u.s. attorney was in national security and you had a pretty deep background in national security that came in very handy on your first day after being a notified that you'd been confirmed by the senate to be a united states attorney. you tell us about it. oh, i suppose so. i had been an assistant u.s. attorney for most of my career

and was lucky enough to be nominated president obama to serve as u.s. attorney in detroit, the eastern district of, michigan. and i got a call on christmas eve of 2009 that i had been confirmed. the senate, you know, when you become a u.s. attorney, get confirmed by the senate. and the only reason the senate had stayed that late was to pass affordable care act. remember that? and that was a big deal. so i think it went something like this. they spent all day on the affordable care act finally passed it and then they said, oh, and then all those other people been nominated for positions. the other two and so we got and i thought this is so great i'm, going to have the best christmas ever. i'm going to kick back, have a wonderful time with my family before starting important job and then the next christmas morning started seeing my blackberry rattling around. i remember those things? blackberries started rattling around and i looked at and it was a notification from the fbi that an al qaeda operative had tried to blow up a plane over detroit with a bomb concealed in his underwear. so he became known as the

underwear bomber on a flight from, the netherlands. and fortunately, one was hurt. he was hurt, but the bomb malfunctioned and we were we prosecuted him and he was convicted. but was my first day on the job. and i realized, you know, this is not going be a sleepy job. we were going to be on call all the time and we were. yeah, it sort of panned out that way. didn't it? yeah. so you're national security background, i think influenced the book, at least as i read it. can you about that and why you wanted to write the book. yeah. i mean i see disinformation as a threat, our national security, i think it's threat to our democracy. it's a threat to public safety. it's a threat to rule of law. but when it comes to national security, it is a our standing in the world. so as a national prosecutor, as an assistant u.s. attorney, you know, i've seen the threat evolve. it was al qaida and then it was isis and then it was cyber

intrusions, then it was russia. and now it is really a domestic attacks with disinformation. just today i saw that there were air generated images of donald trump posing with various groups of african-american people to make it look like. he's got all of these supporters, the african-american community, but you look closely, you'll see that some of them have three fingers or six fingers, just like which is a of a tail that they're generated. but as i say in the book, what the world saw on january six was evidence that they are using to say that democracy doesn't work and is why we're seeing democratic backsliding around the world. see, it's a failed. people don't accept the outcome of an election. people engage in violence. when you have democracy. and after all, democracy isn't. the point is it's prosperity. and we can all be more prosperous if we just go along

the strong leader. and so in russia there were people after january six who were toasting champagne and saying the united states is limping with both feet. and so they are holding us up now, not as the model for democracy, but for the model of how democracy doesn't work. and since world war two, it has been the national security policy of the united states to try to promote around the world like, you know, the naito alliance and other things, because democracy leads to stability worldwide means there are fewer wars. it means we have more trade partners. it means are fewer refugee crises. and we're seeing all of those things coming to roost because of the fragility of democracy around the world. and so we have lost some of our moral authority to lead because of the attacks we are seeing through on our democracy. so i like that framing is a national security issue and to talk about the book, i think we need to start by terms you talk about and misinformation.

and do you want to distinguish for us? yeah and you know, maybe maybe people have different definitions these things but as i define them in the book disinformation is the deliberate of lies to deceive and manipulate people. that's disinformation, misinformation is kind of its unwitting cousin. so people may hear disinformation it to be true and spread it without realizing what they're saying is false i'll give you an example because all of us really can very easily fall prey to misinformation. i once did it myself. in fact, sometimes my kids tease me and refer to me as misinformed and what would you do without children? right to keep you? keep your humble know. but here's a story about myself as a purveyor of misinformation there was a time when i read online sign that the breaker all dreams patrick mahomes is it too soon to talk about him? i read online that patrick mahomes had said he would not

play another down for the city chiefs until they their name to a name that was not offensive to native americans. all right. that's pretty big news. and i thought that was a big and i retweeted that right away. i got to get that out because people rely on me. joyce, to tell them the breaking news. they can't read it elsewhere. they count on me or it's news i rely on. barb for, oh, i had that obligation to fire off as quickly as possible, which i did. and then a few hours later, i'm with my husband and my son. and i said, did you guys see that story? patrick mahomes can you believe it? and they said, no, no, i didn't see any story at all. what do you mean? why could you not see that? it's it's big, big news. and they said, now, are you sure it's true. and i said, well, it must be true because i read it on twitter. so i started thinking about it and thought, huh, i better see what the source of that was. so went back and i look through it like, oh, there it is and it's espn that's very legitimate and it says sports center. oh, so it was not genuine was

not espn's sports center. it was a fake with a deliberate misspell. so i immediately took down my own tweet, but it was just a great example i thought of how easy it is to be duped by disinformation, especially when it's something that, you know, maybe it gets you excited about it. raise more on feeling, logic, and it's easy to, you know, kind of just get sucked into it. yeah. so that makes sense. it's it's helpful. i think to have that as a baseline to understand the difference because not who's involved with the spread misinformation as opposed to disinformation is a malicious actor, correct. yeah absolutely. i think, you know, right now there are i think, two basic categories of people who are spreading falsehoods online or in the real world, those who fall for you know, there are people who believe that the election was stolen because they hear it again and again or they believe that covid don't work because they hear it again and again. you know, i think these are people, good faith who have been manipulated by, disinformation.

but i also think there are others who are the real i don't want to call them trade wars, but i think they're traitors to truth. and these are the people who know better, and yet they engage in disinformation anyway, because it is in their best financial interest or their political interest or their personal interest. i mean, tell me that, senator ted cruz or, senator josh hawley really believed that the election was stolen when they voted against certification on january. i mean, my gosh, they know better or tell that elise stefanik, when she to defendants have been charged and are jailed for their conduct on january six refers to them as hostages i mean they know better and. so this is the group that i think is so insidious and, is so harmful. they are who i refer to on attack from within you know this this photo image on the on the cover is supposed to be a right fist bursting through a map of

the united states because is the attack coming from within people who know better and yet are going with lies because they it to be in their political interests they are choosing tribe over truth. and i think that is what we do if we are going to be a country, you know, by the people, the people for the people we to agree to truth even when it doesn't our own particular agenda, you know, as lawyers we know that to have credibility we have to concede points from time to time and that's really and does that mean that you're going to concede that alabama is the better football team never choice because i would only concede truth rule baby. so so anyway i think there's a problem with those of us who are duped misinformation but a bigger problem with those who deliberately engage in disinformation. so talk to me about the thesis of the book.

i mean, everybody has not had a chance. and please feel to liberally applaud for barb throughout it. and i'll stop talking when do but let's not make this like the state of the union. you know how you got to applaud after every line. then half the room is like, no, i'm not applauding. not that, not me. nope. so what? we don't need to do that, right? thursday night's something to look forward. dare you go. week but talk to us about the central thesis of the book and the point you're trying to express. yeah. you know, i think there about two points, which is one, you know, propaganda been around forever for centuries. but what made it so challenging for us today technology because it is now possible to spread a lie at the press of a button and to reach millions of people and so it is really pervasive and the second is we are living in particular highly polarized times and. it is because people have learned that the way to gain political followers is to stir

up excitement, stir up emotion prey on fear, manipulate people to suggest that there are only two sides to any issue. and the other side is the demon. and so you can't possibly favor that side. so you must favor my and come over here and that are only, you know, two choices in the world. there's and there's us. and if they are such an untenable choice, then must side with us and ultimate this idea that there's no such thing as truth at all. that truth is for suckers. truth is for the naive and that what really matters in this world is getting what you can when you can everybody's corrupt anyway. and so if everybody's corrupt, you might as well choose the person whose values you share, a vision you share is going to be best for your own personal. did you feel like you were talking about the book 1984 when you were writing that many times, many times? in fact, i quote 1984 a little bit. i'm old to remember when 1984 was it the future, right?

some of it was our. i tell my law students that and they like on the floor like, no, really, no. come on. no, really. yeah i read it in high school and it was a book about the future, but. yes, right. i mean there are moments when i really feel like, is this something is this real? is this really happening? you know, you say you hear politicians say things like know up is down and down is up and you just can't believe that people buy into this and agree with it. you know, the idea that the fbi planted evidence mar a lago. but donald actually retained them because. he had the right to do that well, which is right. and this is a play out of the putin playbook, which is there are conflicting versions of the facts all the time. and it doesn't matter, because what matters is whose side you're on. and so someone could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose any voters, because it's about supporting the person. the identity and not ideas or issues and that is a really, i think, dangerous to be.

so what do we do about it. yeah i have some solutions that i propose the book. i won't go through all of them, but i think i could divide maybe into two broad categories. there. those that we can solve together with our government and then there are things that we can do ourselves, i think, to prevent and protect ourselves against disinformation. so, you know, at the governmental, there is a supreme court case you may have heard of called citizens united. you know, this one, this was a case, you know, citizens i've heard about it a time we heard about this when citizens united, a case about ten years ago that the supreme court decided that corporations, first amendment, free speech rights, corporations, organizations and labor, and that the first amendment does not permit any restriction on their spending in support of candidates for office

as long as they don't coordinate with the candidate themselves. so it has opened the doors. dark money in, campaign finance. you know, there are, you know, millions, millions of dollars that get funneled in and their political super pacs. and they might have like the red, white and blue grandmothers of america, when, in fact, it's russia or an individual a special interest person. and there's no way to know. so one solution would be, you know, we can't change that without, you know, a complete reversal by the supreme court. that's not going to happen. but we could require transparency in campaign finance laws. so let's just back the curtain and tell us disclosure is who is behind these super pacs, who making these donations? so i think that would be one way. i think we need do some more regulation on social media sorry, silicon valley. i know i know who butters bread out there. it's okay. not suggesting we go so far to repeal section 230 of the

communications decency act. i know you all know because you live here. the heart of it all, that is the statute passed in 1996. that said that social media platforms are immune from legal liability for the content that's posted on their platforms. you know, just provide the platforms and other people in and provide the content. and you know in 1996 that sounded pretty good. they sometimes refer to the words in that statute as the 26 words that created the internet because. it did foster innovation and people free to, you know, create these platforms. but it's here we are now, what, 28 years later? i can't i don't do math. i never do math in public. yeah. all right. so a long time ago and things changed, right? sometimes you read the if you the statute it talks about social media offers wonderful world to connect with others share. you know it sounds like a children's storybook but it's like you know raising baby

alligator in your bathtub. it's adorable when it's a baby. but then, you know, 28 years later, it has grown into a man eating predator. and we need rules for different times. i think so not suggesting we remove all of the immunity, but i do think there are things we could do that might be a little more subtle that would help reduce some of the disinformation. so for one, you may have read this facebook whistle blower named francis hogan, who testified before congress. and, you know, what she said is it's not so much the content it's the algorithms that are social media that, you know, push us toward content, to generate outrage. because if we're outraged, we're more likely to stay online longer. you know, i got a i got a real zinger for that guy. look at this person said, well, yeah, well, i got i'll tap you, i'll show you. i'll say something, you know, snarky and we'll it on the more we're the more eyeballs look at it, the more advertise are seen, the more money the platforms make and. so that is what is generating a

lot of the outrage that is online and. so maybe we could require disclosure of these algorithms so that if we're being manipulated at least we know that, you know, they say if the product is free, then you are the product and i think we are largely on social media, we the product the other way in which we are product is that they build these incredible portfolios on all of us. they know everything about us. you know, you ever you know, you go online and they suggest like it, looks like you would like to buy these new boots. and it looks like why you say, well, how do they know they know me so well and they do know us so well because know all of our preferences. every time you take one, those little surveys, they're banking it all. and so it allows them to micro target groups and you a message that is so tailored just you that they know it appeal to you so you know are you a left handed lgbt queue member who loves the san francisco 40 niners. well, here, let me let me send an ad to you and so again, i'm

not suggesting that they stop doing this but maybe just disclose how they're doing this so that we know we are being manipulated. so those are a few ideas for. the government side, which is of course all of us. but i also think there are we can do as individuals to help us build resilience against disinformation. one is media literacy. you know, in finland where they have been victimized by russian for decades, they have introduced media literacy into their schools and kids have learned how to newspapers with a skeptical eye and you know some tips for all you i'm sure you're smart proud you probably already all this but did you know that the headline often doesn't match the story you ever notice that i've noticed that the headlines you know the kind of clickbait i once had a chance to visit the newsroom of my local newspaper and they toured me around and. i saw like a big board, you know, like a screen they have at the airport where all the departures of the arrivals. but this one had the top ten stories of the day.

and how many clicks had been generated by that? and the top of the list were all about pets, celebrity is the weather, right? that's what we click. that's you know, we really we really are the country we deserve, aren't we? that's what we're clicking on. and you're way down here is maybe like the state budget is probably the most important story there, but the message being sent to the reporters is you know, generate clicks, write stories that and and the headlines are also designed to generate clicks. so when read a headline of course before you pass it on and say, patrick mahomes will not play another down until he they change their name, you know, you should actually story and see what says it might say. patrick mahomes will play another down until. chiefs say their name is something mahomes not say today, right. so you might want to actually read the story as i learn. it might be a good idea to check for a second source if this, you know, big story really happened. chances are more than espn sports center would running it

probably find it elsewhere. so that's a good tip as well. if there a data, a study or something really important to look at the samples, right. was it 3 million in the sample size or was three? that could make a difference. the difference between correlation causation, you know, you might read a study that says something like that, studies say that children who eat dinner with their parents are more likely to graduate from high school. and so you say, oh, there it is, causation. so as long as we have dinner with our kids every night, they're they're going graduate from high school. but of course, that's not the only factor. right? they have a roof over their head. they probably have if they're having dinner with their parents they also have, you know, a stable family life. they have food security. so they have a lot of other good factors going on in their lives that is probably contributing to these good outcomes. being a skeptical reader is really important to avoid falling for disinformation. but i also think one more thing we can do, which is that we make

sure that we are choosing truth over tribe. it's very tempting, i think, to always want to root for your side and to always say, you know, that's that's not true because goes against my interest. i mean, today we had this decision from the supreme court about the 14th amendment. i know a lot of people are saying, oh, the court's in the bag. donald trump and, you know, he should have been removed from ballot. i'm not so sure. i think it's actually a reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment. and i that there are a lot of people who are so upset about trump and want with every fiber of their being to see him removed that ballot and never hold office again. that they want a certain and therefore they will believe that a outcome is the only right outcome. and i think that, you know, as we say, sometimes you have to concede points when you're a if going to be credible, if you're going to, you know, follow the

truth and make that, you know, your your purpose, then i think you have to concede points and it's incumbent on all of us to responsible with the truth to not engage in snark online to not you duncan people just because you can wait. are you directing this at me? well, only a little, yeah. no, it joyce engages in civil discourse. if of you are not subscribed to her. substack you should. it's fantastic. you. and one of the things i love about joyce is in the same way she tries to be very measured she tries to explain she about when if there's something outrageous she says it's outrageous if it's not if it's something over which reasonable minds could disagree, you know, she'll say that, too. and so i think that's really important that we not pile on and tear down our institutions when don't favor our desired outcome, you know? do you think like me you've got four kids and you teach at the graduate level, the law school

level, do you think that the younger generation is better at siphoning out disinformation and misinformation? do is there cause for optimism? i do. i think they are very, very savvy. one reason that i have optimism, joyce and i cite this in the book is you wrote about in substack which was there was a study of people who watched regular watchers of fox news when, they unplugged from fox news and media from other sources and then took the survey at the end of that period, they had changed their opinions on things. and so it does demonstrate that people can have flexible minds if. they are exposed to other sources of information. so i think that's a really important thing to is make sure we get out of our echo chambers and to news from read news from lots different sources. but young people give great hope. these young people are idealistic, they are disturbed by some of the things they're seeing in the world, but they are highly motivated and they want to make the world a better place. and i get to spend every day with these people and i will tell you, it gives me hope.

you know? me too. i mean, really does. i agree with that 100%. i am in an experience you had week online on twitter when you yourself became sort the victim of disinformation. barb had made what thought was an absolutely accurate assessment of a point of law, and she made it online was then just attacked from all sides. do you want to talk about it and talk about how can all handle those situations, which i think increasingly happened to, all of us, either in daily life or online. sure. but joyce, don't you mean to say i was attacked from within? got to get the product placement there as much as possible. thank you. oh. yeah. yeah. and we talked about this. so you know, there's this immunity issue that has now gone up to the supreme court and the

supreme court will be deciding whether donald trump is immune from prosecution in the federal interference case and the race on a little bit as to whether they will decide the case quickly enough so that it can come to before the election and point i made was a simple one and an accurate one, which is remember that the right to a speedy trial belongs not just to the defendant, but also to the public. and that is based on case law. the sixth amendment, federal statute, lots things. and i got bombarded with all kinds of things. say, you liar, it's not true. you call yourself a law professor. you say you were a prosecutor. and it really seems very coordinated. it went on and on and on. so i decided to write a little thread thinking like, oh, you know, these people are just miseducated. they they just don't understand. i'll allow me to a might know. so i a very earnest little thread and said, you know it was earned as so it was not snarky at all it was that is that me and i laid out you know here's this case parker wingo and all

of the reasons right it would if it were not the case, would allow the defendant to manipulate the system delay can be to the defendants advance tej a victim's rights are not vindicated by delay the person could commit other crimes while they're waiting evidence can go stale witnesses. memories can fade like there are a lot of reasons. and so the supreme court has held in a case called burke versus wade go that the right to a speedy trial belongs not only to the defendant but also to the public. so, you know, ten little tweets in my thread and. there you go. you're welcome. world have now educated you. and do you know all the same people came back and just said the you liar you call yourself a prosecutor your lawyer likes it so there are some of those don't want to be educated. my favorite was the guy who said i don't want to have a right to a speedy trial. do you remember? did you see that? some guy was like, i'm a member of the public. i don't get it. yeah, he's way off the front for the whole for the whole of us. all. i mean, it never to amaze,

right? so something that we have not talked about yet we've talked about barb's book a lot. we talked about it on our hash tag sisters in law. we've about it on and off during the writing thank you but i teach in the area of democratic institutions i know you've talked about the impact of disinformation on the rule of law in democrat institutions. and i'm interested in your thoughts that regard. yes. so i believe that disinformation is harming our democracy. you know, i talked the national security aspect, but in terms of just voting rights and the for all of us to cast a ballot after the 2020 election, which was, you know, trump's own cybersecurity said the most and safest in history is 61 out of 62 lawsuits rule against donald. the sole victory was a procedural issue unrelated to the outcome of the election. every audit concluded that joe

biden won that and yet we see in several states new laws passed to make it harder to cheat, to commit fraud. and so i believe that fraud is being used a pretext to make it harder for people to vote. brian kemp, the governor, georgia, who defended that election and was a leader defending that election against donald trump's efforts to overturn the results. nonetheless, signed this law, making it harder to vote in georgia and that's to prevent fraud. now, amy another others, it's a pretext. and the reason it's so problematic is it has a impact on people of students, people who are of lower socioeconomic wealth because it is more difficult for them to get to the polls, less early voting, more voting only on election day, less ballot. you know, places to deposit your ballots longer lines in polling

places and even forbidding people to provide food or water while people are waiting in long lines to vote. i mean, what what is that all about? you know, because they want to encourage them to go home. don't wait. don't cast your vote. so i think that, you know, in all the gerrymandering that we see, you know, designed to create these crazy shaped voting districts, to try to squeeze out candidates and, you know, favor certain groups over other groups, all of that is really harmful to democracy in we had a great program called voters, not politicians the idea is voters should choose their candidates, not politicians. and so a law was passed to create independent commission to decide the boundaries are and it's up of a group of democrats a group of republicans and a group of independents. and they redrew all of the congressional and state legislative. and after they did that, the next election for the first time in 40 years, the state of michigan, a democratic house and

senate and as a result have seen all kinds of new laws passed. so i think when we use accurate information, we allow voters to take back their power and when we use disinformation sation, you know, we need these laws there's voter fraud and so we have to have these laws to it harder for people to cheat. well, if nobody's really cheating anyway, what's the real reason we're it? and i think it is to suppress votes from people. you know, if you can't win a vote through hearts and minds, you can win a vote by suppressing the vote of your opponent. are you worried about the effect disinformation will have on this election? i am. and i don't know that it'll be what we've seen in the past, although it be but i do worry about some of these scams designed to fool voters about some of these laws. so you know there are new laws in a lot of states about voting. so it might be difficult people to know those things and it may make them more susceptible falsehoods. so, you know, for example, you

may have read that in new during their primary there were air generated robo calls with a voice that sounded just like joe biden, you know talking malarkey and everything saying you should stay home, don't vote the new hampshire primary. and so people these robo calls and they sounded pretty good. they sounded real. in fact, they were generated by artificial intelligence and so i worry that we're going to see more and more of that, you know, you can imagine a video of someone online that looks incredibly valuable, either giving false information about voting or, saying something awful, you know, looking joe biden or someone else saying something incredibly offensive that people believe to be true. i worry about that. in the last election, there were cases, in fact, there was a conviction for men who generated a texting scheme where they targeted african-american communities and out text messages saying, did you know you can vote by text? it will be do make it

convenient. no need to leave your own home. just text if you want to vote for this candidate. texas number two, vote for the other candidate. vote this number and many, many people wasted their by sending in a text to that. so i about those kinds of things and i also worry about you know, we had the violence that we saw on january sixth i sure this time on january six when there's a certification there will be you know reinforce, security at the capitol like you've never seen before so that it will be impossible breach that building. but what i worry about, we have such decentralized voting around the country. you know what? if people into those voting places or the counting and attack their so i don't know that people will have the resources to be able to defend those sites from people who want to come in and create chaos. you know, i have a related since that was the deepest, darkest most depressing answer i think you've given night. yeah let's so i'm going to keep going did you see the san francisco 49 shirt and but ironically, as i was about to ask you this question, i got one

from the audience that's very similar. i'm going to read this question. we're about to the point where we can shift questions anyhow and ask you mine as well. the audience question is, barb, you started out as a journalist. what can what can journalists do to fight disempower? oh, it's so bad, too, they concluded also go blue. oh eric kaplan i can't believe. those words came out of my mouth. you'll to wash your mouth out with soap later. and my gloss on the question. this though, do you think that the demise of small newspapers now i mean, in alabama we no longer have a daily is that contributing to the problem. yeah such an interesting question. so think you know there are some outlets that certainly contribute to this problem fox news paid 700 some million dollar settlement for deliberately airing disinformation about a stolen election. you know that lawsuit revealed a

lot of the things that was going on behind scenes when dominion voting system sued them and they paid that big settlement the discovery from that case you know the text, the emails, the internal memos showed that on election night, they accurately reported that arizona had gone for joe biden. they started losing because they were hearing things they didn't want to hear. so they were changing the channel and they weren't watching. and so there was a little bit of a panic, fox news, and they said, we've got to get these these viewers back. so how can we do it? oh, well, here's a way. we'll let all people on to start talking about how votes were flipped with these dominion voting machines, trump to biden. and so and people started coming back and started watching again. and then when they were deposed, people like sean hannity and rupert murdoch said, oh, yeah, i believe it for a minute. i knew that wasn't true. and so, i mean, shame on them. they're not, you know, acting in good faith or acting in bad faith. you would think that they would learned their lesson when they did pay $700 million. but i was watching. i try to watch just now. and then i was watching a week later. i don't last long. i, i was watching about a week

later and there was a scroll, the bottom of the screen, it was depicting joe biden giving a speech and it said, want to be dictator in dites political rival donald trump. i mean, my gosh, come on. want to be so they clearly have not lost a learn their lesson but there are also, i think other media outlets of good faith who i think have a quite figured out yet how you cover donald trump. i think that many journalists were brought up in an era where you present both sides of a story as if there are two sides to someone who comes in and lies through his teeth. but you know i think that presumes, james, that you've got candidates who are both acting from a place of good faith and simply have well-intentioned disagreement about policy issues. you know, i think should do x about immigration. i think we should do y about immigration. let's let's hash out and see which ideas the people prefer. you know, that's the old fashioned of doing things. but i think that you know, donald trump is so willing to

come and just lie and say things that are there was that town hall meeting that cnn did and like they just couldn't keep up with the firehose of lies. you they were trying to correct him real time and he was just, you know, spewing lie after lie. frankly, i think that the one right after the verdict, the carol verdict, where he came out and defamed again. yep, yeah, yep, yep. so i think it's very difficult. so i think they're a little bit torn. you know, i think in 2016 when the press criticized for giving donald trump so much airtime, you know, free media. but now i think a lot of times they not airing his rallies at all because they don't want to give him the airtime when he's spewing. but then i that people won't see just how awful it is. so i don't know what the right answer there. but it is challenging because think that oftentimes when the media simply reporting that someone's said something that is false you know here's one that hits close to this audience.

i'm sure that awful hammer attack on paul pelosi, nancy pelosi's husband when donald trump jr said awful about you know speculating as to the the real reason behind it and that you know he wrote he said all this awful stuff and media outlets report that which had no basis in fact whatsoever ever. and so when you report that you know, the casual reader might miss the nuance that this is a that donald trump jr is spewing and instead focus only on the substance of the statement and that's what sticks with them. so i don't know how you report it because. you know, i guess it's newsworthy that people are saying awful things. but i worry that you are just amplifying the awful thing that they're saying when it has truth whatsoever. so on a go ahead. oh, and didn't get to the small media. yeah. do you want to talk about that. talk a little bit about small media and death of it. yeah, i think this is a real problem and i agree with you in. you know, my hometown of ann arbor, you know, we used to have

small dailies and you know all the communities used to have small dailies and. i think because of the way everything gets consolidated these days, you know, everything merges everything is bigger and gets gobbled up because, you know, larger organizations have those efficiencies, economies of scale. and so it makes it more difficult for smaller outlets to compete that i also think, you know, there are all these hedge out there that want to any hedge fund people. no offense to hedge fund you know who to gobble up and squeeze out every ounce of profit and then sell them off, you know, for parts we're seeing that in health and we're seeing that in journalism like know sinclair media, you know like they get these shared scripts that every news outlet is supposed say across the country that have, you know, a particular agenda. so i think it's really problematic because when you have local media, i that is a way to bring people together. and i think we spend so much time now working from home now, you know, to real people, you

know, covered didn't help. we are all hunkered down our homes and it caused us to live in our echo chambers where we don't really talk and see, you know, real people anymore. we only talk with our small groups who engage in groupthink and can be really awful. and i think when we have these small publications and we're reading about issues. it builds, you know, we talk about maybe the local football team won the championship or the kid won the prize in the science fair or, you know, something local that's going on that can be a point of pride or local issues, local challenges. i remember there was one where a developer was going to buy a small local community municipal golf course. and, you know, the community came together, defeated it, and saved the golf course. know, like this stuff doesn't happen anymore because it used to be time we said all politics was local and i feel like now all politics is national. all the media we talk about, it's all what's happening in washington and we're not talking as much about what's happening

in our own. and i think that has caused to lose some of that sense of community that. i think we need to able to see each other and work across difference. so related question, the audience, which i think is very illumined writing on this point, they start by saying thank you for coming to san francisco, for writing your book. well, i agree. here's the question. do you have or know of a template respond to mainstream media when they repeat disinformation, misinformation, which is really interesting question. yeah, i really don't have template that's for sure. and it is a problem i think you know the mainstream i'm sure you know looking at their obligation at you know i, i was a journalist for about 10 minutes between college and law school. i worked for a great newspaper in rochester, new york. and when i was in college, i worked for our campus newspaper, which is one of the greats, the michigan daily in michigan, daily life is in there.

and. all right, i knew that cheap trick. i knew they were here. you got a lot. i mean, there's a lot of michigan going on in here for california. yeah my my degree may say one thing but i majored in the michigan daily that far too much time there and we were that if we wrote just one more editorial there would be peace. the middle east i'm a little college newspaper, but think you know, people in journalism have earnest conversations about what is our how do we report this. we have an obligation to our, you know, readers, viewers, listeners to share information. but then there is also, you know, some who have this profit motive. i can remember a time when i was, you know, doing work and i wrote a headline that was very straightforward and a more senior editor came and said, oh, come on, you can probably write something more sexy than that. like sexy. it's about, you know municipal bonds or something like. and so there is pressure to, you know, write sells and to now i'm sure it's even worse generate

clicks and. so i think that sometimes even just republish showing the false statements that somebody made can be tempting because it means people are going to click on that look what what did donald jr say that was so outrageous. i'll click i'll see what that was. and i think that our news media really needs to have a reckoning. i mean we all need to have a national about truth, right? what does it mean to be committed to truth? and i think the news media needs to really think about that when. we air these statements of disinformation. are we simply giving more oxygen to them in them or, you know, should put a content warning contained lies and then write it so maybe that's the template. so next audience question. this is a great one. i've been a social studies teacher for decades. oh, thank love, love, teachers. and i've never found it so

difficult as it is now. i find this too. in law school there's a cynicism about our democratic ideals that's hard to manage. how can we teach young people to hold these ideals? oh, such a great question. i and i think they are young young people. if young people are cynical, that really makes me sad. i'd say our law students, i think, are very idealistic because they see this world and they don't accept and they want to change it. so i guess to extent you can motivate them that they have the power to change. there's a wonderful book by jon meacham, the soul of america. and if haven't read this book, this is a good book to give you hope. it talks about, you know, some of the times in our nation's when we have been in some dire. right. the civil war. my gosh think about that you know we were over. what did nikki haley say? states rights. a civil war over slavery that you know those some dire times and we came through it we were

to come through it two world wars the great depression, you know, jim crow eras, all kinds of things. and so i you know, i say that not think like so it will automatically take of itself. there, see it it happens. it happened because people worked to make it happen. and so, you know, we fought fascism in europe through in world war two and soldiers died that at normandy. you know service members i had a chance visit normandy a saw that unbeliever some american is anybody been there and seen that oh my gosh isn't that the most powerful thing you've ever seen? 9000 americans are buried there who died on d-day to defend democracy. and yet, you know, we can't bother to tell the truth about it. but i think if we can motivate our young people that you have power. and so maybe in social studies, you know, talking these moments in history and how young people were the ones on the front lines who saved. and you can, too. and you know, give them that motivation that it's there, just

need truth and, you know the truth is something that can be a very powerful weapon against all of this disinformation. there's another great book also cited in my book by doris kearns goodwin called leadership in tumultuous times. another great book talks about the presidential administration of four presidents and the one in particular, i'm thinking of is theodore roosevelt. and she wrote that his presidents he came in a time with some parallels to our current. there was a lot of change, turmoil in the world, which is a time of fear and a time when people retreat and are willing choose a leader who is strong and says, i will fix it for you, you know, don't worry, am i'm the superman and i'm going to fix all your problems. and he was a very different kind of leader. and what doris kearns goodwin is, you know, during those times you know, the industrial revolution was leaving certain jobs obsolete. we were moving from agrarian cultures into cities we had a new wave refugee or of immigrants coming from europe we had now that could report really

stories from all over the world and we had all you know big trusts big companies that were growing out of out of proportion. and he that moment with optimism and excitement about potential for america like look at all the great stuff we can do and we're going to fix it we have the power to do this we can bust up those trusts we can put in child labor laws, make sure kids are taken care of and he led those efforts with an enthusiasm and he used his bully pulpit to bring people along. and so instead at this, you know, at least in 2016, we chose a president who had just the opposite. right. wanted to focus on american carnage and how awful things were and point to scapegoats to talk about how bad things were we need. a visionary leader who says we can solve our problems. and so for those kids in social studies classes, you have the power you know to be the change in the world that we want to see and so maybe motivate them to be the people who will pull us out

of this down downward turn. barb and i were in seattle night where she was giving a talk like this and at the end when it was over and she signing books which she'll be doing tonight. by the way, if you've got a book, she'll sign for you a really nice guy walked up to me and he said, would ask barbara mcquade if she would run for office. she would be a great politician. well, it's that's very nice to hear, but i think the answer is no, because i'm just too selfish. i am very grateful for people who are public officials. i have great regard. you know, in my state we are fortunate to have some really incredible women who i know, governor whitmer, secretary, state, jocelyn benson, who is amazing, is doing such a great job. are our attorney general dana nessel all our senator debbie stabenow. we've got some really amazing

public servants in michigan, but i see how much they sacrifice and how hard they work. and i admire them and i appreciate them and i tell them that every time i see them. but you know, i think i like my creature comforts too much and i'm not willing to give up my privacy. also we mentioned we have four children and husbands that we love and they're not well. sometimes right? sometimes all the time. all the time. and you know, i'm not to, you know, give up their privacy either. okay. well, maybe it's future. general mcquaid. you know, one of our friends, heidi hizbollah, who's a reporter for politico, many of you may read her, had an issue that i we talked about it a little, but not much this week. and it really to this whole notion of how do we as a community deal with disinformation. sean, heidi does some investigative she writes about christian nationalism and the way it's in with the trump campaign, the effort to enforce christian nationalism among the rest of the country.

she writes this story. and suddenly she attacked by dissent formation. she's attacked on social. she's even attacked in her personal life. what do we, as citizens do to support the press? the press that's trying to shed truth light on these situations and find themselves victimized by these people? do you think we can respond as communities yeah. you know, women journalists have it a especially hard. they get hit with, all kinds of things. and i think, you know, of us don't think about that. you know, people rate things public officials, you know, in my own state, governor whitmer was the the subject a plot to kidnap her and you with a citizen's arrest and put her trial. her husband was a dentist, had to shut down his practice eight years earlier than he was planning to retire because they would get death threats every day. and, you know, stand outside was, you know, patients coming in and journalists to get all kinds of garbage that people just don't.

i mean, we get some of it, not much but we get, you know, nasty grams on email and social media and stuff. and it's really i think that all of us have as a community, you know, it's useful maybe to expose some of that. and i think maybe we don't expose. enough of it. i know some do. steve vladeck is very good about this. he's a professor at the university of texas law school, and he writes all the he's great. he'll say, my fans, they write and then he'll like, include the most awful ever that someone has written to him. but think maybe that it's shaming them like at what people are saying. and i do believe in the power of advocacy of what ordinary people, you know, one one thing that i have seen in my lifetime is like mothers against drunk driving, how incredibly powerful that has been. i mean, there was a time, you know, in my early where people just said, oh, drunk drivers, what are you going to do? right. you know, they have a few too, and they get behind the wheel. and what are you going to do and mothers against drunk driving i mean really changed the social of that that it is no longer acceptable to do that is it is

shamed and i wonder if we couldn't do something similar with this kind you know trolling online of people who are just, you know, writing the truth or, you know, a state, you know, to expose what people saying and doing to them in an effort to call that out. and then the rest of us, you know, most people are people good faith you know we're saying that's just not acceptable in a civil society. i that citizens for journalism. will you have fan mail of the good kind not oh that's too kind and more good on your screen out any of the bad kinds tonight. oh no i'm absolutely going to ask my next do you think i will increase disinformation and it's dangerous so but i also think that i might be the solution to the problems. so right now, you know, there's like funny ones pope in a puffy coat.

that's funny. i saw that and i see that the pope in the puffy coat, that was funny. but they're also also, i think, to be things like these robocalls or these images of donald trump, you know, with other people that, well, that look really good, that people are to fall for. and so i think it be very difficult. i do know that. there's a researcher at the university of michigan. go blue, who is doing research on a.i. that can a.i. isn't this great? so, for example, he has, like all of joe biden's speeches ever through, you know, trained on trained his eye on joe biden's speeches so that it can now detect fake joe biden speeches. oh, nice. right. so so if are a.i. programs that can tell that, you know, this image is not genuine. it was generated through machine learning that could be really useful thing. right. just to flag it so that when you see something it just says this was generated with machine learning or maybe, you know, we could require social media

platforms to have disclaimers that say this image was generated with artificial intelligence. right. so it's cute. it's adorable we can see donald trump and his three fingered friends, but we'll know that it was manufactured and genuine. you know, did you see the trump pictures where they had trump crowds of black people who were his best, that are our sister kimberly atkins store, who we do our podcast with shout out for kim. she out that on one of the pictures trump was the black off there was like a place where his thumb had gone and person who was black. their skin was underneath. trump said, oh, weird, which points how strange i can be right. and the problem with it, and the detection issues with it and related question from the audience are there corners of the internet slash media that are not currently by misinformation and, disinformation? and is there anything we learn? i think they're asking, can we

learn from its absence about how to be more protective. yeah from the stuff that comes from i yeah i don't know you it's interesting if you look twitter there are times when x that there's a lot of nastiness that exists there. i'll go over two threads. if you've been your own i do i spend a little time there and it's it's much nicer but i think it might just be because it's newer that like the nasty people haven't found it. yeah, i do think that there something about us human nature that is willing to hide the anonymity online and say really nasty things. you know, whenever you see reader online, it's amazing. quickly, people go from talking about an issue to insulting each other or i'm reminded of you remember there was a contest in england to name a boat and the winner was boaty mcboatface. so you remember this? what is wrong with us? i think it's hilarious, but

like, who are we that like and that was the winner, right? i mean, we're just like, we're so immature or we're such children. and i think that that comes through so human nature, it be a little bit i think one of the solutions that i would like to see there may be some first amendment challenges with this, but is to remove anonymity because yeah, there you know, robert mueller's report, something i teach to my national security students and not so much the stuff about whether there was coordinated with the trump campaign. there was, by the way meeting in trump tower, sharing polling data and coordinating of messaging with wikileaks. but i digress. i would have found a conspiracy there. joyce absolutely. i would have prosecuted. but i think we wrote about excellently. but the part that i find super interesting is that one of the things robert mueller discovered was that there were all these social media accounts online with anonymous that looked like

american activists that generated lots and lots of followers. you know there was one with a name called black activists that looked like a black political activist who said all kinds of very normal all political things that would be very to most, you know, mainstream black voters. and for many months, very patiently accumulating followers, saying there was one called united muslims of america. there was a mineworkers one tennessee gop heart of texas. they were all just patiently gathering followers, you know, lots and lots of followers and just as the election approached, saying, like from black activists, what has hillary clinton ever done for black? nothing. we should stay home, should not vote. we should not vote for anybody. her a message you can't take the black for granted. and so, you know, we'll never know what effect that had. but because of those anonymous accounts that people assumed these were real americans in a group that they identify with if we had to verify our own

identities, i think it prevent some of that deception. but i also think we would just behave better, you know, like when you have to actually face somebody with, your own name, i think it makes a little less likely to engage in the snark right. i mean, i'll just confess for myself like i'm very polite if i'm standing in line at the bank or restaurant, but i'm just an animal behind the wheel. you know how people off if that line lane closed ahead, i'm like, to hell with it. i'm going to go into that lane. i'm going to in at the last minute, then wave because i'm anonymous and i never have to actually face them. i'm just in a car and faceless and i know that. so i think if you have to reveal your own identity, then will be a much nicer person and we'll have much more civil discourse. you know, it makes so sense. and you're the person who's been cutting me off and we oh yeah, i saw that roll tide bumper sticker. so yeah. so we've got time for a few more questions. let's keep going.

if you mentioned or sorry i'm reading it wrong, you the importance of alternate sources of information does, the rise of psychologically driven engage tick tock style threaten in your view. oh, that's so. i am not on tic tac because. i still believe that it's like owned and controlled, you know, the chinese government and they're going to like steal all my data or something. but my kids are. and every once in a while i see them and. they are just addicted to these videos. i'll say, what are you looking at? and then i'll start watching. and they're hilarious. you know, dog videos or something. and then i start watching. this is like a true story. my husband, one of our chickens, we raise chickens and this chicken, one day i'm outside drinking coffee and. the chicken is on my husband's lap. and he my the big kids scrolling through tiktok and the chicken sort of sticks his head. and i see bob his phone and hold it over so the chicken watch tick tock so even the chicken is addictive it's it is true and then i took a video of it and i put it on tick tock. wow, that's really better.

but i mean, apparently it is very addictive. yeah, i can see that. and i think it's designed to be that way, you know, just like the francis hogan testimony where she said, you know, it is design to keep you on. she talked about the effects on young people. and, you know, i see it in my own kids are on their for just hours scrolling along so i don't know how that contributes to disinformation. certainly if people are creating and putting them in the feed, you know, there are algorithms that feed them what they like. so whatever your chickens seem to like, you know fellow chickens seem to be going. so i know enough about it to be able to say, i think it's a super interesting issue. this is, i think, a tough and i'm going to ask you anyhow, interestingly it's it's flagged with this note up top please come to orange county, california as a los angeles native orange county needs barbara mcquade. am i right.

how do you manage mental health knowing the things do about the state of the u.s. and the country? mm hmm. i go running beautiful cities, and i drink a lot of coffee and, chocolate. how do i manage my mental health? you know, i think i'm trying to talk to real people is i think, so important, so, you know, i have a wonderful family. i spend timing time with my husband, spend time with my kids, spend time with friends who lift your spirit. you know, joyce and i and melinda and some friends been able to spend some time together this weekend and having laughs and support each other and, you know, sharing compliments and sharing meals, all of that. but i think engaging real people is really important. i know some of us are more introverted than others, so other people find wellness in other ways, right? reading quietly, listening music, walking, being nature is a big thing. i went to a summer camp. camp michigan? yeah. anybody go to canada and out

there, it's a great thing. and i did something. it's it comes, i think from they called it like a fort forest bathing the san francisco people are like oh yeah we do that all the time. you know, just walking in nature and drinking it in is so good for the soul. but i think, you know, talking to other people who care about democracy, like, you know, seeing of you here makes me feel really good that you about information you care accurate information. you're engaged in issues that you're going to vote and you're going to cast an informed like that. that makes me feel really good. so i think spending time with people who lift you up is the greatest way to care of your mental health. how about i think? those are great ideas. i agree with. all of those i would add to that register to make sure the people around you get registered have a plan and go vote. i guess last question, because

we're about there. and on a serious note though, barb, i mean, it's a great book. i love you i enjoy being with you. you're a funny person have crappy taste in football teams. but other than that, i mean, it's a great book. what is it that hope people will take with them tonight? other than the book themselves? multiple copies. yeah, i hope people take on this idea we choose truth over tribe we cannot be a of self-governance unless we rely on facts that mean sometimes facts are going to cut against position. and we need to concede that it means we cannot insist on political purity. it means sometimes we need to compromise. but if we want to be able to advance our society and together for the benefit of all of the people, then we need to make truth our national purpose and. all right, are we. that'stonight we have caesar,

guatemala, garcia hernandez, who is the authorim