Susan Crawford: So one of the great things the Berkman Center does— And by the way the Berkman Center is not the law school. The Berkman Center is an over­ar­ch­ing cen­ter for all of Harvard University, with direc­tors from many dif­fer­ent parts of the uni­ver­si­ty. So it isn’t just lawyers. And one of the excit­ing things the Berkman Center does is try to bring togeth­er com­mu­ni­ties that are pret­ty dis­parate. They have their own ways of talk­ing, their own inter­nal dic­tio­nar­ies, their own sense of what’s valid and what’s not valid. Those com­mu­ni­ties include cir­cles of lawyers but also tech­nol­o­gists who have their own ways of look­ing at the world. Journalists, who have their own ways of think­ing about truth and ascer­tain­ment. Sociologists. What oth­er ‑ists can we name? There are all these dif­fer­ent cir­cles that inter­sect in Boston, frankly. And inter­sect at the Berkman Center.

And this con­fer­ence is an attempt to bring togeth­er a bunch of those cir­cles. The gaps between them are huge. The gap between the jour­nal­is­tic priest­hood and the way it looks at its role in the world and a techie who says, Well, we can just fix that with a plat­form,” is enor­mous. The gap between an urban plan­ner and a lawyer who wor­ries only about lia­bil­i­ty is enor­mous. But yet human beings are resilient and cheer­ful, and we keep try­ing to fill these gaps.

This con­fer­ence is focus­ing on gaps in an enor­mous and inter­est­ing area, which is truthi­ness. What’s pro­pa­gan­da? What’s right? And here to kick off this next sec­tion of the dis­cus­sion, we’re very for­tu­nate to have Emily Bell, who was the leader, the brain, the ener­gy behind the Guardian’s trans­for­ma­tion into the lead­ing media orga­ni­za­tion, news­pa­per, these days in the open Internet. It’s real­ly The Guardian and it’s real­ly Emily who made it happen. 

So, Emily is now at the at the Tow Center, lead­ing it at Columbia University, rev­o­lu­tion­iz­ing with­in the jour­nal­ism school the train­ing of jour­nal­ists to under­stand the dig­i­tal age and to be part of it. So she’s going to begin us here as we begin to con­sid­er what the role of media orga­ni­za­tions is in address­ing the gaps that we just iden­ti­fied in our first sec­tion. So Emily take it away.

Emily Bell: Thanks very much indeed, Susan. I feel like I should have fact-checked that intro. Because I’m still real­ly a jour­nal­ist, not an aca­d­e­m­ic. I quite like the sound of it so I’m going to let it stand.

Just kind of a quick sur­vey. How many peo­ple here have actu­al­ly worked as reporters in news­rooms at some point?

Susan Crawford: Quite a few.

Bell: Okay. That makes me slight­ly ner­vous because obvi­ous­ly I was hop­ing that it would be almost none of you so that I could say any­thing I like. 

So I’m going to start off just by show­ing you what the the state of the art is in terms of open jour­nal­ism right now. So please watch carefully.

This is very messy because you all just applaud­ed an adver­tise­ment. I showed this to a col­league at Columbia who said, Wow, that’s so cool. I want to be their friends.” And I said that this is the whole point, you know. It’s not real­ly like that.

That’s an extreme­ly expen­sive artic­u­la­tion of the open strat­e­gy that I’d like to claim respon­si­bil­i­ty for imple­ment­ing. Actually it was some­body in the tech­nol­o­gy depart­ment who was respon­si­ble for imple­ment­ing it in about 1999. It was just that the orga­ni­za­tion did­n’t real­ly real­ize that. And they imple­ment­ed it by putting up an unmod­er­at­ed talk thread on the nation­al news site.

And the rea­son that that’s rel­e­vant is because I’m going to talk to you just a lit­tle bit about why debate this morn­ing is so dif­fi­cult for jour­nal­ists and why I think it’s so dif­fi­cult for jour­nal­ism. So I’m not real­ly going to talk about the future. I’m going to talk a lit­tle bit about the past.

So when The Guardian start­ed an unmod­er­at­ed talk thread in 1999, it was most­ly con­trolled by peo­ple who were inter­est­ed in ask­ing ques­tions like What is your favorite stick insect?” Which I had no idea there were so many stick insects. 

The rea­son it was insti­tu­tion­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant was because up until that point the vast major­i­ty of every­thing The Guardian spent, and indeed every major orga­ni­za­tion spent, was on the oppo­site. It was on mak­ing sure that every sin­gle word or image that appeared in the pub­lic domain had been rig­or­ous­ly report­ed, checked, double-checked, subbed, triple-checked, put on a paper, lawyered, checked, and then released. 

So this is very very dif­fi­cult for jour­nal­ists. Because all of our invest­ment up until maybe even now, actu­al­ly, has gone into bar­ri­ers around what we con­sid­er to be facts and our truth. Now, I’ll back this up by say­ing… Or rather I’ll enter a caveat here, which is most jour­nal­ists like most doc­tors go to work intend­ing to do good. And indeed like most politi­cians, again, we’re back to the sort of not many Machiavellis in journalism. 

There are some peo­ple who pos­si­bly are more inter­est­ed in mon­ey. Who are moti­vat­ed by get­ting onto TV. Might moti­vate by all sort of things, but most jour­nal­ists when they go to work actu­al­ly want to do good. And the sys­tems which had allowed them to do good in the past were all about pro­tec­tion. Protection of the words or the images that you put into the public. 

And if you go to any news­room now, the big exis­ten­tial cri­sis is about we can only afford three peo­ple not sev­en to look at the copy twice. We can’t go through the fil­ters that we could go through before. There was a very inter­est­ing debate a cou­ple weeks ago from broad­cast­ers about don’t break news on Twitter. Make sure it goes through the news­desk first. 

So this idea of con­trol is so baked into the jour­nal­is­tic psy­chol­o­gy that actu­al­ly this artic­u­la­tion, done in a highly-controlled envi­ron­ment with an adver­tis­ing agency, is one which even though it’s not new to the open Web is still very very very new to jour­nal­ism. And what we don’t have at the moment is any­thing like a bal­anc­ing invest­ment in the kinds of things which allow us to par­tic­i­pate in the crowd. 

And I have to say that I’m a jour­nal­ist but I’m also an advo­cate, you know. This is part of what I worked on at The Guardian. This is some­thing that I very very strong­ly believe will make jour­nal­ism sus­tain­able. In oth­er words allow­ing peo­ple to inter­act with your con­tent to share it, to pass it around, to anno­tate it, to com­ment on it. And to have sys­tems that actu­al­ly work in favor. So when we’re actu­al­ly look­ing at this as a prob­lem which involves jour­nal­ists, it’s as well to think about that invest­ment gap, because that’s where it real­ly all starts.

And if you think about as well the fact that how many peo­ple here as jour­nal­ists work con­sis­tent­ly with new tools that add fact-checking abil­i­ties to their own work, it’s prob­a­bly very low. There’s still a low recog­ni­tion or accep­tance that there are tech­nolo­gies which sit out­side your own orga­ni­za­tion that can pro­vide you with a high­er qual­i­ty of work. Again, this is a sort of psy­cho­log­i­cal attack on what many jour­nal­ists have thought has been their key role. Many edi­tors have thought well, you know, We know best. Our sys­tems work best. Our jour­nal­ists are best. And any­thing which chal­lenges that we have to not be open about. We have to be defen­sive about.”

So the shift that’s tak­ing place at the moment real­ly is into a world where we have to accept the pos­si­bil­i­ty of wrong as jour­nal­ists. And not just accept it but embrace it and put it into process. 

So I sup­pose what I would like to see and what I think we should be talk­ing about and teach­ing in jour­nal­ism schools, and what I think we should be talk­ing about and invest­ing in in news­rooms, is how do we shift from that psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly defen­sive world to the glo­ri­ous utopia of the Three Little Pigs. Incidentally I don’t think those were police, I think they were Arthur Sulzberger’s truth vig­i­lantes break­ing down the doors there.

So, until you see news orga­ni­za­tions actu­al­ly putting in process ways to link— There are very very few news orga­ni­za­tions that have a process or guide­lines around how to link out from your sto­ries. There are very very few news­rooms that can afford to or have yet invest­ed in any way in data. And by data I mean a frame­work for col­lect­ing, under­stand­ing, ana­lyz­ing, and rep­re­sent­ing large data sets. There are a few; they tend to be the large inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions. And even with­in those that’s a very very small num­ber of people. 

And there’s very very lit­tle invest­ment at the moment in that rela­tion­ship between jour­nal­ism and the crowd. So how many peo­ple here have heard the phrase The prob­lem with com­ments is they’re all ter­ri­ble?” [light laugh­ter] Oh come on, put your hands up. You’ve all heard that phrase. And the fact is that it’s often true. But it’s often the least invested-in part of the news process. It’s left often to chance. There again is no process for— And jour­nal­ism is a process. There no process for open­ing this, there’s no train­ing around engagement.

Now the orga­ni­za­tions that are doing this most vig­or­ous­ly (And I would pick out obvi­ous­ly The Guardian, also The New York Times. Back in the UK the BBC have invest­ed a great deal of mon­ey in this.) are the ones who I hope will get to a point where we can actu­al­ly val­ue those trans­ac­tions prop­er­ly. Because unfor­tu­nate­ly what we don’t have at the moment is a cur­ren­cy that says this real­ly does ele­vate both our jour­nal­ism and offers a more truth­ful” and bet­ter qual­i­ty of infor­ma­tion to give to our readers.

So as I say, I come to this from the point of advo­ca­cy. I know that there are oth­ers who come from the point of view that actu­al­ly clos­ing down con­tent, with­draw­ing from the open Web, being more elit­ist about this pre­sen­ta­tion, being very cau­tious about the crowd, see that as an equal and valid way for­ward. But I want­ed to frame the prob­lem, real­ly, as the first per­son up (and I’m out of time now), because as I say, I think that this is some­thing where we’re beg­ging here for your coop­er­a­tion and under­stand­ing as jour­nal­ists. Because this is not a world that is very easy for us to nego­ti­ate. But now that we have ads about it, hope­ful­ly every­body else will take it up as well. Thanks very much, Susan.

Further Reference

Truthiness in Digital Media event site

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.