[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   FANNING THE FLAMES: DISINFORMATION AND 
                           EXTREMISM IN THE MEDIA

=======================================================================

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 24, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-8
                            
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-630 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                        MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                                 Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York             Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
TONY CARDENAS, California            JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas                   (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, prepared statement..............................     4
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12

                               Witnesses

Soledad O'Brien, Anchor, ``Matter of Fact,'' Chief Executive 
  Officer, Soledad O'Brien Productions...........................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   156
Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The 
  George Washington University Law School........................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   158
Kristin Danielle Urquiza, Cofounder, Marked By COVID.............    48
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   162
Emily Bell, Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism and Director, Tow 
  Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University.............    56
    Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   164

                           Submitted Material

Letters of February 22, 2001, from Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McNerney to 
  John T. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, AT&T, Inc., et al., 
  submitted by Mr. Latta\1\
Letter of February 23, 2021, from Brenda Victoria Castillo, 
  President and Chief Executive Officer, National Hispanic Media 
  Coalition, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. 
  Cardenas.......................................................   115
Blog post of October 21, 2020, ``The FCC's Authority to Interpret 
  Section 230 of the Communications Act,'' by Thomas M. Johnson, 
  Jr., FCC.gov, submitted by Ms. Eshoo...........................   118
Article of February 23, 2021, ``Broadcasters combat 
  misinformation with a focus on the facts,'' by Gordon H. Smith, 
  The Hill, submitted by Mr. Doyle...............................   124
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Mrs. Rodgers, et al., to 
  Jessica Rosenworcel, Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications 
  Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle.............................   126

----------

\1\ The letters have been retained in committee files and are available 
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/HHRG-117-
IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia 
  Attorney General, to John T. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, 
  AT&T, Inc., submitted by Mr. Latta.............................   129
Article of February 24, 2021, ``The political effort to limit 
  free speech attacks our own values,'' by Jonathan Turley, The 
  Hill, submitted by Mr. Latta...................................   131
Letter of October 16, 2017, from Ms. Eshoo to Ajit Pai, Chairman, 
  Federal Communications Commission, et al., submitted by Mrs. 
  Rodgers........................................................   134
Letter of April 2, 2020, from Mr. Pallone and Mr. Doyle to Ajit 
  Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by 
  Mrs. Rodgers...................................................   136
Article of June 14, 2017, ``Hodgkinson letters: `I have never 
  said life sucks, only the policies of the Republicans,''' 
  Belleville News-Democrat, submitted by Mr. Scalise.............   138
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Christopher Ruddy, Chief 
  Executive Officer, Newsmax Media, Inc., to Mr. Pallone, et al., 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   154

 
     FANNING THE FLAMES: DISINFORMATION AND EXTREMISM IN THE MEDIA

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m., 
via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Mike Doyle 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke, 
Veasey, McEachin, Soto, Rice, Eshoo, Butterfield, Welch, 
Schrader, Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex 
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Scalise, 
Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Mullin, Walberg, 
Carter, Duncan, Curtis, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Schakowsky, Dingell, Trahan, 
and Burgess.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Parul 
Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, Counsel; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief 
Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry 
Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Professional Staff 
Member; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Policy 
Analyst; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; 
Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; William 
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Minority 
Financial and Office Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff 
Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, 
Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services 
Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Kate 
O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health; 
Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and 
Commerce, Energy, and Environment; Olivia Shields, Minority 
Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy 
Director; and Everett Winnick, Minority Director of Information 
Technology.
    Mr. Doyle. The subcommittee will now come to order. Today 
the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a 
hearing entitled ``Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and 
Extremism in the Media.''
    This hearing is a continuation of work that this 
subcommittee did last Congress, examining the spread of 
disinformation on social media and the deadly and dangerous 
effect it is having on our Nation and on our democracy.
    We expect to hold another hearing on March 25th with the 
CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to further discuss these 
issues.
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise. 
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone 
each time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the 
email address we have provided the staff. All documents will be 
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
    The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
         CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

    First, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for 
appearing before us today.
    Today we are talking about media outlets, such as cable 
news, broadcast news, and radio, and the role they play in 
disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism. My hope 
is that our witnesses can help this subcommittee understand the 
current media ecosystem, how we got here, and potential 
solutions.
    I doubt that any Members here are naive about the media. 
This is the industry that coined the term ``If it bleeds, it 
leads.'' But to the degree to which Americans have become awash 
in disinformation and the profound events that our country has 
recently gone through require examination and evaluation of 
this industry.
    This week marks a grim milestone for our Nation, as a half 
a million Americans have died from COVID-19. That matches the 
American death toll in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II 
combined. This pandemic has touched almost every aspect of 
American life and taken so many friends and loved ones from us, 
including from one of the witnesses here today, who tragically 
lost her father.
    The real tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way. It 
didn't have to be this bad. But some of the media sought to 
downplay this virus from the beginning. They refused to 
acknowledge how deadly it was, they criticized stay-at-home 
orders, they mocked social distancing they told audiences that 
they didn't need to wear masks. All of these were 
scientifically validated steps that could have saved lives and 
prevented so much anguish and grief.
    In the midst of this pandemic we also saw the rise of the 
Stop the Steal movement, fomented by former President Trump and 
propagated by members of the media, that sought to dispute the 
outcome of our elections and overturn our democratic process. 
As we all know, this led directly to the horrific events of 
January 6th, the attack on our Capitol and our democracy by 
insurrectionists motivated by former President Trump. Five 
lives were lost that day, and more have been lost since. A 
Capitol Police Officer was murdered. Others were savagely 
attacked, beaten, and called vile racial epithets. All of our 
lives were put at risk, as was the Vice President's.
    The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and 
the freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech encourages us 
to ask tough questions about what is going on in the media, 
what is motivating the tidal wave of disinformation that is 
putting the lives of so many Americans and, ultimately, our 
democracy at risk.
    Partisanship and polarization in the media has been 
building for years. But these more recent events reflect a--
quite a frightening escalation. As Ms. O'Brien points out in 
her testimony, media companies have increasingly set aside 
journalistic standards to chase audience share and higher 
profits. Ms. Bell's testimony discusses the decline of local 
media and local newspapers, once the lifeblood of our democracy 
and now rapidly accelerated by the financial hardships of 
COVID.
    These changes have given rise to national media entities 
that are more focused on the kind of tactics we see from social 
media companies. They engage their viewers by enraging them and 
further dividing us and our Nation.
    We have also seen the rise of news as entertainment, where 
the claims of anchors and commentators are likened to 
performance art. When they are challenged in court, the lawyers 
from their own networks even claim that no reasonable person 
could believe these people are speaking the truth or reporting 
facts.
    When truth becomes a commodity to be traded upon for 
profit, and facts and consequences don't matter to those who 
report them, our democracy is undermined. It is the 
responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions 
to a higher standard.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

    I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us 
today.
    Today, we are talking about media outlets such as cable 
news, broadcast news, and radio--and the role they play in 
disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism.
    My hope is that our witnesses can help this subcommittee 
better understand the current media ecosystem, how we got here, 
and potential solutions.
    I doubt any of the Members here are naive about the media--
this is the industry that coined the term ``if it bleeds it 
leads.''
    But the degree to which Americans have become awash in 
disinformation--and the profound events that our country has 
recently gone through--require examination and evaluation of 
this industry.
    This week marks a grim milestone for our Nation as half a 
million Americans have died from COVID-19. That matches the 
American death toll in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II 
combined.
    This pandemic has touched almost every aspect of American 
life and taken so many friends and loved ones from us, 
including from one of the witnesses here today who tragically 
lost her father.
    The real tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way--it 
didn't have to be this bad.
    But some in the media sought to downplay this virus from 
the beginning.
    They refused to acknowledge how deadly it was.
    They criticized stay-at-home orders, they mocked social 
distancing, and they told their audiences that they didn't need 
to wear masks.
    All of these were scientifically validated steps that could 
have saved lives and prevented so much anguish and grief.
    In the midst of this pandemic, we also saw the rise of the 
``stop the steal'' movement--fomented by former President Trump 
and propagated by members of the media that sought to dispute 
the outcome of our elections and overturn our democratic 
process.
    As we all know, this led directly to the horrific events of 
January 6th and the attack on our Capitol and our democracy by 
insurrectionists motivated by former President Trump.
    Five lives were lost that day--and more have been lost 
since.
    A Capitol police officer was murdered--others were savagely 
attacked, beaten, and called vile racial epithets. All our 
lives were put at risk--as was the Vice President's.
    The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and 
freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech encourages us to 
ask tough questions about what is going on in the media--and 
what is motivating the tidal wave of disinformation that is 
putting the lives of so many Americans--and ultimately our 
democracy--at risk.
    Partisanship and polarization in the media has been 
building for years, but these more recent events reflect a 
frightening escalation.
    As Ms. O'Brien points out in her testimony, media companies 
have increasingly set aside journalistic standards to chase 
audience share and higher profits.
    Ms. Bell's testimony discusses the decline of local media 
and local newspapers--once the lifeblood of our democracy--now 
rapidly accelerated by the financial hardships of COVID.
    These changes have given rise to national media entities 
that are more focused on the kind of tactics we see from social 
media companies--they engage their viewers by enraging them and 
further dividing us--and our Nation.
    We've also seen the rise of news as entertainment--where 
the claims of anchors and commentators are likened to 
performance art. When they are challenged in court, the lawyers 
from their own networks even claim that no reasonable person 
could believe these people are speaking the truth or reporting 
facts.
    When truth becomes a commodity--to be traded upon for 
profit--and facts and consequences don't matter to those who 
report them, our democracy is undermined. It is the 
responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions 
to a higher standard.
    Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony of our 
witnesses.

    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony 
of our witnesses, and I yield the remainder of my time to my 
friend and colleague, Ms. Eshoo.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very 
important hearing today.
    Let me put it bluntly: Misinformation is killing Americans 
and damaging our democracy. We have to examine how conspiracies 
and lies convince people to dismiss public health measures and 
refuse lifesaving vaccines. This is not about left versus 
right; this is about life and death.
    Similarly, the January 6th insurrection was built on a 
foundation of lies about mail-in ballots, voting machines, and 
election results. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from 
enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech, and I am an 
ardent supporter of it. It does not, however, stop us from 
examining the public health and democratic implications of 
misinformation.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important 
hearing today.
    Let me put it bluntly: misinformation is killing Americans 
and damaging our democracy. We must examine how conspiracies 
and lies convince people to dismiss public health measures and 
refuse life-saving vaccines. This is not about left versus 
right. This is about life and death.
    Similarly, the January 6th insurrection was built on a 
foundation of lies about mail-in ballots, voting machines, and 
election results.
    The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws 
abridging the freedom of speech, and I'm an ardent supporter of 
it. It does not, however, stop us from examining the public 
health and democratic implications of misinformation.
    So I thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this very this very 
important hearing today, and I yield back. I also thank the 
witnesses who are with us today and am anxious to hear from 
them.

    Ms. Eshoo. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
very important hearing today, and I yield back.
    I also thank the witnesses who are with us today. I am 
anxious to hear from them.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back, the Chair yields 
back. The Chair recognizes my good friend and colleague, Mr. 
Latta, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications 
and Technology, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
    [Pause.]
    Bob, you need to unmute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Latta. There we go. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
today's hearing. I appreciate you yielding me the time.
    And I also want to thank our witnesses who are appearing 
before us today on this hearing focused on disinformation and 
extremism in the media.
    While disinformation, misinformation, and extremism in the 
media are all serious issues that this subcommittee should be 
examining in a bipartisan way, unfortunately today's hearing is 
not about that. Earlier this week several of my colleagues sent 
a disturbing letter to private companies asking them questions 
that imply that these companies should stop carrying certain 
news content.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
enter that letter into the record.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The letters have been retained in committee files and are 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Latta. I thank my friend.
    As the title of the hearing indicates, the majority's 
intent behind today's hearing is to fan the flames of silencing 
certain viewpoints in America by trying to suppress and censor 
speech, a concept that has the potential to destroy our 
democracy. This is deeply troubling. It should be deeply 
troubling to everybody here today.
    With this goal at hand, we are embarking upon a dangerous 
path of using this committee to attack the foundation of fact, 
and further diminish trust in journalism.
    The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Rather than 
suppressing speech and viewpoints that we don't agree with, we 
should be encouraging more speech and conversations between one 
another. Sadly, it appears we are doubling down on encouraging 
the cancel culture of the left, instead of identifying 
bipartisan solutions to encourage and support factual local or 
national news.
    We are all facing unprecedented challenges in this country, 
which includes work to combat a once-in-a-century pandemic. 
There has never been a more important time for journalism to be 
more accurate and reliable, having reliable news sources that 
report factual content that can even be a matter of life and 
death. The damage done to our democracy by further dividing our 
Nation and ignoring the patently false and inaccurate 
information from many media outlets cannot be understated.
    Before I close, I would like to bring to light just one of 
the most recent examples we have seen in the press concerning 
the attacks on the Capitol and Capitol grounds on January the 
6th. Republicans and Democrats, including myself, have 
condemned the events of January the 6th. It is disturbing, to 
say the least, to insinuate responsibility for the mob violence 
that took place that day lies only with the media and not with 
the individuals who carried out these actions and committed 
crimes. That is flat-out wrong.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Good afternoon, and welcome to all of our witnesses here 
today for a hearing focused on disinformation and extremism in 
the media.
    While disinformation, misinformation, and extremism in the 
media are all serious issues this committee should be examining 
in a bipartisan way, unfortunately, today's hearing is not 
about that.
    Earlier this week, several of my colleagues sent a 
disturbing letter to private companies asking them questions 
that imply that these companies should stop carrying certain 
news content.
    [Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter this 
letter into the record sent by Representatives Eshoo and 
McNerney.]
    As the title of the hearing indicates, the Majority's 
intent behind today's hearing is to fan the flames of silencing 
certain viewpoints in America by trying to suppress and censor 
speech, a concept that has the potential to destroy our 
democracy. This is deeply troubling and should be deeply 
troubling to everyone here today. With this goal at hand, we 
are embarking upon a dangerous path of using this committee to 
attack the foundation of fact and further diminish trust in 
journalism.
    The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Rather than 
suppressing speech and viewpoints we don't agree with, we 
should be encouraging more speech and conversations between one 
another. Sadly, it appears we are doubling down on encouraging 
the cancel culture of the left instead of identifying 
bipartisan solutions to encourage and support factual local and 
national news.
    We are all facing unprecedented challenges in this country, 
which includes work to combat a once in a century pandemic. 
There has never been a more important time for journalism to be 
accurate and reliable. Having reliable news sources that report 
factual content can even be a matter of life and death.
    The damage done to our democracy by further dividing our 
Nation and ignoring the patently false and inaccurate 
information coming from media outlets cannot be understated.
    Before I close, I'd like to bring to light just one of the 
most recent examples we have seen in the press concerning the 
attacks on the Capitol and Capitol grounds on January 6th: 
Republicans and Democrats, including myself, have condemned the 
events of January 6th. It is disturbing, to say the least, to 
insinuate responsibility for the mob violence that took place 
that day lies only with media, but not with the individuals who 
carried out those actions and committed crimes. That is flat 
out wrong.
    We should be here today to discuss ways to combat 
disinformation, and the responsibility media outlets have when 
real-world violence occurs as a result of rhetoric.
    We should also recognize that local journalism--which is 
trusted by the American people more than every other type of 
media--is the only real antidote to disinformation and 
extremism. If the majority were interested in having a 
thoughtful conversation about policies that would support local 
broadcasters and their ability to report real, honest news, 
perhaps that would be a better use of time.
    But despite making bipartisan progress last Congress for 
breaking down these barriers, my colleagues have made the 
following very clear: Instead of continuing those bipartisan 
efforts to improve media diversity and restore trust in 
journalism, they would rather use their official positions to 
silence opposing views and settle political scores, all because 
they disdain President Trump.
    I find it hard to believe, Chairman Doyle, that you would 
consider legislating in this space. While the letters sent and 
hearings held on this topic flirt with the First Amendment, 
certainly I cannot imagine any legislative remedy that would 
not implicate the First Amendment. I would urge caution before 
going further down this dangerous path and return to the 
principles we have long shared on ensuring a free press.

    Mr. Latta. And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
yield the balance of my time to our--Mr. Scalise from 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Scalise. Well, I thank my friend from Ohio for 
yielding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing, 
and our witnesses, as well.
    And clearly, we have all been very vocal in denouncing the 
events that happened on January 6th. It is a clear example of 
not only mob violence but also how political discourse can get 
out of control. But for anybody to just try to suggest that 
discourse started getting out of control on January 6th would 
be disingenuous when you look at where we have gotten and how 
far this has come.
    I want to take you back to June 14th, 2017, a day that a 
gunman walked onto a baseball field and shot at over a dozen 
Members of Congress, including myself. There has been a lot of 
investigation into it. The FBI did a report. The gunman was 
motivated by hypercharged rhetoric that he was hearing from the 
left, from prominent elected officials, as well as media 
personalities.
    In fact, Mr. Chairman, there is a report that the FBI did 
where they included some of the writings of the gunman, where 
he talks specifically about the people who motivated him and 
inspired him to commit this shooting, which would have been 
very deadly, if he was successful, without the bravery and 
heroism of Capitol Police.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent that this be entered 
into the record, which is the FBI--some of the excerpts from 
his writings.
    Now with that, Mr. Chairman, I enter that not to say that I 
blame those people that he mentions for his motivation. I say 
this to let you know that I don't blame those other people, I 
blame the shooter. The shooter is the one who should be held 
accountable. And I am very, very clear about that. But it is an 
example that we all need to be aware of our rhetoric and can 
all be doing a better job of toning down the rhetoric.
    But we also need to call it out where we see it, not just 
on the other side of the aisle but on both sides. Just as I 
called out January 6th activities, I called out the violence I 
saw over the summer, when, through hypercharged rhetoric, 
people were burning down cities, were killing cops, killing 
other people. Let's be consistent in calling it out, not trying 
to suggest disingenuously that it only comes from one side of 
the political spectrum. Let's be fair and recognize we can all 
do a better job of encouraging the rhetoric to be toned down, 
and we all need to call out political violence wherever we see 
it, because it is not acceptable in America from the left or 
the right.
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    Just to inform Members, a vote has been called. We are not 
going to recess at all during votes. So, as Members that are--
have some time before they ask questions, they want to go down 
and take their votes, and we will just proceed.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me speak for 
myself and hope--and also for all Democrats--and say that we 
are all staunch defenders of the First Amendment and its 
mandate that Congress make no law abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press. The First Amendment prohibits us from 
passing laws that inappropriately limit speech, even when it is 
controversial or even partisan.
    But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the spread of 
misinformation that causes public harm. Putting a spotlight on 
the issue and having an open dialogue is exactly what the 
Founding Fathers envisioned, because it may help us solve a 
very dangerous problem. And we owe it to our constituents and 
to our democracy to examine how and why disinformation is being 
aired on traditional media and social media.
    And that means we must ask uncomfortable questions, like 
whether these media outlets, for example, have an incentive to 
air extreme conspiratorial programming or content and how 
journalists can help each other find ways to cover 
controversial topics in a way that doesn't undermine our 
democratic structure and health. And there are no easy answers, 
but we have to, obviously, try to find them.
    In my opinion, there are too many traditional media outlets 
that have yet to seriously wrestle with these questions. Very 
few have acknowledged their role in spreading deadly 
misinformation, and some have tried to self-correct, but only 
after the damage has been done or only after faced with public 
backlash or legal action.
    So this debate, in my view, that you are having, Mr. 
Chairman, today is our best hope for addressing one of the 
challenges confronting our country. And I hope that we can have 
a smart and sensible discussion today, because there just is so 
much at stake.
    Now, going back to the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 
it was an abhorrent attempt to overturn a free and fair 
election. And there was months of disinformation about the 
presidential election results that helped flame that attack.
    I understand when our whip and Mr. Latta say that, you 
know, that they have all condemned what happened on January 6, 
and I respect that, and of course I, you know, still think 
about you, Steve, and what happened to you at that game, and 
your injury, and your remarkable recovery. But my point is that 
we still have to look at these incidents and see what brought 
them about, and what role the media played in causing these 
kinds of incidents. It doesn't mean that, just because they 
occurred and we say that they are terrible and that they 
shouldn't have happened, that we don't look into this.
    And the problem is that we have this daily--and, in some 
cases, deadly--dose of disinformation and extremist content 
that is being amplified by some of our most longstanding media 
sources. It can be broadcast, it can be cable, it could be 
radio. And I just think that this disinformation and extremism 
is a threat to the country, both collectively and individually. 
And it is not partisan.
    [Audio malfunction.] Vice President Pence, individually--
they had the gallows set up out there for him, our Republican 
Vice President.
    So disinformation has undoubtedly contributed to the rapid 
spread of COVID-19, as well. And 500,000 Americans have died 
without regard to whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
    Last summer we examined the role of social media in 
spreading extreme content and dangerous disinformation. 
However, our media ecosystem involves both social media and 
traditional media outlets that are part of this vicious cycle 
of reinforcing conspiracy theories. So, despite the rise of 
social media, we know that the majority of Americans get their 
news primarily from TV or radio. And over the past year we have 
seen some of these outlets air programming that downplayed the 
seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, peddled ineffective 
treatments, mocked effective precautionary measures. Chairman 
Doyle mentioned this.
    And there are consequences to the constant airing of 
misinformation or false news. Some have tragically lost their 
lives because they relied on disinformation about COVID-19, 
including the father of one of the witnesses today. And for 
months some of these outlets aired programming that falsely 
claimed the presidential election was stolen. We lost five 
lives that day as a result of the attack on the Capitol. 
Hundreds of people injured as a result of the Stop the Steal 
propaganda campaign that some of these media outlets 
encouraged, and which ultimately led to the Capitol assault. 
So--and only after this violence did one broadcaster recognize 
the role that his program played and asked its on-air 
personalities to stop calling the election stolen.
    So I just think there is a lot here that we have to look 
into. Let's try to do this in a smart and sensible way.
    And I do appreciate, Chairman Doyle, the fact that you are 
having this today. I think it is very important.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Let me start by saying we're all staunch defenders of the 
First Amendment and its mandate that ``Congress make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' The First 
Amendment prohibits us from passing laws that inappropriately 
limit speech--even when it is controversial or overly partisan. 
But that does not mean that we should ignore the spread of 
misinformation that causes public harm.
    Putting a spotlight on the issue and having an open 
dialogue is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned 
because it may help us solve a very dangerous problem. We owe 
it to our constituents and our democracy to examine how and why 
disinformation is being aired on traditional media and social 
media.
    That means we must ask uncomfortable questions. Like 
whether these media outlets, for example, have an incentive to 
air extreme conspiratorial programming or content. And, how 
journalists can help each other find ways to cover 
controversial topics in a way that doesn't undermine our 
democratic structure and health. There are no easy answers, but 
we must try to find them.
    In my opinion, too many traditional media outlets have yet 
to seriously wrestle with these questions. Very few have 
acknowledged their role in spreading deadly disinformation. 
Some have tried to self-correct, but only after the damage has 
been done, or only after faced with public backlash or legal 
action.
    This debate--in my view--is our best hope for addressing 
one of the challenges confronting our country. I hope that we 
can have a smart and sensible discussion today because there is 
so much at stake.
    Months of disinformation about the Presidential election 
results helped fan the flames for the attack on the Capitol on 
January 6--an abhorrent attempt to overturn a free and fair 
election.
    For the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has threatened the 
American people's physical, emotional, and economic health, and 
these threats have been exacerbated by ongoing disinformation 
about the pandemic.
    The daily, and in some cases deadly, dose of disinformation 
and extremist content is often amplified by some of our most 
longstanding media sources: broadcast and cable television and 
broadcast radio.
    Disinformation and extremism is a threat to our Nation--
both collectively and individually--but it is not partisan. The 
insurrectionists at the Capitol targeted Vice President Pence 
individually and our democracy collectively. Disinformation has 
undoubtedly contributed to the rapid spread of COVID-19 and 
500,000 Americans have died without regard to whether they are 
Republicans or Democrats.
    Last summer, we examined the role of social media in 
spreading extreme content and dangerous disinformation. 
However, our media ecosystem involves both social media and 
traditional media outlets, that are often part of a vicious 
cycle of reinforcing conspiracy theories and disinformation.
    Despite the rise of social media, surveys indicate that a 
majority of Americans get their news primarily from television 
or radio programming.
    Over the past year we have seen some of these outlets air 
programming that downplayed the seriousness of the COVID-19 
pandemic, peddled ineffective treatments, and mocked effective 
precautionary measures. There are consequences to the constant 
airing of misinformation and false news. Some have tragically 
lost their lives because they relied on disinformation about 
COVID-19, including the father of one of our witnesses here 
today.
    For months, some of these outlets aired programming that 
falsely claimed the Presidential election had been stolen. Five 
lives were lost, and over a hundred injured, as a result of the 
``Stop The Steal'' propaganda campaign that some media outlets 
encouraged, and which ultimately led to the Capitol 
Insurrection. Only after this violence, did one broadcaster 
recognize the role that its programming had played, and asked 
its on-air personalities to stop claiming the election was 
stolen.

    Mr. Pallone. I just realized that I was supposed to yield 
to Jerry, and now I didn't.
    Jerry, I am sorry. I will have to make it up to you 
somehow. I am sorry. I didn't realize----
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I will hold you to that 
promise.
    Mr. Pallone. All right.
    Mr. Doyle. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much, Chairman Pallone and 
Chairman Doyle. In all my time on this committee, there has 
never been a more obvious direct attack on the First Amendment, 
despite what has been said.
    I want to be very clear: Condemning the January 6th attack 
and upholding truth and facts, it is a shared, bipartisan goal. 
Unfortunately, that is not what this hearing is about. If the 
majority was really interested in a meaningful dialogue, you 
wouldn't schedule a hyperpartisan hearing to shame and blame. 
You wouldn't be sending letters pressuring private companies to 
block conservative media outlets.
    I am not only disappointed in this hearing, I am deeply 
troubled by it. Every journalist, from MSNBC and CNN to The New 
York Times, should be concerned by the majority's actions. And 
anyone who values free speech and a free press should be 
worried.
    Elected officials using their platform to pressure private 
companies to censor media outlets they disagree with? That 
sounds like actions from the Chinese Communist Party, not duly-
elected representatives of the United States Congress. Here we 
cherish free speech and a free, independent press. We believe 
in dialogue and in the battle of ideas. Rather than censure and 
silence constitutionally protected speech, the answer is more 
speech. That is the American way.
    And surely, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, you agree 
with me. You have once believed that--you stated that you 
believed threats against broadcasters for airing legally 
protected speech to be illegal. Less than a year ago you sent a 
letter to the FCC decrying attempts to censor or interfere with 
broadcasters' discretion to air legally protected content.
    I would ask you to take a look at this letter. And I ask 
unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. That letter, it says--and I quote--``At a 
time when autocratic governments around the world are using the 
coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to suppress press freedoms, 
we must reaffirm--not undermine--America's commitment to a free 
press.''
    So what has changed? As you once put it, ``To stay silent 
could undermine the First Amendment.'' So let's come together, 
and let's make sure that we do not have a censorship campaign 
based upon political ideology or someone saying something you 
disagree with. That is not the standard we want to set. Under 
your new approach, a lot of media would cease to exist.
    Should CNN still be carried after hosting Governor Cuomo? 
For months media lauded him and legitimized his lethal response 
to COVID-19--he even won an Emmy--for his use of TV to spread 
misinformation. How do we know it was misinformation? Because 
of a balance of networks that pursued investigative journalism.
    Should MSNBC be carried after years of pushing the false 
Russia collusion narrative? Thanks to independent journalists 
and a robust free press, we have learned their reporting was 
false.
    Does your new standard stop with cable news, or should it 
be applied to social media?
    It is un-American when you are setting control--for you to 
redefine for yourselves what is true.
    Do you think Republican Members of Congress agree with all 
the content on media? No.
    Have we sent TV companies threatening letters to stop 
carrying certain channels? No.
    Now, more than ever, we must uphold the First Amendment. It 
states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' 
It is unique to Americans. It has been fought for. It has been 
defended. It is foundational to our personal rights and 
liberties.
    So we should all be troubled by what appears to be an 
attack on the First Amendment. This is an abuse of power. Ours 
is a country for we the people, not a few in a position of 
authority dictating to the rest.
    You know, so today the media is the target, but where does 
it end? We have already seen liberal ideology pushed in our 
schools where we work, the books we read, who we communicate 
with, how we practice our faith. It is frightening.
    And you know what the worst part is? People are afraid of a 
woke and authoritarian system that is getting them fired, 
canceled, and shamed. So they are being silent. They have no 
voice. They can't trust the broken institutions to protect 
them. This culture of fear is unjust, and this committee should 
not be using fear to force everyone to be the same or be 
destroyed. It is abuse of power, and it is a force of a State 
religion of liberal ideology.
    I embrace all of us to embrace our fundamental rights that 
lie at the foundation of a free government by free men.
    And with that I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle, in all my time on this 
committee, there has never been a more obvious direct attack on 
the First Amendment.
    I want to be very clear.condemning the January 6th attack 
and upholding truth and facts is a shared, bipartisan goal.
    But that is not what this hearing is about.
    If the Majority was interested in meaningful change, you 
would not schedule a hyper-partisan hearing to shame and blame.
    You certainly would not send letters pressuring companies 
to block conservative media outlets.
    I am not only disappointed in this hearing, I am deeply 
troubled by it.
    Every journalist--from MSNBC and CNN to The New York 
Times--should be concerned by the Majority's actions.
    And anyone who values free speech and a free press should 
be worried.
    Public officials using their platform to pressure private 
companies to censor media outlets they disagree with?...
    That sounds like actions from the Chinese Communist Party, 
not duly elected representatives of the United States Congress.
    Here, we cherish free speech and a free independent press.
    We believe in dialogue and in the battle of ideas.
    Rather than censor and silence constitutionally protected 
speech, the answer is MORE speech.
    That's the American way.
    Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle, you once believed 
threats against broadcasters for airing legally protected 
speech to be illegal.
    Less than a year ago, you sent a letter to the FCC decrying 
attempts to censor or interfere with broadcasters' discretion 
to air legally protected content.
    Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter 
into the record.
    You said, quote, ``At a time when autocratic governments 
around the world are using the coronavirus pandemic as an 
excuse to suppress press freedoms, we must reaffirm--not 
undermine--America's commitment to a free press.''
    I ask you now--What's changed?
    As you once put it, quote, ``To stay silent could undermine 
the First Amendment.''
    I call on you both to publicly denounce your colleagues' 
censorship campaign over the news they disagree with.
    Is this the standard you want to set? Under your new view, 
liberal media would cease to exist.
    Should CNN still be carried after hosting Governor Cuomo?
    For months, liberal media lauded him and legitimized his 
lethal response to COVID-19. He even won an Emmy for his use of 
TV to spread misinformation.
    How do we know it was misinformation? Because of a balance 
of conservative networks that pursued investigative journalism.
    Should MSNBC still be carried after years of pushing the 
false ``Russia collusion'' narrative?
    Thanks to independent journalists and a robust free press, 
we learned their reporting was false.
    Does your new standard stop with cable news or should it 
now be applied to social media?
    This is a dangerous and un-American standard you are 
setting for more control to redefine for yourselves what is 
true.
    Do you think Republican Members of Congress agree with all 
of the content on liberal media?
    No.
    Have we sent TV companies threatening letters to stop 
carrying certain channels? No.
    We support the spirit of the First Amendment.
    It states ``Congress shall make no law.abridging the 
freedom of speech, or of the press.''
    The Majority appears to be quasi-legislating its attack on 
the First Amendment by using their public positions of power to 
coerce private companies to censor political speech.
    It's an abuse of power.
    Today, the media is their target.
    Very soon it will be on Big Tech CEOs for more censorship.
    Next, it is forcing an ideology in our schools... where we 
work...what books we read... who we communicate with... and how 
we practice our faith.
    This is frightening. Do you know what the worst part is?
    It's already being mandated in our culture.
    There are people in America today.... who are afraid to 
stand up and say this is wrong.
    They are afraid of a woke system that is getting them 
fired, canceled, and shamed.
    So they are silent. They have no voice.
    They can't trust broken institutions to protect them.
    This culture of fear is unjust.... and it's absurd this 
committee is now using fear to force everyone to be the same or 
be destroyed.
    We should be leading a better example.
    Rather than abuse its power and force a State religion of 
liberal ideology, I urge this committee to seek excellence.
    Let's come together around our most basic principles for 
freedom.
    Let's give people hope in the Promise of America again--so 
they have the courage to be unique, creative, and live their 
lives without fear.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would like 
to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    I would like now to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing: Ms. Soledad O'Brien, anchor, ``Matter of Fact,'' CEO 
of Soledad O'Brien Productions, welcome; Mr. Jonathan Turley, 
professor at the George Washington University Law School--
welcome, sir; Ms. Kristin Danielle Urquiza, cofounder, Marked 
By COVID; and last, but certainly not least, Ms. Emily Bell, 
director of the Tow Center for Digital Media, Columbia 
University.
    We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. 
We look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will 
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening 
statement, and we will start with Ms. O'Brien.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, ANCHOR, ``MATTER OF FACT,'' AND 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOLEDAD O'BRIEN PRODUCTIONS; JONATHAN 
 TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE 
  WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; KRISTIN DANIELLE URQUIZA, 
    COFOUNDER, MARKED BY COVID; AND EMILY BELL, LEONARD TOW 
 PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AND DIRECTOR, TOW CENTER FOR DIGITAL 
                JOURNALISM, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

                  STATEMENT OF SOLEDAD O'BRIEN

    Ms. O'Brien. Thank you to the chairman. Thank you to the 
members of the committee and, of course, those who join me in 
testifying.
    Back in 2005 CNN aired a piece on ``Lou Dobbs Tonight'' 
reporting that the U.S. had 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the 
previous 3 years because of unscreened illegal immigrants. That 
figure was completely false. Back then, the official leprosy 
statistics showed about 7,000 cases of leprosy over the last 30 
years, not 3.
    The Dobbs lie advanced his agenda of demonizing 
undocumented immigrants, so it stuck, and he got away with it. 
To those of us at CNN reporting on the communities that he 
degraded, it was disheartening and insulting. And it was also 
only the beginning. We had entered an era where broadcasters 
would begin repeating and re-energizing lies and liars, an era 
that would set the stage for xenophobic and racist narratives 
that would take hold and polarize this country.
    I have been a journalist for more than 30 years, reporting 
and anchoring for local TV, network news, cable, places like 
NBC, WBZ-TV, HBO Real Sports, CNN, Hearst. I do a podcast on 
QuakeMedia, documentaries, series from my own production 
company. And so my point is that I have my feet very firmly 
planted on the media landscape, and this is what the landscape 
looks like to me: Media, disguised as journalism, has been 
spreading lies for years, elevating liars, and using the 
ensuing slugfest to chase ratings, hits, subscriptions, 
advertisers. Period. Full stop.
    So how did we get here? Michael Rich, who is the CEO of the 
Rand Corporation, where I am honored to serve on the board, 
defines what happened as truth decay, the diminishing role of 
facts and analysis in public life and important conversations 
about policy issues, policy decisions, and elections.
    And I believe this era of truth decay began when local 
newspapers were badly--even mortally--wounded by the emergence 
of free social media and the decline of advertising dollars 
like classified ads. Our country has lost almost 2,100 papers 
since 2004. Local news is the heartbeat of American journalism, 
the glue of civic participation, the place where we turn to for 
information about our local taxes, quality education, 
infrastructure, and the demise left the public with only the 
unfiltered and unverified cauldron of presumed fact and opinion 
that is social media.
    The public turned to TV for traditional reporting, 
especially on politics, where 65 percent of Americans report 
trusting information from TV and radio, depending on whether 
the stations conform to their political leanings. But here's 
the problem: TV didn't fill the void of in-depth reporting on 
America's communities by producing stories about policies that 
affect regular people. Instead, it became a place where facts 
often go to die.
    TV, cable news in particular, relies on the cheap and easy 
booking of talking heads who exchange colorful barbs, 
entertaining outbursts, and sometimes peddle outright fiction. 
It has only gotten worse as reporters and anchors chase 
ratings, toss aside objectivity to divide us into false 
categories, I believe, of left and right, manipulating facts, 
and debating the liars they booked for their very own shows.
    Today, viewers who come looking for information instead get 
enraging and contradictory facts from an endless churn of 
guests who are not in the least representative of the public. 
On ``Meet the Press,'' ``Face the Nation,'' and ``This Week'' 
back in 2015, 80 percent of the guests were white, 12 percent 
were women, 2 percent were women of color, 41 percent were 
Republican, 22 percent were Democrats.
    All of this has eroded the public trust: 72 percent of 
Americans said they trusted the media back in 1976. By 2020 
that number had fallen to 40 percent.
    So why did the media march down this road? Money. News 
organizations need a cheap way to draw big ratings, and big 
ratings mean more ad dollars, and it is really just that 
simple. And when news organizations make decisions based on 
ratings rather than responsible reporting, disinformation 
flourishes in dangerous ways. Important conversations are 
clouded, scrutiny is reduced, trust in our institution erodes.
    So what to do about all this? Let me be clear that Congress 
cannot and should not regulate journalism in defiance of the 
First Amendment. But here is what we can do.
    Don't book liars or advance lies. Cover the fact that lies 
and propaganda are being disseminated, but do not book people 
to lie on your show, because it elevates them and presents a 
lie as another side.
    Stop posing every story as having two sides. Some stories, 
in fact, have many, many sides that are more complicated. And 
also, lies don't have a side. Take the time to unravel and 
report, and give history and context. We, as reporters, are 
verifiers. Every perspective does not deserve a platform. Media 
thrives on the open exchange of ideas, but that doesn't mean 
you have to book a neo-Nazi every time you book someone who is 
Jewish. Balance does not mean giving voice to liars, to bigots, 
and to kooks.
    Stop saying you want a diverse staff, and go hire one. 
Fast. The public will trust you again if you tell the truth 
about who lives in this country and report accurately on 
communities.
    Recognize that objectivity means having an open mind, not a 
lack of judgment. If you do not call a lie a lie, or racism 
racism, you empower the liar, you empower the racist.
    Support efforts to challenge media that disseminates 
misinformation, particularly in vulnerable communities.
    And most importantly, support ground-level reporting, 
journalism--the place, in fact, where major networks and cable 
news gets a lot of its best stories.
    America trusts the media to deliver accurate, factual, 
unbiased information. It is the grist of democracy. It is the 
stuff that enables us to have intelligent and accurate 
conversations with our neighbors, to cast informed votes, and 
make thoughtful and intelligent decisions.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Brien follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Turley.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Doyle. You need to--Jonathan, you need to unmute.
    Mr. Turley. I am sorry.

                  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY

    Mr. Turley. Chairman Rodgers, Ranking Member Latta, members 
of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today. 
Appearing before the committee on a subject of disinformation 
in the media is not for the faint of heart. You know, this is 
an issue that is heavily laden with political passions and 
agendas.
    As everything in my writings, I maintain what was once a 
mainstream view of free speech, that it is--that the greatest 
protection against bad speech is more speech. That view is 
admittedly under fire and, indeed, may be a minority view 
today. But history has shown that public and private forms of 
censorship do not produce better speech. It is, rather, a self-
replicating, self-perpetuating path that only produces more 
censorship and more controlled speech. That is why I have 
encouraged you in my testimony not to proceed down that 
slippery slope toward censorship.
    I have come to this subject as someone who has written, 
litigated, and testified in this area for decades. I also 
worked for television and print media for decades, including 
past contracts under NBC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox. And I have 
had a wonderful past relationship with Soledad.
    Now, extremist and violent speech is not an abstract or 
academic matter with me or many others who work in the public 
domain. Through the years I have received hundreds of threats 
against myself, my family, even my dog. My home has been 
targeted. Multiple campaigns have sought my termination as a 
professor, particularly after I testified in the Clinton and 
Trump impeachment hearings.
    Thus, while I generally am viewed as a free speech purist, 
I have no illusions about the harm of disinformation and 
extremist speech in our society. And I believe that speech 
controls pose far greater threats for our country than 
misguided or malevolent speech.
    Disinformation is a scourge in our society, but it is not a 
new scourge. And as discussed in my testimony, the Constitution 
was not only written for times like these, it was written 
during times like these. At the start of the Republic, 
Republicans and Federalists were not trying to cancel each 
other in the contemporary sense, they were trying to kill each 
other in the actual sense. There were rampant conspiracy 
theories, and newspapers and pamphleteers were highly biased 
and partisan.
    This is also not the first time that people in power have 
declared that they can rid us of this meddlesome media. The 
question is, Who will be the arbiter of truth in any public or 
private regime of speech regulation? The First Amendment limits 
the ability of the Government to regulate or censor speech. 
Accordingly, the United States has been spared a history of a 
state media like China or Iran.
    In the last few years it has shown that there is no need 
for a central ministry controlling the media if there is a 
common narrative or bias among private companies that control 
communication. The reason that most of us have opposed state 
media controls is not simply because we disfavor state 
regulation of speech, but because we favor free speech. These 
companies can deny free speech more effectively, more 
efficiently than any state apparatus. We would achieve very 
little in our constitutional system if we allow politicians to 
achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly.
    Of course, external controls on speech seem trivial or 
inconsequential when the speech is not your own, and even less 
if it is speech that you abhor, or despise. Europe has shown 
that speech regulation becomes an insatiable appetite. There is 
no evidence that European law has actually diminished hate 
speech. There is plenty of evidence that they diminished free 
speech. That impact is evident in recent polls out of Germany, 
where only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their 
opinions in public, and only 17 percent felt free to express 
themselves in the internet.
    Now, of course, it is notable that Angela Merkel recently 
criticized the United States for its crackdown on free speech, 
particularly Twitter and banning people, as a real threat to 
free speech.
    This appetite for speech--limiting the speech of others is 
evident in the United States. We have talked briefly about the 
recent letter to AT&T and other companies. I would be happy to 
talk about that more.
    But to be honest, from the perspectives of free speech and 
the free press, the letter is not just chilling, it is 
positively glacial.
    I admit that I may be a relic in my views, but I continue 
to believe that the greatest protection against bad speech is 
better speech. Those seeking limits often speak of free speech 
like it is a swimming pool that must be monitored and carefully 
controlled for purity and safety. I view it more as a rolling 
ocean. It is indeed dangerous, but it is also majestic and 
inspiring. Its immense size allows for a natural balance. Free 
speech allows false ideas to be challenged in the open rather 
than driving dissenting viewpoints beneath the surface.
    However, free speech, like other constitutional values, 
requires a leap of faith, a faith not only in free speech, but 
in each other. Citizens are capable of educating and informing 
themselves. They do not need politicians or corporate filters 
to protect them from speech deemed misleading, false, or 
incited.
    Roughly 70 years ago, Justice William Douglas warned that 
the restriction of free speech is the most dangerous of all 
subversions. It is the one un-American act that could easily 
defeat us all. Some of the measures being discussed this week 
have the potential to defeat us all.
    Once again, thank you for the honor of appearing with you 
and with my distinguished panelists. I would be happy to answer 
questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Turley.
    We now recognize Ms. Urquiza for 5 minutes.

             STATEMENT OF KRISTIN DANIELLE URQUIZA

    Ms. Urquiza. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to everyone 
here for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony. My 
name is Kristin Urquiza. I am the cofounder of a grassroots, 
nonprofit group called Marked By COVID, which my partner, 
Christine Keeves, and I founded the day we buried my father, 
Mark Anthony Urquiza, from COVID-19 on June 30th, 2020. He was 
65.
    My father's story is tragic, yet it is not unique. Every 
single day since he has passed, I have spoken to people who 
have lost close family members and loved ones to COVID, and I 
am haunted by the eerie similarities between so many of us.
    Let me start by stating the obvious. The primary person and 
entity responsible for my father's death and hundreds of 
thousands of people in the United States is Donald Trump and 
his administration. This is why Marked By COVID is advocating 
for a commission to investigate the Federal Government's 
response to the pandemic thoroughly, so we know exactly what 
happened and why.
    However, crime and malfeasance aren't always committed by a 
single actor. Frequently there are accomplices, enablers, and 
complicit parties. To the people in this room and this sacred 
body who blindly followed the President without questioning, 
who put party over country, you and your colleagues are 
enablers. To the media, and in particular cable news, you were 
complicit. These actors may not have pulled the gun that point 
triggered--that pointed at my father's head, but they indeed 
drove the getaway car.
    My beloved father loved his country, and he instilled in me 
this: During times of crisis, it is our duty to our country to 
turn to our leaders for information on what to do to keep one 
another and our democracy safe. So on May 5th, 2020, when the 
former President made his first public appearance from his 
quarantine in Phoenix, Arizona, and said it was time to open 
up, my dad listened. When Arizona Governor Doug Ducey flipped 
the switch on May 15th, reopening the State with absolutely no 
safety measures in place, my dad noticed.
    But let me be abundantly clear: My father was not a 
personal friend of Donald Trump, nor Doug Ducey. Like everyone 
I know, my dad received his information through an 
intermediary. And his media of choice was Fox Cable News and 
Arizona's KTAR News 92.3 radio station.
    Also, let me be clear: My parents never questioned the 
reality or the severity of the pandemic, nor the efficacy of 
simple public health safety measures like wearing masks. But 
that all started to change after the President's visit to 
Arizona. My dad then started to say to me, ``Kristin, why would 
the Governor or the President say that it is safe, if it is not 
safe?''
    And you don't have to dig very deep to find both President 
Trump and Doug Ducey pushing that we have nothing to fear, and 
that if you do not have an underlying health condition, it is 
safe to be out there.
    The people in charge, the people he trusted and voted for, 
told him over and over again that he didn't have to worry. And 
I did my best to fight back. But there is no way that one 
person can compete with the microphone of the Office of the 
President, nor the propaganda machine that has become Fox Cable 
News.
    He died on June 30th, alone, with just a nurse holding his 
hand. This should not have happened. It did not have to be this 
way. The President and his enablers lied repeatedly, and that 
disinformation was allowed to litter the airwaves and created 
the exact right conditions for the virus to thrive and for 
hundreds of thousands of people to pass away needlessly.
    I said it earlier, and I will repeat it: The media didn't 
pull the trigger, but they drove the getaway car. Cable news 
channels like Fox News are complicit.
    Isabelle ``Obie'' Papadimitriou, Charles Krebbs, Genivieve 
Martinez, Dr. Gaye Griffin-Snyder, Mike Horton, Kathy Jones, 
Calvin Schoenfeld, William Curby, Manuel Urquiza, Mark Anthony 
Blackjack Urquiza, and more than half a million other names--
every single one of them deserves to be said out loud in this 
hearing. All irreplaceable, all dead.
    Thank you for allowing me to share our Marked By COVID 
story and holding this hearing to address the role of media 
fanning the flames of disinformation.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Urquiza follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    And now we have our last presenter. Ms. Bell is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF EMILY BELL

    Ms. Bell. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. And thanks for 
having me here today to speak about this incredibly important 
issue.
    I also want to thank the journalists and researchers 
working in this area with an extraordinary lack of data. And I 
hope that this is something that we can also address, which is 
why we know so little about what actually happens in our 
environment when we have such abundant material often trapped 
in the service of our largest technology companies.
    We heard about how both the tragic existential events that 
faced America this year were accompanied by the circulation of 
widespread and often politicized misinformation, conservative 
cable news channels, often amplified by a President who was 
notorious for spreading misinformation himself--he has 30,000 
fact-checked statements during his presidency, 15,000 of the--
false statements during his presidency. Fifteen thousand of 
those occurred in this last crucial year.
    Whilst we are here to discuss the role of the news media, I 
just want to emphasize that the digital context is just as 
important. The influence of what was once thought of as 
mainstream media I don't think can be any longer separated in 
any way from the digital environment in which we all swim.
    Misinformation, it is a systemic problem. It affects all, 
and I wholeheartedly endorse the view this is not a partisan 
issue. We sit in different geographies and right across the 
political spectrum, operating in the same way.
    We see content which is produced perhaps by cable news can 
be amplified and discussed by white supremacists and militia 
groups that lurk in online corners of the Internet.
    We see conspiracy theories about the coronavirus that make 
it to cable talk shows that still exist uncorrected on social 
media.
    Broadcasts that get just a few thousand viewers in real 
time circulate clips and posts that reach millions more.
    Some of this is the result of policy decisions and an 
environment that we have created for a thriving media market. A 
40-year path of deregulation has transformed the U.S. media 
landscape in both economic and political terms. Rollback of 
regulations has liberated the market but taken with it some of 
the safeguards and support from all various localized media.
    Digital media and the lowering of barriers has helped 
elevate previously marginalized and ignored voices, and it has 
made our public discourse much more diverse. But an open market 
without regulation will always favor bad actors over good. In 
financial markets this is known as Gresham's Law. Those with 
ethics are inhibited in ways that those without ethics are not.
    It is also worth saying that, in an open market, we talk 
about more speech being corrective. Too often voices we really 
need to hear are silenced by harassment and drowned out by 
electronic amplification.
    Whilst all news, national news media, and particularly 
polarized, opinionated news has flourished, local trusted news 
provision has really declined. As we have already heard, local 
newsroom staff have halved in the past 15 years, and there are 
now over 800 markets without any local news at all in the 
United States. Unfortunately, coronavirus has been an 
accelerant for this. This is something we track at my research 
center at Columbia University. We know that we have lost 
another 100 or so outlets just in the course of the last year.
    There is really a need for American democratic institutions 
to identify and work together on the priorities that would 
mitigate this kind of extremism and misinformation. Solutions 
encouraging a different news media environment should be 
central, I think, to our thinking. Finding the means to fund 
and sustain more independent local reporting are a burning 
priority. Civic journalism representative of the communities it 
serves should be established and strengthened through a reform 
agenda centered, I think, on the information rights of all 
communities. We talk about the information needs, but I think 
that they should really be thought of--rights, the right to 
hear good information.
    Mistrust of the media, it doesn't just exist in polarized 
pockets, either. It also exists within communities who have 
been ignored or misrepresented by mainstream media for decades. 
The opportunities to correct this cannot and should not be 
ignored. And I believe that they are an essential part of 
throwing a fire blanket on these flames that we are talking 
about today of extremism and division.
    I also believe that it is not just down to individual 
choice, or even the free market and choices made by companies. 
I believe that there is policy role here, which is not about 
infringing the First Amendment but which is about strengthening 
ways in which we can have a more vibrant, truthful news 
environment.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bell follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Bell. And that 
concludes our witnesses' statements. And so we are now going to 
move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to 
ask questions of our witnesses.
    I am going to start by recognizing myself, but I wanted Mr. 
McNerney to know that I am going to cut myself off at 4 minutes 
and give you my last minute to do what you were going to do 
before, which--I forgot to give you the minute. All right?
    So let me start out by saying I wanted to know if either 
Ms. O'Brien or Ms. Bell--are there any organizations that have 
found a way to properly police disinformation and deal with 
public figures inclined to spread it?
    And are there any best practices that news organizations 
can employ for this purpose?
    Quickly, since my time is now even more limited.
    Ms. O'Brien. I can begin very quickly, and then I will hand 
it off to Professor Bell.
    I would say that policing is not the word that I would use. 
I think my call would be for news organizations themselves to 
recognize the dangerous position that they have put themselves 
in and their viewers in. And I would say the list of things in 
my written testimony and what I read would be the things that 
you can do.
    In some ways it is very simple: Do not book liars on the 
air. That is not brain surgery. People who lie, people who 
traffic in misinformation and disinformation should not be 
booked on the air. That would be a very good place to begin.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Ms. Bell?
    Ms. Bell. There is a burgeoning area of research and civil 
society organizations--there is a research group, actually, 
convened around the election called the Election Integrity 
Partnership, which looked at both the roots of this and 
discussed ways in which things could be mitigated. It is what 
we work on, again, at Columbia.
    I think that when you say is there any successful 
strategies, as Soledad said, there are a whole range, I think, 
starting with journalists really recognizing how their work can 
be used in different contexts, right from, you know, the 
headline or the push alert that you get on your phone through 
to when you are talking to maybe a politician, for instance, 
who is not telling the truth, how you phrase that, what my 
colleague at NYU, Jay Rosen, would call a truth sandwich: frame 
what is perhaps challengeable with context.
    There are plenty of ways in which news organizations can 
connect better, I think, with the communities and with sources. 
I think that just prioritizing, reaching people where they are 
with high-value, high-quality information is really important, 
and also recognizing that they are not trusted and thinking 
about different ways to mitigate that trust.
    Has anyone done it completely effectively yet? No. We would 
hope that, in the next 4 years, that we could address that.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And then I am going to--one more 
question, briefly, of Ms. Urquiza.
    I have been troubled particularly by the degradation of 
science. And we have seen, you know, whether it is climate 
change, public health, or with COVID-19, there are not two 
sides, in my opinion, when it comes to the acceptance of basic 
facts, particularly facts that are verified and backed by 
active scientific methodology.
    So I am--I really--I wanted to start off by saying I am so 
sorry for the loss of your father. And I am sure he would be 
proud to see you here today. But do you think, in a--that there 
is any way that some media outlets, when they are portraying 
as--there being two sides to the seriousness of COVID-19, 
whether and how to take precautions against this virus has 
blurred the danger it actually poses?
    Like, you know, should you really be getting two sides on 
the virus, when the facts are known, and doesn't it blur when 
you are trying to get a message out about COVID and how to 
crush it?
    Ms. Urquiza. I am happy to weigh in on that. You know, 
the--facts are facts. There is no such thing as alternative 
facts. And even free speech scholars argue that, for a 
democracy to function, informed debates and the marketplace of 
ideas must work off a shared set of facts.
    When it comes to science, science is truth, and there are 
not two sides to what science tells us. I think part of the 
problem that----
    Mr. Pallone. All right, Kristin, I am going to have to cut 
you short, because I promised to give Jerry some time.
    Ms. Urquiza. Oh, of course.
    Mr. Pallone. I apologize.
    Ms. Urquiza. No worries.
    Mr. Pallone. Jerry, you have the remaining time, for what 
it is worth. Go ahead.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding to me 
on this.
    You know, rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories 
that we witnessed to overturn the election results led to the 
insurrection on the United States Capitol and posed a great 
threat to our safety, security, and way of life. But the 
foundation of our democracy is rooted in truths. Any effort to 
undermine that truthfulness is an effort at--to undermine and 
dismantle our democracy.
    We should all be concerned about any source that helps 
spread disinformation, conspiracy theory, and lies. And that is 
why I sent a letter with Representative Eshoo asking cable, 
satellite, and streaming providers the questions to understand 
how disinformation spreads, and the role of various companies 
in enabling its spread.
    While social media undoubtedly plays a major role in 
enabling disinformation ecosystems, traditional media outlets 
should not escape scrutiny or accountability.
    I am pleased to have this hearing. I appreciate your 
testimony, and I look forward to the questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. And Mr. Doyle, Chairman Doyle, has returned.
    So I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle [presiding]. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now 
want to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Latta, for 5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate that.
    And before I start my questions to Professor Turley, first 
of all, I want to just say that, you know, reading your 
document that you presented to us is very enlightening. And we 
have to remember, as a student of history, at some point 
remember what happened in our founding days, especially with 
the Sedition Acts in the Adams administration, the founding of 
those early newspapers with Hamilton and with Jefferson and 
Madison, and what was going on back and forth, through the 
Civil War, the Espionage Act under Wilson, that--you know, we 
see all these things reoccurring, and what we are seeing being 
brought forward to today.
    And one of the things I remember being taught in school 
years ago in college that--as a history major--is that he who 
forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.
    And Professor Turley, again, I want to thank you for being 
with us today, and your defense of the Constitution. The 
Democrat hearing memo for today states that, ``despite 
criticism, many traditional media outlets continue to allow for 
the disinformation in an attempt to follow journalistic 
standards and present multiple viewpoints on a news story.'' 
How would silencing one or more of those viewpoints, as the 
memo seems to imply would be helpful, actually hurt the ability 
of the media to correct the facts, to educate, and inform the 
public?
    Mr. Turley. Well, it would, and part of the value of a free 
press is the diversity of opinions and also the multiplicity of 
sources that it allows as exposure of lies. And lies tend to 
die from exposure. Sometimes it takes too long for most of us--
as most of us would wish. But if you start to eliminate those 
viewpoints, you don't create better speech, you just create 
coerced or official speech.
    My problem with the letter is that it only talks about 
networks that are viewed as conservative leaning. You know, the 
CNN, MSNBC, other networks have also been criticized for bias 
and criticized for false stories. And I think they have tried 
to address those issues, as have other networks. But to just 
focus on one part of that industry to try to either curtail or 
eliminate them is not advancing the interest of free speech, it 
is advancing the interests of a type of official speech, or 
regulated speech.
    Mr. Latta. Let me follow up. We have heard from our other 
witnesses today about the need for Congress to shed light on 
how irresponsible media contributes to disinformation in ways 
that have consequences for the democracy and encourage public 
education that helps the public discern between fact and 
fiction. Yet some of my Democratic colleagues prefer to cancel 
certain news channels. How does government oversight of the 
media align with the First Amendment principles?
    Mr. Turley. Well, you know, this is not a new issue. You 
know, if you look at the origins of the free press values that 
we hold dear, as well as free speech, they go back to the fight 
of John Milton in the 1600s, when he was fighting official 
licensing laws, laws that allowed the Government to dictate who 
would be published.
    And this is like a dormant virus in our system. There is 
always a new generation and a new interest in trying to 
regulate the free press to produce a more pleasing or 
acceptable or less objectionable product. That never worked. 
What it does is it produces an official product, which is 
exactly what the free press is designed to avoid.
    Mr. Latta. Well, in a followup to that, what do you think 
is the appropriate role of the Government in working to combat 
the disinformation that exists out there?
    Mr. Turley. Well, there is a lot that could be done.
    To be frank, as I think Soledad O'Brien stated correctly, 
the view of the press among the public is at an all-time low, 
you know, 40 percent--I may be optimistic at this point--in 
terms of people who trust the media. The question is why. That 
is not just the conservative media. That is the media across 
the spectrum. And part of it is this echo journalistic model 
that has been replicated throughout the industry.
    They also don't trust Congress, quite frankly. They don't 
trust this committee or other committees. And we have to accept 
that.
    And what we should do is try to create forms of information 
that are reliable for the public to reach their own 
conclusions, not to give them processed conclusions, but to 
give them that essential data and information, to give 
transparency to investigations. And then I think that trust can 
rebuild, not only with the media, but also with Congress.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And again, we 
appreciate your testimony today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank my friend for yielding back. The Chair 
now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. O'Brien, in your testimony you talk about the weakening 
of journalistic standards throughout the media and the rise of 
anchors and commentators more intent on enraging their viewers 
than informing them. What is the danger when content is 
presented to viewers as news or as facts that really amounts to 
entertainment, without a factual basis or any journalistic 
standards?
    Do you believe that this has exacerbated the pandemic? And 
do you think it helped foment the insurrectionist attack on 
January 6th?
    Ms. O'Brien. I think you fail in your journalism when you 
do not actually do what the job is, which is to bring facts to 
people.
    And listen, first of all, I just want to say I am 
incredibly proud to be a journalist. I work with many great 
colleagues. And there are many good news organizations large 
and small, local TV stations, newspapers big and small, and I 
will name some of them. I think Report for America is quite 
good. Hechinger Report is quite good. ProPublica is quite good. 
They are elevating, and they are reporting, frankly, around the 
country. And I think probably the biggest issue is that there 
is just not enough of them, right?
    So, when you have misinformation and when you have lies 
elevated--we talk about more speech and good speech and better 
speech. I think the actual conversation is about the risks of 
elevating lies. My conversation is about facts and lies. And so 
I think that you should not be allowed and the news 
organizations should not want people to be on the air if they 
are, in fact, lying and they are liars. They should--because 
the news organizations' values are to inform their public.
    Sometimes you get the sense that truth is unknowable. That 
is just not correct. I am advocating for good journalism. I am 
advocating for reporting, which is how we verify information. 
We do not need to put people who are spreading misinformation 
on the air. And I think that is nothing that the Congress has 
to deal with, it is news organizations themselves who should 
hold themselves to this standard. It is a journalistic 
standard.
    Mr. Doyle. Right. Thank you.
    What about you, Ms. Bell, do you have anything to add to 
that?
    [Pause.]
    You need to unmute.
    Ms. Bell. My students will be laughing at me now.
    So I think this point about better speech, good speech, the 
checks and balances of having a balanced market, it is really 
important that we understand how difficult that is in a digital 
environment.
    Some of the networks we look at, which are partisan, they 
exist on both the left and the right that don't disclose their 
funding, that operate at local levels. They create a million 
stories in the course of a year. They contain very little 
original reporting. They are designed to get people to think 
about the repetition of phrases and think that things are 
issues that are not really issues.
    You can create an enormous amount of that material, and you 
can actually target it at people very, very cheaply and easily. 
And the job, then, of journalists on the ground becomes 
incredibly difficult. We see this showing up in local news 
rooms all the time. So we hear from editors and reporters 
saying, you know, ``Increasingly, half of my job is just 
combating stuff which is not true.'' And that is the narrative 
I have heard a lot from reporters in places like Ukraine, 
places like Russia, 5:36 PMand really not something you expect 
to hear in the U.S.
    So I think it is not just about this partisan issue. I 
think we really do have to understand that the environment does 
not support and promote the things that are based in truth in 
the way that it should. And that is about incentives in all 
areas, I think, of the market.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, it seems like more free speech just isn't 
winning the day over the kind of speech that we are concerned 
about, unfortunately.
    Ms. Urquiza, first of all, my condolences to you and your 
family. This pandemic has taken many people's family and 
friends and loved ones away from us. And I appreciate you 
appearing today because I know this must be tough for you. I 
want to ask you, Do you think your father's story is unique?
    And what role do you think the news media played in 
delivering what was an untimely, deadly disinformation to your 
father?
    Ms. Urquiza. My father's story is absolutely not unique. I 
have, over the course of many, many months, have been hearing 
similar and eerie stories from literally hundreds of people 
across the country who have come to Marked By COVID looking for 
support to figure out how to push forward.
    And my dad's messages to me started to change as the news 
media started to say that it was safe, advertising the 
messaging coming from the White House that we didn't have 
anything to fear from. I know exactly that that was a huge role 
in him making the decisions that he made.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, thank you very much. I see my time is up. 
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing, 
along with the majority's letters that target right-wing cable 
outlets, are really a dangerous escalation in the left's 
crusade to silence anyone who does not agree with their 
ideology. It appears to me that the Democrats may want to 
revive the Fairness Doctrine.
    And Mr. Turley, I wanted to start by asking you: Can you 
explain the significant issues you see with a new Fairness 
Doctrine and why you would caution Congress against bringing it 
back?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Doyle. Jonathan, you need to unmute. We can't hear you.
    Mr. Turley. I don't know how many times I have to be told 
that, I am sorry.
    Questioning a fairness doctrine for the media sounds a lot 
like questioning a purity doctrine for milk. It is hard to 
explain, but there is a substantial question as to whether the 
Fairness Doctrine would be upheld today based on the earlier 
decision. It was upheld in 1969 in the Red Lion case.
    Now, I must confess, I don't favor the Fairness Doctrine 
because I don't favor government regulation of the media. I 
adhere to the view of Justice Hugo Black, when he said, ``I 
take no law abridging'' to mean no law abridging, in quoting 
the First Amendment. That is why many people treat me as--often 
refer to me as a free speech and free press purist in that 
sense, something that I take as a compliment.
    But in Red Lion, the court applied an intermediate scrutiny 
standard that many of us have questioned as to whether that was 
appropriate. It based its decision on the notion that broadcast 
networks were a unique medium, they were a scarce source of 
news, that people didn't have the ability to choose between 
news, and it was free. This was available to the public. And so 
they decided to apply a lower standard.
    It is not clear they would do that again. In cases like in 
1974, in Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo, the Court struck 
down a Florida law requiring newspapers to give space to people 
who were criticized or attacked. But also we now don't have 
that scarcity, right? We have cable news that----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, thank you. I want to get to a couple 
more questions.
    So I wanted to ask all the witnesses that are here--and 
this is a yes-or-no question: Do you support government 
pressure on private companies to remove legally protected 
content from their viewing platforms?
    I would like each of you to answer yes or no, please.
    Ms. Bell. No.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Turley. Yes, I don't support government regulation.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Great. As has been referenced, you know, 
earlier this week certain members of the majority sent a very 
concerning letter to companies pressuring them to block 
conservative outlets. And I know we have heard a lot from 
people on both sides of the aisle about the importance of 
upholding the First Amendment. I would like to offer this 
letter into the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. To be clear, combating disinformation is a 
shared goal. But we do not want to follow the lead of 
authoritarian countries like China, not here in the United 
States, where we cherish an independent press.
    So Mr. Turley, do you agree that the answer to speech we 
disagree with is more speech, rather than less? And would you 
just explain briefly?
    Mr. Turley. I do. And I think history shows that. What 
history shows also is that limiting speech, trying to regulate 
it to private or public means, it tends not to produce better 
speech. It tends to produce regulated or official or approved 
speech. It tends to favor an orthodoxy. And that is a reason 
many of us oppose government regulation of the media, which is 
inherently at odds. And going back, as I mentioned, to the 
1600s, the very foundation of a free press was formed in this 
conflict between the press and the government, and trying to 
keep the government from exercising these controls.
    But it takes a leap of faith. You have to believe, not just 
in the free press and free speech, you have to believe in each 
other, that we can make the right decisions.
    And it is not always the case. It doesn't always turn out 
the right way. There are a lot of people that aren't convinced. 
Many of us said soon after the election that there was not 
systemic fraud. A lot of people didn't believe that, but----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Right, OK----
    Mr. Turley [continuing]. Speech allows them to be 
convinced.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, I appreciate that.
    Finally, just to Mr. Chairman, you know, you once wrote, 
``Censoring or interfering with broadcasters' discretion to air 
legally protected content is wrong,'' and threats by 
politicians about protected speech were concerning, and that 
anyone who ``stays silent could undermine the First Amendment 
and our Communications Act.'' So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
say we need to be united in our effort to uphold the 
Constitution. We need to work together and not use our 
positions of power to threaten private companies to censor or 
interfere with constitutionally protected content. And so we 
stand ready to work together to protect these constitutionally 
protected freedoms of speech and the press.
    And with that, I----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for holding this 
very important and informative discussion. It is important to 
talk about these things.
    My district includes the City of Stockton, California, with 
a population of over 300,000 people. It is the most racially 
and ethnically diverse city in the country. And here is what we 
are seeing in Stockton. In 2010 the Stockton Record, our local 
paper, had a staff of about 80 people. Today it has a staff of 
8. When we look at the total number of reporters in the city 
region and State that covers our metropolitan area, we see the 
same trend. In 2010 there were 100 to 110 reporters in print 
and broadcasting. Today there are 10 to 20. I am concerned 
about how this decline of local news is impacting our 
community.
    Ms. O'Brien, when there are fewer reporters covering 
everyday life in a community, is there--and there is less local 
reporting, how does this affect the ability of individuals to 
stay informed?
    Ms. O'Brien. Clearly, it is a huge problem, and those 
numbers that you are talking about in Stockton, California, are 
repeated across the country. It is devastating.
    And part of the problem is that people aren't only just 
getting misinformation and disinformation, they are also just 
getting no information. And so that becomes very problematic. 
There are real costs to that. How do you make decisions? How do 
you make decisions around policy? How do you make decisions 
about what is happening in your community?
    Local news--local newspapers, specifically--were very much 
the way to do that. And because they are being decimated, there 
are some real tangible results of that, and those tangible 
results are devastating to communities, small communities.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, when there are local cuts to local 
newsrooms, how does this impact the ethnic diversity of the 
news cadre?
    And how could not having a diverse news staff impact trust 
in the press?
    Ms. O'Brien. I have spent a lot of time reporting stories 
about diverse communities. And I think one thing we see is that 
diversity in the newsroom helps to actually get out more 
accurate stories, more interesting stories from diverse 
communities. So there is a real cost.
    Often, since many--and I don't know how it is in Stockton, 
but since many reporters of color are sometimes more recently 
hired, that often means that if there are layoffs, they are 
pretty quickly fired. And that means that your newsroom reverts 
back to not a particularly diverse newsroom.
    There, of course, is a tremendous cost to that. How do you 
cover a community that is growing more and more diverse without 
the staff that actually can navigate that? And how do you make 
sure that you are showing the public, day in and day out, that 
you care about the community, when you are not actually there 
to cover their stories? It is hugely problematic.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Professor Bell, how does a void in 
local news contribute to the spread of disinformation?
    Ms. Bell. Well, I think in every dimension it is exactly 
right that--just as Soledad O'Brien just said, you know, we 
have done research in urban Philadelphia, we have done it in 
rural Kansas. You have really, really different populations 
there. But the thing that they share in common is that they 
feel like journalism was something which just was traditionally 
done to them, not for them. They have low expectations of the 
press. They have little trust in it.
    And I think the problem is--support for local media, and 
local media does actually keep government accountable, it keeps 
expenditure down. It keeps--I mean, all of this is in the 
evidence.
    And I think the other thing which is sociological, which is 
really important to say here, which is that, if you are from 
one of the communities, if you are from your area that you 
represent, and you are a young person with ambition to serve 
their community and particularly if you are a young person who 
is not properly represented in the press, you are not going to 
look at the moment at local press and think that is a great, 
stable path for me to follow.
    So, you know, I think that losing that step of--the first 
step of accountability and democracy, really, it means that 
almost everything else in the pyramid of media is standing on a 
very faulty foundation. I think we really--you can't 
overestimate how important it is as a foundation of democracy.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, for consumers with cable 
subscriptions, channels are typically bundled and consumers 
can't opt out of paying for certain channels, even if they 
don't want the channel. I recently wrote a letter with 
Representatives Eshoo that has been referred to today 
expressing grave concern about how some of these channels are 
spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories.
    Professor Bell, have consumers, even those who do not want 
to watch these channels, been paying for disinformation?
    Ms. Bell. The economics of bundling and cable coverage does 
mean that inevitably you end up paying, as a consumer, for 
things that you wouldn't necessarily pay for otherwise. So, in 
that dimension, yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, it should be noted a lot of Americans 
don't realize they are paying for disinformation.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
recognition.
    My daughter just graduated from journalism school, so this 
is important to me. She is going to start a career in a great 
field. And it is important that we have honesty and integrity 
in journalism.
    And I have a lot of people at home asking me quite often, 
``What news should I watch?'' I mean, I think some people 
realize that we have divided ourselves into news for one belief 
and news for the other, and which one to watch. And it is 
difficult for me to say. And I always say that, if you had two 
conspiracies, two conspiracies, both of them conspiracies, one 
is that there were emergency measures put in place on mail-in 
voting in certain States and that mail-in voting had 
irregularities that changed the election, and the other one is 
the Russian president hijacked the American election because he 
had information on the American president to make him an agent 
of the Russian government, which one do you think would get 
investigated, and which one do you think would get summarily 
dismissed?
    We both--we know that the Russian investigation was false. 
We know that Members of Congress were on television and cable 
shows saying they had evidence that the President--that was all 
true. They were never called out on it. And so it is just 
frustrating that, if we are looking at one side or the other, 
it is both sides, and we really need to focus on this. And the 
question is, Where is Congress's role in doing it, and--given 
the First Amendment?
    And so I want to focus on--and I think what Ms. Urquiza was 
talking about--I am on the--I am the ranking member of the 
healthcare subcommittee of this committee. And it is important 
that we get accurate information, it absolutely is important we 
get accurate information out.
    During the Operation Warp Speed phase, when they were 
developing the vaccines, we had members of this committee, we 
had the Vice President, current Vice President of the United 
States, talk about the process of Operation Warp Speed and 
getting the vaccines in a negative way, in my opinion. And it 
just really frustrated me, because everybody who wanted to know 
knew they were--FDA was following the standards of every other 
vaccine. That was what was evident.
    And by spreading disinformation, if somebody chooses not to 
get a vaccine because they heard somebody from this committee, 
or they heard the Vice President earlier in--and that was 
during the campaign season, not during our current vice 
presidency--it really does lend to people making decisions that 
Ms. Urquiza was talking about, that is not with the best 
information.
    And so the question you get to, if we say, ``Well, only 
people that have this information can go talk on television,'' 
what do we tell the politicians that spread disinformation? Do 
we tell them in the course of a campaign they can't make those 
kind of comments? And so we are all for the right information.
    The question, I guess, with Dr. Turley, I went and visited 
a--there was a vaccine site in my district where they were 
doing the experimentation. I go in, and the researcher, the 
lady who was doing all the--set up the research and the tests 
and so forth, really kind of excoriated me. And we deserved it 
on the political side for politicizing the process. It is--and 
she corrected me, said, ``This shouldn't be political. This 
is--we are moving forward.'' And she really brought forth--and 
I said, ``You are right, it shouldn't be political. We should 
have answers.''
    And then the two physicians who were responsible for the 
practice where she was doing the administration, one sat down 
and said, ``Children can spread this, and children are needing 
to be vaccinated'' and so forth, and I won't get into it, where 
the other one completely contradicted what he said. Two 
physicians in the same practice, sitting in the same room.
    And I looked to the researcher, I said, ``See, this is the 
problem we are having getting information out.''
    So the question, I guess, Dr. Turley, if there are two 
opinions--I mean, how do you get to the point where we say we 
know this is safe and effective, we know that all of the 
criticisms against the vaccine are wrong, therefore we are--
what process would you say would Congress have in place to say 
only the people telling what we know to be true can go on 
television? I don't understand how we would do that, 
practically.
    Mr. Turley. Well, I don't think you could do that. And I 
don't think the courts would allow you to do that under the 
First Amendment. But the way you resolve that is you have to 
convince people, and that is never easy, right? It is very 
frustrating, because some people won't be convinced.
    I actually felt it was very important in the days following 
the election to say, ``Let's look at all of these allegations'' 
while also saying that we didn't see any evidence of systemic 
fraud. Just we would like to look at it. There was a whole 
group of people that were, within a couple of days of the 
election, saying there is no fraud, no irregularities, and even 
threatening lawyers and trying to get them to drop these cases. 
That didn't help. That didn't help convince people, because 
what they saw was a bunch of people trying to silence others, 
and I think it snowballed into what we saw, that both sides 
were not listening or speaking to the others.
    So those of us who are in the middle on--in the media have 
to try to do our best to try to frame these issues, to convince 
people. It is not as easy as silencing some voices, it is not 
as easy as marginalizing voices. But it is the only thing that 
can unify us, is to find avenues for dialogue. Congress can 
play a role in that by trusting citizens enough to give them 
greater transparency, greater information, so that they can 
make their own decisions.
    And I want to echo what the Democratic Member said before, 
and also what my copanelist said. I also believe that the loss 
of local media is a serious problem. And that is another area 
where Congress really could play a good role in focusing on how 
we can get back to a robust local media.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, I am sorry, my time has expired. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A top 10 of facts that 
we saw contested vigorously over the last year: COVID-19 is 
real and can kill you; masks protect us; Pfizer and the Moderna 
vaccines are safe and effective; Joe Biden won the Presidential 
election; there are no massive instances of voter fraud; it was 
Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol on January 6th; there 
are 530 Members of Congress that are capitalists and about 5 
that are Democratic Socialists; the Federal Government infected 
black men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972; a third of Puerto 
Rican women were forced--sterilized from 1930 to 1970, both by 
the Federal Government; and lastly, the Earth is still round.
    I say this because you see so many of these facts were the 
subject of intense campaigns and misinformation in social 
media, in newspapers, and broadcasting. And I get we have to 
strike a balance on this.
    First I want to ask Ms. O'Brien, who obviously has the show 
``Matter of Fact,'' about how important it is to get the facts 
right, particularly regarding COVID-19, vaccines, and other key 
public health facts when it comes to communicating with 
communities of color.
    Ms. O'Brien. Clearly, it is absolutely essential, 
especially for vulnerable populations, because, obviously, when 
there is lots of misinformation or disinformation or just flat-
out lies, then you run the risk that people are making 
decisions off of this misinformation.
    On the show that I do, ``Matter of Fact,'' we have 
consistently been dipping back into communities of color to 
talk to them about their fears, their concerns, and talking to 
experts, as well, as we follow what is happening with the 
vaccine. I think it is really critical.
    But I think it is essential to remember that robust 
dialogue is great. It just has to be robust dialogue around 
facts. You know, this--again, this idea that, you know, speech 
and more speech--all great, as long as it is centered in facts. 
And I think we should be really clear to tease out 
misinformation and disinformation and lies are very different 
than people just having disagreements over a set of facts.
    Mr. Soto. And what do you think the consequences could be 
of continued massive falsehoods regarding vaccines and COVID-19 
among communities of color?
    Ms. O'Brien. We have already seen many communities of color 
are very slow to get access to the vaccine. Sometimes that is 
structural, and sometimes it is because they have had a history 
of distrust in the medical profession. And so there are already 
concerns there. And it is one of the reasons we keep dipping 
back into this story consistently, almost every other week, to 
make sure we are elevating that conversation.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much.
    Professor Turley, it is great to see you again. I enjoyed 
your classes at GW Law. It is always a pleasure to have you in 
committee.
    We saw a huge Spanish language misinformation campaign in 
South Florida in particular in our State, blaming Antifa and 
BLM for the Capitol insurrection. The FCC already has laws on 
the books that, if you knowingly broadcast false information 
that will cause substantial public harm, that it is illegal. Is 
this one of the proper ways we could pursue making sure that we 
have some truth in broadcasting and existing laws? Would that 
be a way to strike that balance, by the FCC looking at it and 
beefing up their Spanish language staff?
    Mr. Turley. Well, thank you again, Congressman, it is good 
to see you again.
    I wish I could say that that was a potential avenue. I 
don't think it is a workable avenue, because it quickly gets 
bound up in this sort of regulation of the media and can trip 
these same wires under the First Amendment.
    There are protections, of course. You know, you do have 
defamation laws, even with public figures. You can sue people. 
We have had a whole plethora of lawsuits recently, including by 
Dominion Computers, which has been suing a number of people 
about falsehoods that have been made. Those do have deterrent 
impacts. They do have an impact on media as well as nonmedia 
figures.
    The most important role of Congress is to be a vehicle of 
truth, to get that information out, and to allow the media to 
filter out these voices.
    I am not as confident as Soledad. I don't--I have to say 
that I don't think it is fair to say, ``Well, look, I am in 
favor of free speech and free press as long as you are not a 
liar, as long as what you are saying is not untrue.'' And it 
gets us back--it is sort of circular, because it--we end up in 
the same spot. Who is the arbiter of that? What is the meaning 
that someone is a liar and someone is being untruthful?
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Professor. And I want to give Ms. 
O'Brien----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is--you have 4 seconds, 
so----
    Mr. Soto. My time is expired.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Soto. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
    Adam, you are up.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, 
everybody, for being here.
    You know, one of the interesting--when we talk about truth, 
I mean, I think, you know, when you think back to COVID, I have 
had people that have sent me, well, how come there is 500,000 
that have died from COVID and flu deaths are way down? And that 
is seen as some kind of a thing that this is really the flu. 
And, you know, you just got to remind people because we are all 
wearing masks and keeping distance, and that is how the flu 
passes.
    So I do want to say to our panelist who lost a family 
member and anybody else, I am truly sorry and devastated, and I 
hope you can find some solace in the work you are doing.
    You know, lots of what we are talking about--I think the 
important part here is we look back at past actions and we do a 
lot of ``what about this,'' and well, ``Democrats did this,'' 
and the Democrats say, ``The Republicans did this.'' And you 
are never going to win an argument that way. I think, in the 
future of disinformation, the key is to call it out in your own 
party.
    I will tell you, some of you lefties on this panel, you 
know, call my base and tell them something, they are not going 
to listen to you. But if I say it, they are much more likely 
to. And I think that is where it is important for each party 
and each political philosophy to take a personal account for 
what you are telling your constituents and people that are 
listening to you. Because I got to tell you, as much as this 
debate is important, if this society falls apart we are going 
to look back and say not just ``We could have done more,'' we 
are going to say all the things we argued about were nothing in 
comparison to the fact that now society has failed and my dad 
can't get his heart medicine, or something like that.
    So this is deadly serious. And I think it is important for 
everybody to remember this is far beyond what it means for the 
next election and who is going to win the majority, and 
anything like that. And we need a 10-part series to cover the 
way that government officials, media, and the public have 
contributed to this.
    But I think we need to focus today on fear and anger 
associated with our discourse.
    National news media has a substantial role in society. But 
over time we have seen traditional news reporting devolve into 
opinion reporting. Too often, national news outlets give prime-
time slots to opinion personalities over news reports. And some 
of these personalities will start a segment by reporting the 
top lines of a current event, but then they quickly transition 
and spend more time on expressing their political hot take on 
the matter. They point fingers, they create, you know, 
political narratives, and more time on that than they do 
offering important background and details and letting you make 
your own decision.
    Plus the fact that we are being hit from every front with 
all kinds of information. Eventually, it is like, if you are 
being attacked on three sides, you are just going to jump into 
a foxhole and hide and listen to the one person that maybe you 
trust. And that person can now take a hold of anything you 
believe and tell you anything.
    There is plenty of evidence to show that fear mongering and 
fomenting anger drives engagement and ratings. We know that. 
And similar constructs, of course, can be applied to social 
media. Ultimately, this fosters a culture of fear and click 
bait to get attention.
    Civility is not limited to the words we choose or to the 
tone that we employ. It means respecting one another as equals 
through our shared humanity. And as it applies to this hearing, 
civility means prioritizing the reporting of facts over 
opinions, and then trusting the public to interpret the events 
for themselves and assign the right value.
    I do want to make a general distinction, though, again, 
between national and local media, as was discussed. There is 
always exceptions, but I have to tell you I am a big fan of 
local media and local news. I think it is very fact-based. It 
can show people, you know, where to get the latest vaccine, 
what is going on. I think the degradation or the disappearing 
of local news is a real concern. They also can play a very good 
role, as we have seen, in, you know, exposing scams that are 
out there that we have seen, for instance, of seniors and 
others. So I am all for keeping it local.
    I do want to ask, though, Professor Turley. Mis- and 
disinformation have to be addressed in a bipartisan fashion. We 
know that foreign actors utilize both to sow the seeds of 
discord and to threaten democracies across the globe. And at 
the same time, the most important principle of democracy is the 
freedom of speech and expression. But I worry that we are 
crossing into yelling fire in a theater if it is this 
dangerous.
    So let me ask you. I am interested in exploring the legal 
ways to curb disinformation and protect the First Amendment. 
Given the important role the media has, what do you think about 
these outlets having to make it clear to their audience when 
their segments are opinion versus fact?
    Mr. Turley. Well, I think that is important. There is a 
blurring that has occurred. If you go past 6:00 on most cable 
networks, you are pretty much in the realm of opinion today. 
And it does blur.
    And I think what you said earlier, Congressman, is really 
important. Let's be honest: Rage is addictive. I mean, we are a 
nation addicted to rage. People complain about how tired they 
are and how they wish they could get beyond this, but I don't 
see any evidence of it. People are addicted to rage, and they 
are using that rage to try to silence others or blame others. 
And it is ripping this country apart.
    The media can play a very important role in trying to 
create a dialogue. And that is all the media, the diversity of 
media that we have. And the Congress can help in that sense.
    Mr. Kinzinger. That is right. Well, it is----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. I am sorry, 
Adam.
    Mr. Kinzinger. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. OK, buddy, thank you. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
putting together this very important hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, the spread of misinformation and 
disinformation strikes at the heart of our democracy. Without 
the ability to discern what is true from what is not, or the 
ability to even work from the same shared sets of facts, there 
is no way we can earnestly debate the important and complex 
issues that impact our constituents every day.
    I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think there has been a 
lot of commentary in this area already. I will just jump 
straight to my questions so we have enough time to have a 
little bit of a conversation. I would like to start with Ms. 
O'Brien.
    Some have argued that equal time should be given to 
competing sides of controversial issues. I tend to agree with 
that, generally. But in practice it seems awfully difficult. 
How do broadcast journalists and media sources in general give 
equal time to each side of an issue without vindicating those 
whose opinions are not based in facts?
    Ms. O'Brien. So I covered this in my written testimony, so 
I refer back to that. But I would say that I think debate 
around facts is great, and I am absolutely a proponent of 
debating. I think where we see a difference is when we are not 
dealing with facts, and we are dealing with something that is 
dishonest and a lie.
    So I do not believe that lies deserve equal time. And I 
think that journalism students from pretty much day one are 
able to begin to ferret out what things are true. It is 
reporting, right? It is the who, why, what, when, how. And so, 
for me, that is really how it needs to be thought about.
    Facts are not unknowable. It is not this who knows what is 
real, who knows what is not real. There are verifiable facts. 
And, in fact, those can be the center of a very good and 
engaging and important debate that will engage your viewers, 
that will help them make decisions, that will help your 
constituents. But when those things that are being debated are 
actually based on misinformation and lies, there is no 
obligation to elevate a lie, ever. There is no one in a news 
organization who would say that that is the mission of 
journalism, to elevate and platform lies.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, ma'am.
    Turning to Ms. Bell, do you think that climate change and 
the potential consequences of allowing the spread of inaccurate 
or just simply wrong information has similar perils and dangers 
as to what we saw with the spread of misinformation regarding 
the COVID 2019--I am sorry, the COVID-19 virus in the 2020 
elections?
    And add on to that, please, do you think there should be 
some sort of immediate action? And, if so, what should that 
action be to combat disinformation?
    Ms. Bell. So I think climate change is a very useful 
parallel here. And again, when we are debating or finding out 
more about complex environments, then there is always an area 
where things are under debate. The consensus of the scientific 
community on climate change and what is needed to mitigate it 
is pretty much [audio malfunction] point.
    But we still see, I mean, even last week in Texas we saw, 
unfortunately, lots of pretty, I think, balanced discussion, 
right, the--way across the political spectrum about what the 
problems with power supply were. We saw a narrative emerge 
about wind turbines, which was not actually reflective of the 
true situation of what happened. And you can just trace how 
those stories were proliferated in one place and amplified 
online until it became the dominant narrative, rather than the 
real problems, the real suffering that people were experiencing 
on the ground.
    So I think climate change is one of those areas, exactly 
like health, where we just need--and I think Texas is important 
in this because, again, local outlets, the Governor of Texas 
went to local news and talked about, I think, the issues in a 
much more balanced way. He went on to Shorthouse in the 
evening, and it was all about wind turbines again. So I think 
that, you know, kind of--we all have to--I think local media 
does a great job of keeping people accountable, when there is 
[inaudible].
    The job here is to think about some of the incentive 
structures and what we can do to positively regulate rather 
than negatively regulate, rather than saying that certain 
speech--I don't think anybody is in favor of that. How do we 
make sure that that type of journalism and those types of 
systems--it is not just the journalists that are actually 
really encouraged.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. McEachin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. Let's see, it looks 
like my buddy Gus Bilirakis is next.
    Gus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 
And I want to tell you--I want to invite you down to Florida 
for spring training. It begins this weekend. So, again, I am 
the eternal optimist with regard to the Pittsburgh Pirates.
    Mr. Doyle. Gus, with the weather we have had in Pittsburgh, 
I will come tomorrow.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bilirakis. Professor Turley, in 1987 the FCC repealed 
the Fairness Doctrine--I know you know that--which required 
that television stations air contrasting views to controversial 
issues. The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that, 
in 1967, Americans only had access to a handful of broadcasting 
stations, which were granted licenses by the Federal 
Government. And I remember all that, I am old enough. If your 
viewpoint was attacked and you didn't have an opportunity to 
respond, you might never have been able to defend yourself back 
in 1967.
    In 2021 we are no longer limited to a few TV stations, and 
Americans are increasingly relying on other forms of media to 
inform their views. Given the exponential ways Americans can 
access news and opinions in 2021, do we really need the 
Fairness Doctrine in order to ensure opposing voices are heard?
    And are there constitutional concerns with the Fairness 
Doctrine today that might not have existed in 1967?
    Again, for Professor Turley.
    Mr. Turley. Yes, thank you. I should--this may have 
bearing, because I will have to answer your question as a Cubs 
fan. So, as a Pirates fan, you may want to discount everything 
I am about to say.
    But I--there are serious concerns. I have really 
substantial doubts about whether Red Lion would be upheld in 
its original form, if at all. The first issue is really this 
intermediate scrutiny standard that was applied, instead of 
strict scrutiny. But you really hit on the key, in terms of the 
changing context. Back then, the Supreme Court put a lot of 
emphasis on the fact that there were very few broadcast 
networks, very few choices, and therefore it elevated the 
interest of the government. But the court also said that, if 
there is evidence that there is, in fact, scarcity, then that 
can be put forward, or if there is evidence that they are 
controlling the message.
    The objection I made to the letter that went to AT&T 
actually is the same objection that goes to Red Lion: That 
letter seems like an effort to encourage the dropping of some 
of these cable news programs, to actually reduce the diversity 
of cable programs.
    But, if the Supreme Court was to deal with this today, I 
think it would see a very different situation, and I think it 
would adopt a different analysis. There are a variety of 
choices on cable, as well as broadcast. And I think they could 
very well not only change the standard but the outcome, 
particularly as it applies to cable.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. The next question. In a free 
market, when a product or service continually fails to meet an 
expected standard, the public either moves to a competitor, or 
the opportunity for a new market competitor arises. You touched 
on that. I believe this system extends to journalistic 
standards, as well. If an outlet fails to report the truth and 
damages its reputation as a reputable network, its viewers will 
seek out the competition.
    Professor Turley again: If the Government were to pull 
competitors from the news market and then prevent new 
competitors from entering, doesn't that lower accountability 
and journalistic standards than would otherwise exist in an 
open market for the entities that remain?
    Mr. Turley. Well, that indeed is the concern, because if 
you go down that road you come close to the state media model. 
That is, it is not enough to control the narrative, you also 
have to eliminate alternatives to the narrative, right? Because 
you--it doesn't work if people can just go to another source 
and hear a different view. So that is part of the value of the 
diversity of these news outlets that you can choose from.
    Now, we do have a serious problem here. My copanelist 
touched on this, that we have a new model of this echo 
journalism. People have these siloed existences. And echo 
journalism is like the comfort food of journalism, right? 
People go to these comfort zones, where they only hear news 
that confirms their bias. And a lot of these networks are 
shaped by that. And a lot of us want to see some breakage there 
to try to get back to that. But we have to convince people to 
do that. You don't do that by eliminating or curtailing other 
news sources. You do that by trying to work with responsible 
journalism and journalists in elevating that news.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, somebody did say----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. As well. All right, thank you. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. And Gus, we don't pay attention to 
American League teams.
    [Laughter.]
    All right. Let's see who is next here.
    Ah, my good friend Anna Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for your testimony.
    And Mr. Turley, I am sorry that yours came in late, so I 
couldn't read it last night, but I did today.
    I want to just take a minute or so for observations, 
because I have been listening since we began, and it is always 
worthwhile to listen, and to listen well. I think that today's 
hearing about misinformation and listening to a lot of things 
that have been said simply underscores that we have a lot of 
misinformation going on right in the middle of this very 
hearing.
    The letters that Congressman McNerney and I sent, some have 
insisted that those letters violate the First Amendment. The 
First Amendment, my friends, starts with four words: ``Congress 
shall make no laws.'' So those of you who may not have read the 
letters, I suggest that you do.
    I would also like to state that the letter asks the 
companies questions.
    Now, I don't know, Mr. Turley, if you find this so chilling 
that it is actually glacial for Congress to ask strong, 
important questions. I think we owe that to Ms. Urquiza. How do 
you answer to what was put out, and her father is gone? I call 
them lies. I don't know what you call them. You call that the 
open market, something that is competitive?
    We have a problem in this country. It is a large one. It is 
a sticky wicket because of our Constitution. But we need to 
examine and be frank with each other about what is taking place 
in the country.
    I would also like to add that, if you want assurance, 
Members, Mr. McNerney and I had the nonpartisan First Amendment 
experts at CRS, the Congressional Research Service, read every 
word and every footnote of our letters and review them against 
all relevant case law. They are finalizing the legal analysis 
memo, which I will share with all the members of the committee. 
Yesterday CRS informed me they see no First Amendment red flags 
in the letters whatsoever.
    So I thank my Republican pals for elevating this hearing. I 
think we have a much broader audience because of the red 
herrings that have been raised or put out there before the 
hearing. So we have a terrific audience, as I said, probably 
larger than what we originally anticipated.
    To Ms. O'Brien, I think your testimony is magnificent. And 
I think that you--your term that we have truth decay today 
couldn't be better capsulized.
    Now, Newsmax, One America News Network, Fox News, all use 
``news'' in their name. As a well-respected journalist of 30 
years, how do you define the word ``news''?
    Ms. O'Brien. For me, news is about searching for 
verifiable, accurate, factual information, and bringing that to 
the public. I think journalists spend every day--good 
journalists, at least--trying to figure out how they can serve 
their public, how they can bring accuracy and facts and nuance 
and context to the people who are watching them or reading 
them. And to me, that is news.
    Now, CNN also has news in its headline, as well. So I don't 
think it is as much as what is in the headline, I think it is 
what is the actual practice that you are seeing day in and day 
out.
    Many news organizations, as I have in my written testimony, 
have moved--slid into a lot of opinion, an opinion that is not 
necessarily labeled as opinion or highlighted as opinion or 
sort of pointed out strongly as opinion. Instead, it just sort 
of slides into opinion, and it is very hard to tell the 
difference. I think it does not serve the public to have two 
debating talking heads who are often not versed in facts, who 
are not experts debating. You could have----
    Ms. Eshoo. Can I interrupt you? Because I have a few 
seconds left.
    I would like this to be understood: The idea that Members 
asking questions violates the First Amendment is absolutely 
absurd. It is our job to ask questions.
    So I want to thank all of the witnesses. Even though I 
don't agree with you, Mr. Turley, I thank you for coming up 
to--well, your appearing on the Hill, but you are probably at 
home or in your office. But we appreciate it.
    And to Ms. Urquiza, my father--my daddy was the north star 
of my life. And so I understand your aching heart. God rest 
him.
    Thank you, everyone.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes 
Billy Long.
    Billy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 
start out here in the spirit of the late, great John Dingell, 
asking a yes-or-no question to all of the panelists that we 
have here today, all of the witnesses.
    And Ms. O'Brien, yes or no, please: Do you support taking 
Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News off of the air?
    Ms. O'Brien. Before I answer your question, I am going to 
tell you, as a reporter, when I ask people yes-or-no questions, 
I am trying to very directly force them into something that has 
no context,whatsoever. So I will just note that for the 
committee here.
    I do not support that, is my answer.
    Mr. Long. OK. And Ms. Bell, same question for you: Yes or 
no, do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One America 
News off the air?
    Ms. Bell. I am afraid it is going to be the same answer, 
which is yes-or-on questions don't necessarily serve the 
purpose of----
    Mr. Long. OK. Well, due to time constraints, that is what I 
am asking. So I will go on to Ms. Urquiza.
    Yes or no, do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One 
America News off of the air?
    Ms. Urquiza. No.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. And Mr. Turley, same question to you: 
Do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One America News 
off of the air?
    Mr. Turley. No.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. I have a little story I would like to 
tell here. A buddy of mine, a constituent--not a constituent, a 
colleague. He could move from Tennessee, I guess, if he wanted 
to. But I don't want to give you his name, but I will give you 
his initials. His initials are Steve Cohen.
    And when Steve was a little boy, his father was a 
pediatrician. And his father came home one day and said, ``I am 
going to vaccinate your older brother,'' who I believe was 7 
years old at the time.
    Steve was 4, and Steve said, ``Well, can I have the 
vaccine?'' This was for polio.
    And his father said, ``No, it is not approved for anyone 
under 5, and you are 4,'' so he did not give Steve that 
vaccine. And 6 months later, Steve Cohen developed polio.
    So, when we are talking about facts and science and--one of 
my colleagues also this morning, I am not sure which one, said 
``Should you be giving two sides on COVID, when the science is 
clear''--Ms. Urquiza said science is true. If science is true, 
which I don't--different people have their idea of what is true 
and what is not in science.
    Take, for instance, Robert Kennedy, Jr. Robert Kennedy, 
Jr., put out a tweet after Hank Aaron passed away--home run 
king--``Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of a wave of 
suspicious deaths among elderly closely following 
administration of COVID vaccines. He received a Moderna vaccine 
on Jan. 5 to inspire other Black Americans to get the 
vaccine.'' And this was from an article from The Defender, 
Children's Health News & Views, who were taking the position 
that, 18 days before he deceased, Henry Aaron had received the 
vaccine, indicating that the vaccine was not safe.
    So, like I say, science--people have their different 
opinion on science. I know the people in my constituency, in my 
area, are calling me repeatedly, daily: ``Where can we get the 
vaccine? Where can we get the vaccine?''
    So when we put stories out like this, that the vaccine is 
not safe, is that fake news? Is that the truth? Does it lie 
somewhere in the middle? So these are things that I don't think 
this hearing today is quite as cut and dry, black and white, as 
people would like to think that it is.
    And, as far as fake news and things that are put out, and 
the--some of you think that the center-right media is putting 
out false stories, I wonder about the sins of omission. And one 
of the sins of omission that I find is when The Washington Post 
fact checker, Glenn Kessler, said that we won't be counting 
false Biden claims. I assume he will be like Obama, and tell 
the truth. So if a network, a newspaper, or a news outlet 
decides that they are not going to report--I watch Morning Joe 
pretty much every morning when I am getting ready, on MSNBC. 
When the Hunter Biden story was coming down, I paid particular 
attention to see if they ever mentioned one time--this was, of 
course, before President Biden was sworn in, but, you know, if 
they ever mentioned Hunter Biden. And, as far as I could tell, 
I have never heard it. And like I said, I watch it daily, so I 
have never heard it uttered one time--another, I say, sin of 
omission.
    So we have sins of omission, where people don't report on 
facts and things that are coming out that they don't want to be 
known, and yet other people saying that, well, the right, 
center-right folks are reporting false news.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. Let's see, next is the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad that we 
are here today, talking about disinformation and extremism in 
the media. And I want to be clear where I stand.
    I worry about this, particularly as a Black American. And 
with this being Black History Month, let me just highlight some 
of the--how this has really turned violent, and has not been 
good for people of color in this country historically. And I 
know that, for a lot of people, this all centers around First 
Amendment.
    But let's go back to 1915. D.W. Griffith had a hit movie 
called ``Birth of a Nation'' that was presented as factual, 
that was presented as real, and much of the media of the day 
presented it as real and factual. And, as a result of that, 
people went to the streets, targeted African Americans. There 
were riots, there were fires because disinformation was 
presented as real. And part of the information in the movie was 
presented was that Whites were victimized by Blacks in the form 
of voter fraud.
    And so you fast forward 106 years later in 2021, and you 
have people that decided they were going to come to the Capitol 
because of a lot of the similar disinformation that places like 
Atlanta and Milwaukee and Detroit victimized them and stole an 
election from them.
    And so, trying to figure out the freedom of speech versus 
other people's safety, you know, what Oliver Wendell Holmes 
talked about, people's safety, how you distinguish between the 
two, I think that this is a very serious conversation that we 
are having.
    I wanted to ask Ms. O'Brien: Are there any incentives that 
exist that can be used for journalists and publishers to bring 
more context and nuance to their news and commentary, so that 
viewers can better understand what they are watching, 
especially when it comes to a lot of the more extreme views 
that can lead to violence?
    Ms. O'Brien. So first, as you point out, the problem of 
misinformation isn't a new problem. It is not something that 
popped up a couple of years ago and now we are going to tackle 
it for the first time. Technology has obviously changed how 
that problem now gets to the public. And I think that is what 
brings us here to where we are today.
    I think there is this opportunity for journalists to do 
better. Often there are financial incentives that make 
journalists want to do better, or news organizations that hire 
journalists to do better. But actually, a lot of the way talk 
is, it actually financially is quite inexpensive. And so it is 
much cheaper to have dueling talking heads rather than having a 
long, contextual, nuanced, explanatory conversation.
    Like you, there is--very upsetting to see the Confederate 
flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. That was very 
problematic to me, as a biracial woman here in America.
    Lies, obviously, have real implications. To listen to Ms. 
Urquiza's testimony, it is heartbreaking, right? I mean, for 
everybody.
    And again, I don't think facts belong to a party. I don't 
think we should think of this as a partisan issue. Every single 
person, regardless of who votes for you, what State you are in, 
what side of the aisle you are on, you should want to have more 
facts and accuracy that is being disseminated to the people who 
voted you into office. That is what you should all want.
    So, yes, I agree with--very problematic. At the end of the 
day, I think the pressure from the public will go a long way, 
not pressure from Congress. As I have said in my remarks--and I 
have reiterated a couple of times--I don't think the role of 
government is to do that. I think viewers have to say no more 
elevating misinformation.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    Let's see, Markwayne Mullin, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for all the 
panelists that are here today.
    And, you know, obviously, this is about getting down to the 
problem we have with the media, and with the social media, as--
alike. And I appreciate the Democrats bringing this up. We have 
been talking about this for 4 years, especially with the whole 
Russia collusion narrative to which the media drawled for so 
many years--4 years, in fact. And that was complete 
misinformation that was out there.
    And while I know this one seems to be focusing on Fox and 
left outlets, Ms. O'Brien, do you believe that MSNBC and CNN 
are also guilty of misinformation?
    Ms. O'Brien. Sir, I am concerned that you did not read my 
written testimony fully, or you would be able to know that.
    Mr. Mullin. No, I read it----
    Ms. O'Brien. I am being sarcastic.
    Mr. Mullin. I want to hear it.
    Ms. O'Brien. Absolutely, yes. Clearly, and I state that 
very clearly in my testimony----
    Mr. Mullin. You did.
    Ms. O'Brien [continuing]. That this is not an issue that--
--
    Mr. Mullin. But--and Ms. O'Brien, I appreciate that. But 
the focus has been on Fox and the left media. And you have been 
very clear about where you lie on that. And I wanted to make it 
very clear. Your testimony absolutely made it clear, on the 
written testimony. But I hadn't heard you say that. So I 
appreciate you stating that.
    Mr. Turley, as I stated before, after the 2016 election 
with Hillary Clinton, the left-wing media repeatedly talked 
about the Russia collusion and their interference within the 
election. And given this misinformation by the left wing, do 
you think the House Democrats' letter only pressing providers 
who provide conservative media channels and not CNN and MSNBC 
and other left-wing channels is correct? And what should be 
done about it?
    Mr. Turley. Well, thank you for that. I actually didn't get 
a chance to respond to Representative Eshoo when she was 
addressing me, and this touches on that.
    Mr. Mullin. Right.
    Mr. Turley. I mean, first of all, I am not too sure the 
purpose of submitting that letter to the CRS to look for First 
Amendment violations, because most of us haven't said the 
letter violates the First Amendment any more than the 
Endangered Species Act. I said in my testimony that I--that 
free speech is not contained entirely within the First 
Amendment. This is an old spin people put on and say, ``Well, 
this isn't a free speech issue, because the First Amendment 
only applies to the government.'' Well, no, free speech goes 
beyond the First Amendment. It is something that some of us 
view as a human right.
    And the question is, does that letter impinge upon or 
threaten free speech or the free press, and I think it does. 
Making a statement including a question mark at the end of it 
doesn't change the import of the statements. Writing to these 
companies and saying, ``So why are you still airing Fox?'' The 
fact that that is a question doesn't hide the fact that it is 
really meant as a rather audible statement. And the letter went 
out with a building movement to try to pressure cable companies 
to get rid of these networks.
    What if you succeed? Fox was the most-watched cable news 
program of 2020. So you would have tens of millions of people 
that would have to either choose between those networks that 
the letter does not list, or just not watch anything at all.
    And I give Soledad credit for this. I mean, she has been 
critical of networks on the other side, and so have I. I have 
been critical and on both sides, I hope. But the letter is not. 
I mean, the letter is quite focused on only those networks 
viewed as conservative leaning.
    Mr. Mullin. Right. In 2017 Rachel Maddow of MSNBC claimed 
that Secretary Rex Tillerson was being a Russian agent. I think 
that is--which is absolutely false. And that was an extreme 
view.
    And then the House Democrats' letter asked the CEOs to 
outline the actions they are taking against misinformation. And 
my question to you, sir, is who should be the one deciding what 
is an extreme and what is disinformation out there?
    Mr. Turley. You know, this is where I think Soledad O'Brien 
and I will probably end up having a slight divergence, and this 
may be because I am a relic.
    [Laughter.]
    I do follow this sort of outdated notion of free press and 
free speech. I am not comfortable with people who say, ``Look, 
we are going to let you have free speech, free press, as long 
as you are not a liar, as long as you are not giving 
disinformation.'' I have a feeling that Soledad and I agree on 
a lot of stuff that is disinformation.
    In fact, I have seen some of her work, and I agree with it.
    But the question is, What do we do with that? That is, 
Soledad, I think, made a--forgive me for referring to your 
first name, it is an old habit. But it was referring to both 
sides of this, and trying to get viewers to make that decision. 
I am all in on that. It just--is there something more there, in 
terms of trying to stop liars from lying? And that is where I 
get off the train.
    Mr. Mullin. Right. Well, thank you.
    My time is up and, Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. Let's see who is next 
here.
    Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. Let 
me say good afternoon to all of you, and thank you very much to 
the witnesses for your testimony today. Mr. Chairman, you are 
absolutely right. This is a debate that we must have if we are 
going to protect this democracy. And so thank you for convening 
this hearing. This is very, very timely.
    I have very serious concerns that the dissemination of 
election-related disinformation that we witnessed in the days 
leading up to and, most harmfully, the days following the 
election will undermine access to the ballot box for 
underrepresented communities in future elections.
    Many State legislatures across the country have already 
started the process of changing their election laws that will 
restrict access to the ballot box, specifically for voters of 
color. Many of these State officials proclaim the need for 
these changes are due to public distrust in the electoral 
process, and they often cite disinformation and conspiracy 
theories that have been spread by popular media outlets.
    And so I am going to stay with you, Ms. O'Brien. You have 
been in the hot seat all day, and just thank you so very much 
for your brilliance. How does the spread of disinformation by 
the media disenfranchise marginalized communities?
    Ms. O'Brien. It is my opinion that, when you give a 
platform to a lie, it travels very quickly and across many 
other platforms. And so often I have found that journalists who 
even understand that they are having someone on whose opinion 
that they believe is not accurate, inaccurate, misinformation, 
they will bring them on in order to argue with them.
    I think, personally, it is a way to seem tougher, but it is 
also good TV, meaning it is dynamic, it sometimes involves 
arguing, it has a lot of drama to it. Well, I believe what ends 
up happening, by elevating disinformation, whether it is being 
challenged well, challenged not well, challenged not at all, 
you give a platform to something that is not true.
    And of course, I think vulnerable communities are often 
most at risk for disinformation. A lot of those communities, as 
we spoke about earlier, local media does not exist anymore. We 
have lost, what, 2,100 local newspapers. And so that means that 
they are sometimes in a news desert. And so it is very, very 
problematic that they are getting misinformation, 
disinformation, or no information at all. It is very, very 
damaging. I think it has dire consequences.
    Mr. Butterfield. Over the years, Ms. O'Brien, you have 
effectively--and I watched you many, many times--you have 
effectively exercised your First Amendment rights to free 
speech as a member of the press. How do journalists effectuate 
more responsible journalism throughout the industry to solve 
this pervasive problem and protect our voters?
    Ms. O'Brien. I think most journalists want to do a good 
job. Again, I--the journalists that I know work really hard.
    I think, actually, Congressman Kinzinger said it a little 
bit earlier, which was, as much as Congress members have to 
look at themselves and the messages that they are spreading to 
their constituents, journalists have to do the same. And news 
organizations have to assess what do we do well, what do we do 
wrong, how can we be better, how do we serve the public. That 
is the gig. That is the job. And so, without that self-
reflection, I think we are going to continue to make, as a 
whole, media, continue to make a lot of the same mistakes.
    Again, I don't think Congress has a role in regulating it. 
I think news organizations should say ``We are here to serve 
the public. This is what we are supposed to do. How do we do a 
better job?''
    Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, I understand we may have 
four votes that are coming up right now, and so I am going to 
make this my last question.
    I want to talk about local news, Ms. O'Brien, finally: How 
does the lack of robust local news coverage and the growing 
spread of disinformation impact the information needs of our 
communities?
    Ms. O'Brien. It is an absolutely huge problem. I think you 
have a void that is filled with just things that aren't true, 
or things that are not centered in a community.
    For example, on ``Matter of Fact'' the other day--which is 
a show that is carried by affiliates, we are in all the local 
markets--we did the story of a young woman who is reaching out 
to her constituents in her news--you know, around her who are 
served by her newspaper, because they couldn't figure out how 
to get online to actually sign up for a vaccine, right? And so 
she literally, by herself--she is a reporter--literally helps 
connect those people to vaccines. I mean, that is a local 
reporter doing the work of journalism, helping people solve a 
problem, bringing them information. I would like to see more of 
that. As those newspapers die, it is very, very problematic.
    Mr. Butterfield. All right, well, thank you so very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to give back a few seconds and 
give Mr. Walberg a running start. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. And you are correct, 
there are four votes called on the floor. We are not going to 
recess, so Members pick and choose your time to get down to the 
floor and get back in time for your speech.
    OK, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Walberg.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My preface is saying 
I am a proud father of a journalist son who, while at one of 
the major Chicago newspapers, received a nomination for a 
Pulitzer, who told me once when he first went to that major 
paper, when I asked him somewhat jokingly--somewhat--``Hey, be 
good to some of us conservative Republicans, OK?,'' and he told 
me, ``Listen, Dad. You would want me to do exactly what I have 
been trained, and that is to report the facts.''
    At another time in his life, later on, he said, ``Dad, 
sometimes it is very, very difficult determining what is fact 
and what is fiction.'' So we do have a challenge here. And I 
appreciate the hearing today. But, Mr. Chairman, I may be 
wrong, but I see--at least I perceive--a deliberate attempt by 
the majority to sanitize the airwaves of content that does not 
conform to their preferred political philosophies.
    Now, disinformation and fake news are real problems. But 
the solution is not to limit free speech. In fact, it is just 
the opposite. Robust debate and free speech enables us to 
better fight the spread of disinformation.
    Sadly, at least it appears that my colleagues seem to be 
focused on squashing political dissent, as their letter claims 
that conservative news outlets have, and I quote, ``long been 
conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to 
real harm,'' end quote.
    I would like to remind my colleagues of what happened in 
January 2019, when CNN, along with various other liberal media 
outlets, ran editorial content baselessly calling Covington 
Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann a racist. If we are 
talking about harmful content, CNN's coverage of that incident 
resulted directly in that boy, his parents, and his classmates 
receiving death threats and harassment. Of course, a subsequent 
investigation found many of the facts initially reported were 
inaccurate and misleading. As a result, Mr. Sandmann sued CNN 
for defamation, and the network settled the case.
    Even though CNN recklessly defamed a teenager, Republicans 
did not call for broadcasters to remove CNN from their 
programming. Why? Because the system worked. Our Nation's 
vigorous libel and slander laws incentivize networks to tell 
the truth. And when they don't, they pay the consequences.
    Professor Turley, do you agree that our defamation laws are 
a strong deterrent against lying on television, or would a 
return to the Fairness Doctrine be a better approach?
    Mr. Turley. I do not favor a return to the Fairness 
Doctrine because I do not like government regulation of the 
media.
    I also think that there are strong First Amendment 
arguments that can be made against the doctrine.
    I really do appreciate you raising the Sandmann case, 
because it was really quite disturbing. That story was treated 
as true because people wanted it to be true. They--it fit the 
narrative, and it just happened to involve a teenage kid who 
was ground up by the story and treated as a vicious and violent 
racist. Even after he was cleared of that whole story, when he 
was accepted in college a professor went online and said, 
``Don't worry, we are going to follow him around campus to 
watch if he goes out of line.''
    That is what I am talking about, of a nation addicted to 
rage and people pretending that they are tired of it when they 
need it, they need the rage.
    Mr. Walberg. And that is----
    Mr. Turley. And people like Sandmann are hurt by it.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes, and that is a chilling, chilling issue 
there.
    Professor Turley, in your testimony you cite the first 
question in my colleagues' letter as the most troublesome. And 
this question asked companies what moral or ethical principles 
they apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take 
adverse action against the channel.
    I would note that, if my colleagues truly cared about 
morality and coming together in unity after the horrendous 
attack on our Capitol, they surely would not be holding a 
hearing as deeply divisive as this. I am reminded of President 
Biden's inaugural address in which he invoked, and I quote, 
``the better angels of our nature with malice toward none, with 
charity for all.''
    That being said, Professor Turley, can you please elaborate 
on the fundamental problem with imposing selective morality 
codes on news coverage and access for networks like Fox News 
and Newsmax? Doesn't this lead us directly down the path of 
government censorship?
    Mr. Turley. Well, this is the problem of a statement 
masquerading as a question. To say what morality rule you apply 
in determining whether to continue to air certain channels, 
where the numbers are not there to apply morality codes--we 
used to have those. Atheists, feminists, others were barred 
from publications under these types of morality rules. And it 
was very chilling. And when I talked about the chilling--of 
that letter, that is one of those issues that I flagged.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Cardenas.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Doyle. And also 
I would like to thank Ranking Member Latta for us having this 
hearing today.
    And I would like to say that I don't find this hearing to 
be very divisive. I think that we are probably so boring that 
we are probably losing our seven listeners who bothered to even 
chime in today. So we certainly aren't as exciting as some of 
our other news outlets, or supposed news outlets, like to be. I 
really believe that far too often they are opinion givers, and 
not so much news outlets.
    I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Ms. 
Urquiza. My heart goes out to you and your family, and to the 
500,000 families who have experienced, unfortunately, what your 
family experienced, the loss of your father. So thank you for 
being with us today, and your willingness to share your 
important story with all of us.
    And also I would like to enter into the record a letter 
from the National Hispanic Media Coalition on today's topic of 
discussion--into the record.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Cardenas. I am glad we have this opportunity to talk 
about the serious problem we are seeing with disinformation and 
misinformation that traditionally has--we have experienced the 
United States for hundreds of years. But, more importantly, it 
is now very prevalent and very, very massively distributed by 
our news outlets and many other outlets that we will get to in 
another hearing when we talk about our social media platforms.
    It is a problem when some of my colleagues who are 
incredibly smart are susceptible to the spread of dangerous 
disinformation, such as claims that wearing masks are 
ineffective measures when it comes to preventing the lethal 
coronavirus. It is this kind of disinformation and 
misinformation of facts perpetuated by certain outlets, on top 
of the bungled response by the Trump administration, that has 
increased the severity and the number of deaths from this 
pandemic.
    And it is very important for us to understand that, like I 
said earlier, this has been going on for hundreds of years.
    As a little boy born and raised in the United States of 
America, here in Los Angeles, I have witnessed with my ears and 
my eyes--and broken hearted--to see how people treated my 
parents, who were immigrants from Mexico. And just because of 
the color of their skin, or the fact that they had 11 children, 
I heard the derogatory things that they would say about them. 
For God's sake, my father, who put food on the table for 13 
people every single day with a first-grade education, who 
worked sometimes two and three jobs to do so, was a proud, 
hardworking person. And in America they call Mexicans lazy.
    Now, that is disinformation and misinformation that can 
prove fatal. For example, right now, with the former President 
of the United States, Trump, trying to encourage people to 
believe that people who are Chinese or Asian are the cause of 
why so many Americans have died from the coronavirus. So much 
so, it is dangerous because there are attacks on Asians in 
America that are at a high right now.
    And yes, I truly do believe that certain outlets permeated 
that by using derogatory labels for what the coronavirus is. 
And yes, the President of the United States permeating those 
lies.
    Ms. Bell, many have discussed the role that social media 
has played in the spread of disinformation. In your testimony 
you talk about the relationship between social media and 
traditional media and how social media feeds off of traditional 
media outlets. Can you talk about how this pattern plays out, 
and the influence that it has on the amplification of 
disinformation?
    Ms. Bell. Yes, of course. Thank you for the question. It 
is--well, so when we take--I think your point about masks is a 
good one.
    You might come across--I came across a headline, actually, 
from one of the cable news channels we have been discussing 
that was put out on the 13th of October, just saying there is 
no evidence supporting the fact that masks stop coronavirus. 
But I saw it for a second on a Twitter feed, or in--retweeted, 
I think, kind of several thousand times. And, you know, if you 
stopped, went back to the source, watched the segment, it 
wasn't the only thing that was said. But it was the only thing 
that many people saw, and it could have been put out with bad 
faith around that.
    There are teams of people in news rooms that I think 
actually clip and promote material on social media because it 
is the only way that they can reach substantial parts of their 
audience. So, even if you are presenting what seems like a 
balanced view, you can still put out something on social media 
which speaks to perhaps a more extreme or less truth-based 
view. And the problem is that we--understanding that dynamic is 
hard, because we do not have the data that say, ``How did this 
story spread, who saw it, when did they see it, what effective 
does it have, what do people do next?''
    So I think that this is actually a really solvable problem. 
Understanding more about this complex environment is something 
that--you know, some of us are spending our lives doing this at 
the moment. And I think that it is one way to make progress, is 
really understanding those dynamics. The amount of material 
that we have to really examine what effect it has is limited. 
And I think that--I wish that was different.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Cardenas. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. Let's see, Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 
hearing. My first question is for witness O'Brien.
    Did you report on the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, 
Missouri?
    Ms. O'Brien. I did not.
    Mr. Duncan. You didn't?
    Ms. O'Brien. No, sir. I left daily news approximately 8 
years ago, 9 years ago. So, if you are talking about doing, 
like, live, rolling coverage on cable TV, for that story I did 
not go to Ferguson. I did not report on that story as a 
reporter.
    Mr. Duncan. OK. But you did tweet out and you hashtagged 
Black Out Black Friday about the ``Hands up, don't shoot'' 
narrative. Is that correct?
    Ms. O'Brien. I tweet out millions of things, so I could not 
confirm that for you, sir.
    Mr. Duncan. OK. The point I am trying to make here, Ms. 
O'Brien, is that the ``Hands up, don't shoot'' narrative was a 
fabrication actually put forward by Dorian Johnson, witness 
number 101. It was a fabrication that was proven incorrect over 
and over. In fact, there is a Washington Post article dated 
March 16, 2015, that says ``Hands up, don't shoot'' was built 
on a lie.
    So all the news services--MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, 
NPR--all reported the same thing about ``Hands up, don't 
shoot.'' But it was a fabrication. And I am not advocating for 
them to be shut down because of reporting on a fabrication. In 
fact, I think that a lot of times there is a rush to report 
first, whether it is a blog, or whether it is a tweet, or 
whether it is a Facebook post, or whether it is an actual news 
service, a cable news network like CNN, or MSNBC, or even Fox 
News, a rush to report that sometimes the investigation is not 
done. In fact, you actually alluded to that--or Marc Veasey, or 
Cardenas, or somebody related to that earlier--that it is 
spread on a lot of different platforms quickly, and ofttimes it 
is based on no investigation.
    Let me just give some examples here. CNN's Anderson Cooper 
on March 4th said that coronavirus wasn't nearly as deadly as 
the flu. Sanjay Gupta said on March 2nd to ``Headline News'' 
that, if you are a healthy person, you don't need a mask. Let's 
see, CNN's Ali Velshi said, talking about the protests last 
summer, talked about a peaceful protest in front of a burning 
building. CNN's Chris Cuomo said on June 2nd, ``Please show me 
where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and 
peaceful.''
    I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is a 
lot of misreporting, rushed reporting--I wouldn't call them 
lies, I would just call them quick judgments on a lot of 
information that is out there that the left is trying to say 
that are lies now, and they are trying to say that places like 
Fox News and other broadcasters ought to be shut down. I 
disagree with that, because you can apply that same standard to 
all of these--and I say all of the news networks--in the rush 
to be first, in order to monetize.
    And this is all about monetization, to monetize that tweet, 
that blog, that Facebook post, or that news story that rushes 
people to the TV in order to find out what is going on. We saw 
it yesterday with Tiger Woods. It wasn't a fabrication, but 
there was a rush to the TV of folks to see what was going on.
    And so I want to just turn to Professor Turley real quick 
and--in the little bit of time I have left. And my colleagues 
across the aisle are trying to say that they are having today's 
hearing to emphasize local broadcasters. But if they succeed in 
canceling out large networks, wouldn't it be easier for them 
then to cancel out local broadcasters? Don't they face the same 
threat, Mr. Turley?
    Mr. Turley. Well, indeed, that is part of the slippery 
slope that I think that this committee should avoid, that once 
you start to allow government to regulate, or to answer the 
questions in the affirmative that were asked in that letter, 
you do end up on that slippery slope. You debate--you end up 
deciding what is disinformation and what is not, who would be 
held accountable, who would be taken off the air. And the 
result will be less diversity in the news media. And then we 
could have a single echo chamber, which is not an improvement 
of having multiple echo chambers. I prefer no echo chambers.
    When Ms. O'Brien and I first met in the media business, I 
think that there was still a media that wasn't based on an echo 
chamber. You know, there was information-driven media. The 
market has changed, and we should all focus on that. But 
bringing the government in, putting that nose within the tent, 
has never been a good thing for free speech or the free press.
    Mr. Duncan. My time is out. And Mr. Chairman, I just ask 
that we apply the same standard to all of the media outlets as 
you are trying to apply to the right-leaning media outlets.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman, the gentleman yields 
back. Let's see, the Chair now recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
this hearing today. It is obvious to everyone that the news 
landscape has changed considerably over the past 20 years, and 
especially over the past 4. The rise of cable news changed the 
news cycle and the way we see live events unfold. The old media 
saying, it is--``if it bleeds, it leads.''
    Too often we have seen horrific events like mass shootings 
replayed on screens, and the killers become instantly famous. 
The Columbine shooting in 1999 was one of the first widely 
covered shootings that plastered the names and faces of the 
shooters all over the news. It has led to some following in a 
cultlike fashion.
    For example, the shooter in the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings 
kept a detailed journal with clippings from previous school 
shootings, including Columbine. A 2014 investigation by ABC 
News identified that, with 17 attacks and another 36 alleged 
plots or serious threats against schools since the assault on 
Columbine High School, that can be tied to the 1999 massacre.
    Ms. O'Brien, thank you for being here. And I don't know if 
you remember me. We met at the Union Club in Chicago, and we 
took a picture with the Lieutenant Governor. So great to see 
you, and great--you know, to all the work that you do, you do a 
fantastic job. Have you ever been a part of any conversation 
about the violence that was depicted in the media, and what 
have journalists wrestled with in these conversations?
    Ms. O'Brien. Yes, and thank you, and yes, I think that 
there are lots of conversations about how violence is depicted 
in the media, and I think the point of a good editorial debate 
is to come to the understanding of what makes sense. And that 
is why you want a diverse group of people around the table. You 
really want a lot of input on that.
    I think it is often--we heard from a previous speaker about 
sort of the rush to investigation, and in those editorial 
meetings you have the opportunity to slow it down, to actually 
pose challenging questions to each other. I think of the 
question, Is something a ``protest,'' is it a ``melee,'' is it 
a ``mob,'' you know, all those things have varying degrees of 
definition. You know, what exactly are we looking at?
    When I was covering Hurricane Katrina many years ago, I 
remember we all walked around with Merriam-Webster 
dictionaries, right, to talk about ``evacuees,'' or 
``refugees.'' What exactly is the terminology? So, yes, that is 
clearly a conversation of debate in every news room I have ever 
been in.
    Ms. Kelly. And to your knowledge, do most newsrooms have a 
procedure for handling mass shootings?
    Ms. O'Brien. That I could not answer for you across the 
board for most news rooms. I would not have access to that 
information.
    Ms. Kelly. Recently there seems to have been a push not to 
name shooters, so they don't gain any notoriety or fame. Do you 
agree with this approach?
    And do you have any thoughts on how these events could be 
covered, I guess, in a more--I don't know if it is a 
responsible way, a compassionate way?
    Ms. O'Brien. That is a very interesting question, because I 
often know families who have lost children to mass shootings, 
and it is devastating. At the same time, I think the name of 
the shooter is part of the narrative of what happened.
    But again, I think that is a conversation that has 
happened--I both had that conversation kind of in the macro, 
but never actually--I have had to be on air naming or not 
naming a shooter. So it has been a little bit of an academic 
exercise. But I have now many friends who have lost their 
children in horrific ways, and I understand the emotion behind 
not wanting to give more notoriety to somebody who has 
committed a horrific crime.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
    Professor Bell, do you have any thoughts about this?
    Ms. Bell. Yes, there are guidelines for covering mass 
shootings. I think it is a great example of what actually the 
media has learned, again, around covering things like people 
who take their own lives. There are guidelines now because we 
know more about the media, effects of things, as you correctly 
identify. We know more about what motivates mass shooters, and 
we know how to frame that coverage.
    There is a really difficult line to walk, though, between 
keeping an accurate public record and illuminating stories in 
ways which actually just cause more harm. And I do think that 
this kind of rather obscure area of, you know, media studies, 
or media effect studies is something, actually, that, you know, 
we need to be doing much, much more of, because we can now 
measure some of those effects. We can actually measure whether 
or not changing coverage has a positive effect.
    So there are guidelines. People are following them a lot 
more. And I think, on the whole, it is beneficial, but it is 
always difficult to get those contextual pulls right.
    Ms. Kelly. Well, let me ask you this quickly.
    Ms. Bell. Sure.
    Ms. Kelly. When traditional local media are competing 
against social media, is there a path to getting truth and fact 
to catch up on, instead of bombastic opinion?
    Ms. Bell. Yes. I think, again, it is just a--I think, 
again, it is a balance. We have to learn that new cadence about 
all of those new sources. It is a really complex area now, just 
even to be a local reporter, I think, or especially to be a 
local reporter.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, I am----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let's see. 
Mr. Curtis, you have 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Turley, I would like to ask you some questions, and I 
will give you a minute to think about it while I share some 
thoughts. And as I share these thoughts, I would like my 
colleagues to know that I am genuinely not trying to point out 
any specific individual in Congress or either--any party, but 
rather make a point.
    So Mr. Turley, a U.S. citizen speaking to Congress may be 
asked to testify under oath. We, the people on the other side 
of the table, are not under oath, nor are we under oath when we 
speak on the House floor. Have you--Mr. Turley, have you ever 
heard a Member of Congress use a congressional platform to say 
something that was not true?
    Mr. Turley. Yes.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. I don't think that would take very many of 
us very long to answer. And here again, I am not referring, 
like, to a single party.
    Likewise, have you ever heard a Member of Congress, while 
using their 5 minutes in a committee--committee time, worry 
more about getting on the news than addressing meaningful 
discussion?
    Mr. Turley. Perish the thought, but yes.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, OK. Is it fair to say that the words of 
congressmen--our hearings, our speeches, et cetera--are really, 
really good fodder for the cable network TVs, and that they 
spend hours of their time talking about the lies and 
misrepresentations that some of our colleagues make in 
Congress?
    Mr. Turley. Yes.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. And in fact, so those of my colleagues who 
have expressed frustration with this hearing, I think this may 
be at the heart of it, is that this very hearing itself becomes 
fodder, right, for the cable network TVs to do what they do. 
And I want to point out that that is very frustrating.
    When my colleagues say something that is not true, it is 
frustrating. When the media says something that is not 
accurate, it is frustrating. But there is this crazy thing 
called the First Amendment, right? And we have heard from the 
chairman in his opening remarks, this comment--Mr. Chairman, I 
tried to write down, I am paraphrasing--it is the 
responsibility of this committee to hold these institutions to 
a higher standard.
    And I think Mr. Turley, that is the crux of a lot we are 
talking about today is, yes, it is frustrating. But that 
standard means that we have to deny the First Amendment. Am I 
seeing that right, or am I looking at that wrong?
    Mr. Turley. No, you know, free speech has a cost. I mean, 
free speech has a cost because many of us in the free speech 
community end up defending people who we despise, grotesque 
people who say awful things. But we have to protect their 
ability to speak, so that we protect society as a whole. 
Because free speech does more than just allow individuals to 
speak, it protects us against abuses, against tyranny, against 
the ills that come from the lack of free speech.
    Mr. Curtis. I am also really troubled by this, like, who 
gets to be the judge. So it--on one hand, it feels like, well, 
the truth is the truth, right? But we have heard some of my 
colleagues bring up instances that--or perhaps mistakes, or 
rush to judgments and things like that. And somehow, that one 
source or one person could be the arbiter of truth and make 
that decision seems farfetched to me. Would you agree with 
that?
    Mr. Turley. Yes, and that is precisely what we hoped to 
avoid, not just in the First Amendment but also embracing free 
speech values generally.
    Mr. Curtis. So, in just the little bit of time we have 
left, I would like to explore something with you, and that is 
if we go back to 2016, when Russia came in and used--I will use 
a specific here, and I know there is lots of generalities--the 
Facebook platform to spread misinformation, I found myself 
saying, like, ``Who believes Facebook?,'' right? But apparently 
people do.
    And so I guess my question to you is, How do we help 
educate people? How do we help people understand that they 
can't just accept something at face value on--whether it is 
cable TV or Facebook?
    Like, how do we get to that point, where we get people to 
be more thoughtful about the information they are consuming and 
believing?
    Mr. Turley. This may be a generational issue. You know, I 
get up around 6:00 to blog, and my kids will get up to go to 
school--when they used to go to school--and they will often 
ask, ``What are you writing on?'' And I will tell them. And I 
was always surprised when they would say, ``But is that true?'' 
So we were talking about a story, and they would say, ``But is 
that true?''
    When I grew up, if Walter Cronkite said something, it was 
true. You didn't question it. My kids question everything. They 
question every source. They compare sources. They are a lot 
more savvy than people give them credit for. And I think that, 
unfortunately, that is the reality of the new media that we 
live in.
    Mr. Curtis. We are, regretfully, out of time. I wish we had 
more time to talk about the Walter Cronkite era, which I 
remember.
    And I wish we had a whole hearing just on that, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    Let's see, the gentlelady from New York, Miss Rice, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Miss Rice. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Urquiza, first, let me offer you my condolences, as 
everyone else has, for your profound loss.
    In your written testimony you talked about how your father 
was in the Reserves. He was a Reserve Officer Training Corps, 
and had great reverence for the military and, in fact, had 
three brothers who served in the military himself, as he would 
have had he not been involved in a hunting accident. I mean, it 
is clear that he had a strong love of country and instilled in 
you the values of patriotism and the military's role in keeping 
your--our freedom.
    As someone who had great respect for military leaders, 
how--do you think that that had a particular effect or reason 
behind how he interpreted what President Trump, who was then 
our commander in chief, was saying about COVID-19, and whether 
it was safe, what steps he should take to make himself safe?
    Ms. Urquiza. Thanks for asking that, and that is exactly 
why I included that in my written testimony. My dad intended to 
go into the military, and every single one of his brothers were 
able to. He always respected every single President as the 
commander in chief. It was my father who taught me the duty of 
country.
    We watched the History Channel together constantly, and he 
always brought home the point that, during times of crisis, it 
is important to listen to the person in charge. They are going 
to orient us toward safety. So absolutely, his orientation 
since he was 14 years old in ROTC was to listen to the 
President and act from there.
    Miss Rice. Well, let me say that he--you are doing him very 
proud today, if I can call you Kristin, really. I mean, you are 
just an amazing woman.
    And I think it is important to note that one in five of the 
insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6th were 
veterans. And, you know, in the military you are taught to 
follow orders. Like you said, you know, you do this for the 
good of the country to keep our democracy safe. And, 
unfortunately, I think this is also why many, you know, 
veterans and service members are particularly susceptible to 
disinformation and misinformation when it comes from our--
especially when it comes from our commander in chief, and when 
it is disseminated so broadly and without verification, 
primarily on cable news. So thank you so much for being with us 
here today.
    And Ms. O'Brien, you know, I remember the day like it was 
yesterday when I heard Kellyanne Conway being interviewed. And 
I don't know if she can get credit for coining the phrase 
``alternative facts,'' but I remember being stunned when she 
said those words. And, you know, I think it is so interesting. 
You know, you are talking--how you talk about truth decay.
    So just a couple of things. I mean, how do you think that 
we got here? I know that is a really broad question, but how do 
you think that we got here?
    And have you come across any, you know, stories or--about 
veterans or service members, and if their standards--you know, 
if being military actually affects their susceptibility to 
these kind--this kind of a call to arms, if you will.
    Ms. O'Brien. Thank you. I have to note that the term 
``truth decay'' was coined by Michael Rich of the Rand 
Corporation. So I want to be very clear that that was his idea, 
and also his book, as well, in its fourth reading.
    I have not, and I have not actually been tracking if 
veterans are extra susceptible. And hearing what Kristin was 
saying, I think it raises some really interesting questions.
    And yes, there is no question that you hear the word 
``alternative facts,'' and you think, why is this interview not 
being stopped right now? And why is this person being returned 
to a conversation, when they are telling you that they have a 
whole other set of facts? There is not a thing. Alternative 
facts are not a thing.
    And so that was extremely disappointing to me. I have 
talked about it many times. I think it is a very good example 
of a media that has really failed to say there are not 
alternative facts. There are facts, and we can discuss facts. 
And if you want to talk about facts, you are welcome on this 
air. If you are going to lie, you are not welcome.
    Miss Rice. Well, thank you so much for, as a journalist, 
you know, focusing on the facts, because I think that we have 
kind of lost our way when it comes to reporting facts, as 
opposed to opinion.
    And I also just want to thank our colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, 
for his comments, because I do think that he is right, that it 
is incumbent upon us, as Members, to support facts and support 
other colleagues who actually talk about facts and focus on the 
facts. So I want to thank him for his comments.
    And my time is up, and I yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank 
you.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
    Let's see, my good buddy from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, just 2 
weeks ago, China's National Radio and Television Administration 
banned BBC World News from broadcasting in China because it 
found BBC's reports ``seriously violate'' broadcast guidelines, 
including--and I quote again--``the requirement that news 
should be truthful and fair, and not harm China's national 
interest.''
    So I have to say I am disappointed and seriously blown away 
by my House Democrat colleagues' letter to the broadcasters, 
pressuring them to remove conservative news channels from their 
networks, a letter that looks eerily similar to the statement 
released by the CCP when it banned BBC. So this begs the 
question, Does the American Government have the authority to 
dictate what can and cannot be broadcast to the American 
people? I suggest it does not. But Democrats here on this 
committee seem to think that it should.
    So, Professor Turley, I think you have alluded to this, 
maybe even you have answered it, but I want to get it one more 
time. Is it constitutional for Members of Congress to pressure 
private businesses to do what Congress cannot legally do 
itself?
    Mr. Turley. Well, it is constitutional in the sense that it 
isn't expressly prohibited by the First Amendment. But it is an 
attack on free speech.
    You know, we should be concerned when Members are trying to 
do indirectly what they cannot do directly. And this creates 
what is sometimes referred to as the Little Brother problem. 
You know, we do have a really good system in dealing with Big 
Brother and avoiding state media. But what we have seen in the 
last few years is that the use of private companies like 
Twitter and Facebook is far more damaging to free speech.
    It is no accident that recently Vladimir Putin called out 
Twitter and Facebook and said, ``You are endangering democratic 
institutions.'' This is one of most authoritarian figures in 
the world. He obviously cares nothing about democratic 
institutions, but he seemed to indicate an almost grudgingly 
respectful view that Twitter and these companies could achieve 
this level of control, something that exceeds his own 
abilities.
    And we have to sort of grapple with this, of the impact. It 
is sort of like if we put all of our attention--if free speech 
is only confined to the First Amendment, it is like having a 
house with barriers and bolts on the front door, but all the 
windows and the back door are open.
    Mr. Johnson. OK----
    Mr. Turley. You give the appearance of free speech but not 
the reality or security.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, based on what I am hearing, Mr. 
Turley, from the other side of the aisle, if I didn't know 
better, I would think that Fox News or Newsmax issued a direct 
rallying call to storm the Capitol on January 6th. But all of 
us know nothing even close to that happened. In fact, all of 
the intelligence suggests that any planning for the riots 
occurred predominantly on social media, including on Facebook. 
Even Chairman Pallone this week sent a letter to Facebook 
demanding answers for their role in knowingly permitting 
extremism and disinformation to grow on their platform.
    So, Professor Turley, what role does the lack of neutral 
journalism in mainstream media play in pushing people to social 
media platforms, where algorithms keep people hooked on 
incendiary content?
    Mr. Turley. Well, I think this is what we touched on 
earlier, that the polls show that the respect for the media is 
at an all-time low. People just don't trust the media. And I 
can see why, because there are now these siloed echo chamber 
media outlets. They have a lot of false information. And so 
people go and search for it themselves, usually on social 
media.
    But, you know, I think the solution is not to try to 
regulate through these private companies. If you look at 
Europe, you know, they have--they really plunged into speech 
controls and criminalization. It hasn't reduced extreme speech. 
It hasn't reduced extremist groups. They are flourishing. What 
it has done is actually reduced free speech.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, look, I fully support upholding the 
First Amendment, and I don't believe it is appropriate for 
Members of Congress to pressure private companies to stop 
airing things that they don't ideologically agree with.
    However, there still lies the issue that media 
disinformation is a real problem, and especially when people 
look to those sources for the truth, for an unbiased and 
factual account of the news. How do you suggest networks curb 
disinformation and come in line with the First Amendment?
    Mr. Doyle. And please be brief, Mr. Turley, his time is up. 
So I will let you answer the question.
    Mr. Turley. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Actually, I am hoping that the market will pressure some of 
these echo chambers to open up. I think people are going to 
grow uneasy and unwilling to use those media systems, and the 
market will pressure them to go back to being information-
forcing networks.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you. I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Craig for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to all the witnesses for hanging in there. I know there are an 
awful lot of us on Energy and Commerce.
    I am new to the committee, and I worked in med tech for 
over 20 years. But prior to that I was a journalism major in 
college, and I worked as a local newspaper for about--
newspaper--worked for a local newspaper for about 4 years.
    You know, when I think about 2 years ago, when I first won 
my seat in Congress, my district had somewhere in the 
neighborhood of the mid-teens in local newspapers still left. 
And as I sit here today, that has dwindled down over and over 
the course of the last couple of years. And it has really 
accelerated as a result of the pandemic.
    Ms. O'Brien, in your testimony you mentioned the type of 
journalism done in our local newsrooms. There are watchdogs for 
local government, our community school boards, our police 
departments. That is the kind of journalism that I participated 
in all those years ago. Tell me a little bit more about what 
you see as the long-term effects on our democratic institutions 
when there are fewer and fewer news rooms doing this kind of 
coverage.
    Ms. O'Brien. Yes, I think the long-term impacts are exactly 
what you would imagine. And what you are pointing out that 
happened in your community is seen around the country, right? 
There is the number, a lot, and then fewer, and then a handful, 
and then it really goes to nothing, and we are in the middle of 
all of a news desert, essentially.
    And, of course, if you lose the watchdog that is actually 
sitting there and going to the board of ed meetings, and going 
to listen to what is happening at City Hall, and really taking 
notes, and following what is happening in the local community 
so that people in the community, regardless of where they sit, 
on what side of the aisle, people in the community can be 
educated and informed and know what is happening.
    And also we have seen, as I mentioned in my written 
testimony, there is a link to keeping costs down when there is 
someone who is watching all the costs, and how things are being 
spent. It is hugely problematic. It is a terrible disservice to 
the community members, and you end up with a populace that is 
less educated and less informed.
    At the same time, when people talk about free speech, 
though, I have to say I don't think there is this free speech 
requirement that you get to be on ``Morning Joe,'' you know, 
and if you are not ``Morning Joe,'' then somehow your free 
speech is being taken away from you. So I want to be clear 
that, while local news is in decline, where cable has tried to 
fill the gaps I don't think they do so very successfully, 
frankly.
    Ms. Craig. Can I follow up with this question around media 
consolidation? You know, that has brought changes to the kind 
of reporting that is done in local newsrooms. You have seen a 
number of hedge funds start to buy up our newspapers across the 
country. How does it--how does the oversight work dwindle as 
consolidation starts to occur?
    Ms. O'Brien. That is a great question. I could not possibly 
answer it for you, because I am not an expert in that.
    Ms. Craig. Well, good answer. Local news organizations like 
the Hastings Gazette, which, you know, just closed--I want to 
go back, though, to just any of our witnesses today who--and 
talk a little bit about--we have sort of hammered the idea of 
what is the Federal Government's responsibility to death here 
this afternoon, but--and the First Amendment.
    But say a little bit about what you believe the role of 
ethics in journalism is. Because I know, when I went to school, 
you know, it was hammered, objective reporting. It was hammered 
inside each one of us. Where do you think ethics in journalism 
needs to go at this point?
    It is too common to see just articles and broadcasts that 
just don't have that level of objectivity. I know a lot of 
reporters, a lot of journalists who really do still strive for 
that, but we have lost our way a little bit on some of these 
broadcast channels.
    Ms. O'Brien. I think, if there is one takeaway from this 
conversation today, it should be that, regardless of where you 
sit politically, that everyone should want to embrace facts, 
and people should not put people who are intentionally 
misleading the public, who are spewing lies and misinformation, 
on TV. That is the takeaway.
    And I think, where ethics comes into play there, right, is 
that newsrooms and news organizations have to do better 
themselves. There is no role for Congress in monitoring that 
and regulating that. Absolutely not. But news organizations can 
do that. They can do better, and serve their public better. 
That is why you got into the business those years ago, I got 
into the business all those years ago, and why most journalists 
do the work that they do.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time 
back to you.
    Mr. Doyle. I want to thank Ms. Craig.
    You are setting a good example for the more senior members 
of this committee.
    Let's see, I don't see a Republican on camera, so Peter 
Welch, I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. I want to go back and follow up on 
what Mr. Johnson was asking in--and ask Professor Turley would 
you--first of all, I am totally for the free--for the First 
Amendment, so I just want that to be clear. We can't really 
regulate it.
    But Professor Turley, you said that you hoped the market 
would correct some of these extreme problems. And I believe the 
market created these extreme problems. And, you know, if you 
are a Newsmax or you are an MSNBC--I mean, pick your choice--
right now you develop a market plan, you disseminate a point of 
view that appeals to the demographic, and then you get 
advertisers to support it, and it is reinforcing.
    So I just want you to--I want to ask you whether, in fact, 
the market is a source of this dynamic that we are all 
experiencing.
    Mr. Turley. Now, that is a fantastic question, and I agree 
with it. The market pressures, as we talked about earlier, did 
produce this echo chamber approach. We are not unique in that. 
You know, I just spoke to journalism students in Buenos Aires--
--
    Mr. Welch. OK, because--I am going to interrupt you, 
because I just want to keep going here. But I thank you for 
that.
    Professor Bell, I want to ask you a couple of things. Local 
news is under immense pressure because the economic model to 
sustain them doesn't work. Yet local news is more needed than 
ever. In Vermont it is our local papers that are giving the 
day-to-day what is going on with COVID. We had a big storm, it 
was our local broadcasting, it was our local print that was 
really essential. But they don't have the revenue. They are 
needed more than ever, and they have no revenue model.
    Yet news aggregators, including like Facebook, take what is 
published locally, which tends to be more trusted, and 
disseminate it but don't pay for the utilization. And, as we 
are seeing, that issue is being faced, I think right now, in 
Australia. Does it make sense to consider requiring some of 
those other platforms that use the locally produced content to 
pay for it?
    Ms. Bell. I think that you need to consider all of these 
options. We will see how it plays out in Australia. Personally, 
I think tying the future of local news or national news to the 
patronage system of large technology companies is in itself 
fraught with certain problems.
    Mr. Welch. Tell me what we can do.
    Ms. Bell. Well----
    Mr. Welch. We need local news. Local news is----
    Ms. Bell. Right.
    Mr. Welch [continuing]. Trusted----
    Ms. Bell. Perhaps a better idea is a version of the 
Australian tax, which is to all--the Australian Bargaining 
Code, which is that--hypothecate tax. You know, hypothecate 
tax----
    Mr. Welch. We ought to look at that.
    Ms. Bell. Yes, I think----
    Mr. Welch. My view is--the question for us in Congress is 
to see local news as a public good.
    Ms. Bell. Right.
    Mr. Welch. Something that helps democracy.
    Ms. Bell. Yes.
    Mr. Welch. It may require some support.
    The next question I have is what is the responsibility of 
any news organization when--in the halcyon days of Walter 
Cronkite, that news organization, even though it was in CBS, 
had significant independence on its editorial judgment. But if 
they published something that was a violation, was libelous, 
they were subject to litigation. And the question now is 
whether the protection in section 230 means that there is no 
accountability for the disseminators of information, because 
they are not ``publishers.''
    Professor Turley, is that something that has to be looked 
at?
    Mr. Turley. I think it does. I don't see how you can 
maintain the original model of the internet. I call myself an 
internet originalist, because originally these companies 
promised they would be content neutral, and therefore Congress 
gave them that protection. They are clearly not content neutral 
anymore. And so you have to reexamine whether they should be 
entitled to that immunity.
    I really am saddened by the loss of content neutrality. I 
would like to keep 230 and go back to content neutrality.
    Mr. Welch. OK. I will just take my last couple of seconds 
to thank Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Urquiza. I hope I pronounced that.
    But you both spoke--you spoke, Ms. O'Brien, of some norms 
and values that have to be incorporated, they can't be--they 
have to be accepted.
    And also, Ms. Urquiza, I think what you talked about with 
your dad is the power of media. It is still an authoritative 
voice for so many. And, you know, we should live in a world 
where we can trust what people are saying. So thank you for 
your advocacy in the memory of your father.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cardenas [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you. The 
Congressman yields back.
    We have Buddy, Buddy Carter, your 5 minutes. You have the 
floor.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Cardenas. Unmute, Buddy.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK.
    Mr. Carter. I apologize, I was on mute. Thank every one of 
you on the panel for being here. I appreciate it. I--and, you 
know, I am having some trouble here understanding exactly where 
we are going with this.
    This is so important to me. I think this is one of the most 
important subject matters that we need to be discussing now in 
our country, not just in Congress but in our country, and that 
is, you know, just disinformation, and how it has spread 
through the media. It is of extreme concern to me. I think of, 
you know, the examples like you can't pick up a left-wing 
publication or a left-leaning, if you will, publication without 
it saying unfounded claims by the President, by President 
Trump, of election fraud. I mean, it says that.
    Yet I am from the State of Georgia, and I think back to 
2018, and I think back to the gubernatorial race that we had in 
2018, and I think back to, specifically, on a November 11, 
2018, segment with Joy Reid, where she expressed allegations 
that the election had somehow been manipulated to ensure Stacey 
Abrams wouldn't--or would lose. And yet, you know, when you 
hear about that, you never hear about unfounded claims that 
there was voter suppression during that time. I think the left-
leaning media accepts the fact that that was not a fair 
election. Yet in the State of Georgia we understand it was a 
fair election.
    Another example: November 15th of 2018, CNN's ``Inside 
Politics'' alluded to allegations of concerns with the 
electoral outcome in the gubernatorial race. Yet that panel 
didn't push back on fraud allegations at all.
    Mr. Turley, to me these are clear examples of double 
standards within the effort to address disinformation. And it 
is very clear that this issue isn't--it isn't just limited to a 
single party, a single ideology, or anything. Have there been 
any repercussions, Mr. Turley, or actions taken by these 
networks, CNN and MSNBC, to your knowledge, to address the 
spread of misinformation?
    Mr. Turley. No. As I said in my testimony, I personally 
called out networks on false legal stories. Chuck Todd said 
something about a Michigan case against the Governor, ruling 
against the Governor, that was manifestly untrue. That was not 
correct. I have seen commentators make arguments about [audio 
malfunction].
    They were rejected not just by the Supreme Court, but 
unanimously by the Supreme Court.
    So the problem is that everyone is very select in their 
rage. The important thing is they are rageful, they are 
addicted to this rage, but they are very selective. And once 
you go down this path of saying that we are going to try to 
take some people off the air or get these companies to bar 
opposing voices, you find yourself on this slippery slope. And 
there may come a day where you are on the wrong side of that 
censorship.
    Mr. Carter. You know, before I became a Member of 
Congress--and even still, I am a pharmacist by trade and by 
profession, and I was a nursing home consultant pharmacist. And 
that is why what happened in New York I find so appalling and 
so upsetting and so disturbing. Yet we know that CNN had a ban 
on Chris Cuomo covering his brother, the Governor of New York, 
for over 7 years. Yet they lifted that ban. And, during the 
months of March and June, Chris Cuomo had his brother on the 
show nine times, nine times to discuss the COVID response--and 
also, I am sure, to boost ratings. I am sure he wouldn't have 
had him on to hurt ratings. I am sure he had him on to help 
ratings.
    And yet now we find that the Governor of New York was 
lying--not spreading misinformation--he was lying, covering up 
about deaths in nursing homes. And yes, that is offensive to 
me, because I worked in nursing homes for so long, and I know 
what impact--and I knew whenever he made that executive order 
to send COVID-infected patients into nursing homes, what impact 
it was going to have.
    What--Mr. Turley, I want to just ask you: What can we do to 
prevent situations like this from happening?
    Mr. Turley. Well, this is one area where I may disagree 
with Ms. O'Brien in the sense that, even if the Governor is 
giving false information, I would still want him interviewed. I 
mean, that is part of the point. If we believe that somebody is 
wrong, it is better to have the interview. It is better to 
force that into the open, and let people make their own 
decisions.
    And in Cuomo's case, it would be great to interview him, 
even if he is repeating things people think is false. But it is 
the diversity of our media that allows these to be brought to 
the surface. If you start to direct your cable companies to get 
rid of those networks you don't believe or listen to, then you 
will have fewer of these stories called out.
    Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. OK, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you for yielding back. Next we have 
Congresswoman Fletcher.
    You have the floor for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Cardenas. I am glad 
to be here for this important hearing today. And I want to 
thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to testify. I 
appreciate the time you spent with us today.
    And to Ms. Urquiza, the photo that you shared of what I 
assume was your Facetime with your father on your written 
testimony, it is just--it is heartbreaking. And I just want to 
thank you for sharing your pain with us in the hope that we 
will use it to make progress. And that is the purpose of 
today's hearing.
    I have heard some comments from some of my colleagues today 
and claims that this is an effort to silence people with whom 
some Members simply disagree. I don't think that is why we are 
here.
    We have a problem with the proliferation of disinformation 
and extremism in this country. That is what we are here to 
discuss today. And that is something we have seen right here in 
this Capitol in this year. That is something that should 
concern everyone here, and every American.
    We have covered a lot of ground today, and I join my 
colleagues in recognizing the importance of local news 
reporting. And I want to ask a couple of questions about that. 
But in my home in Houston, for the last week our local 
reporters have been sharing information on true matters of life 
and death, like where to get drinkable water. It does a great 
service, especially when so many of the reporters that I talked 
to didn't have power or water themselves.
    So, Ms. O'Brien, the question that I wanted to start with 
is one to you about, you know, my understanding, with both a 
sister and a dad who have been journalists in their careers, 
that journalists are held to certain ethical standards in 
reporting that includes, among other things, verifying facts 
from multiple sources before news is considered fit to print, 
or air, or publish. And can you walk us through some of what 
those standards are, and the process for traditional 
journalists in reporting a story?
    And maybe that is something we should be thinking about as 
we consider this conversation about disinformation. That would 
be helpful.
    Ms. O'Brien. I would be happy to. And I can only give you, 
from my point of view and from the work that I have done. I 
wouldn't presume to speak for other journalists.
    But you are absolutely right, and I am sure those 
journalists in your hometown are doing the best that they can 
under very dire circumstances. And there is a tremendous 
pressure to get as much information out as fast as possible, 
which is going to mean some stuff is wrong. And so that--those 
standards shift sometimes in breaking news. In covering 
Hurricane Katrina, for example, we worked with a lot of local 
reporters, tremendous pressure. Many of them were homeless 
themselves.
    But generally speaking, right, you are supposed to stick to 
all the basic tenets of basic journalism, do reportage. And 
then, if you are going to use sources, you have to get multiple 
verified sources. And then, probably most importantly, you have 
to bring that back either to your editor or your executive 
producer, if you are working in television, and talk to them 
about these sources. If they are unnamed, here is who they are. 
Because your editor or your executive producer actually needs 
to know that they are independent, and that they are verified, 
and that they don't have a stake in the way the story is being 
told. I am not a big fan of using quotes from people that are 
not attributed, because I think it is often overdone, and I 
think it becomes very problematic.
    So--and I think, really, most of the reporters I have ever 
worked with in local news--I was a local reporter in San 
Francisco, I worked as a producer in Boston--or in network 
news, or in cable news, they are all doing the best that they 
can, given the pressures that they are under. What I would like 
to see are people who come back and say, ``Where did we get 
that wrong?''
    In Hurricane Katrina we made mistakes, and we came back and 
said, ``You know what? Here are some of the things we got 
wrong,'' and what were those systems that allowed us to get it 
wrong, so that next time we don't make the same mistakes, we 
get it right? And I think Congress does not have a role in 
figuring that out. But the news organizations should want to be 
better, because I think that that is going to make audiences 
trust them more.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. O'Brien. And I want to follow 
up on your last comment with Professor Bell about the role of 
government here, because I think both Ms. O'Brien and you have 
referenced earlier today the sort of positive versus negative 
role of the government around this question. And so much of the 
conversation has been focused around--framed in the context of 
the First Amendment concerns.
    But what positive things do you think Congress can and 
should do when facing this disinformation right now? What are 
some positive things you think we should be doing?
    Ms. Bell. Well, I think they should be--I think Congress 
can help, first of all, create incentives for new ownership 
structures in local news markets. I think that you can review 
whether or not you want to rethink what public broadcasting is 
in the digital age, and how to keep that independent and 
robust.
    I think that you can really sort of work with civil society 
organizations to think about what the best mitigating 
strategies are. And I think you can apply some pressure, 
hopefully, to the platform companies to allow much greater 
auditing of some of the data about the stories that circulate, 
and access to that. Just don't let them know so much about 
public--you know, what our public life is without us really 
having any insight into it.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Professor Bell. I have exceeded 
my time, so I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Cardenas.
    Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back. Ms. Clarke, you 
were having issues with your camera. Are you there?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. I don't hear anything, so we will go to 
Mrs. Dingell, who has the floor for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of 
the witnesses. And the good thing about seeing me means you are 
almost at the end.
    But having said that--and I know that many people have made 
this comment, but media remains a crucial tool, particularly 
during this pandemic, to access to vital information. And while 
they provide critical services, our increased isolation and 
consumption of media has given rise to this surge of 
disinformation that we have been talking about all afternoon. 
News sources have amplified debunked or false claims, elevated 
conspiracy theories, and preyed on the divisions in this 
country. And I am truthfully just very worried about what has 
happened to the fear and hatred that is dividing this country.
    Misinformation and deliberate disinformation have 
consequences, and we have lived through those consequences. We 
experienced it firsthand here at the Capitol on January 6. We 
saw it over the last year in various denials of the seriousness 
of COVID-19. And we talked--I am so sorry for the loss of any 
family member. I do understand. I too have lost family because 
of COVID. Or even--how did wearing a mask become so political?
    This issue has serious implications for the security of our 
communities and, quite frankly, the preservation of our 
democracy. And it is happening on both sides. It is not 
Democrats, Republicans. It is happening in America to 
everybody.
    So, as highlighted during today's hearing, media outlets 
are incentivized to report provocative, reactionary stories. My 
concern lies in that sensational content or media intended to 
elicit an emotional or, quite frankly, a violent reaction--I 
have had people try to do things--I am a Michigan girl. We know 
about people that do that. It not only continues to divide us, 
but it is desensitizing people that--it continues to--the 
continued exposure normalizes hateful rhetoric. It normalizes 
calls for violence. It legitimizes these conspiracy theories 
and incentivizes companies to do it more.
    Ms. Bell, should the American people be concerned that 
continued exposure to more provocative reactionary content 
normalizes these ideas and events and could lead to the 
acceptance, normalization, and even support of more extreme 
content?
    Ms. Bell. Yes, I think they should. And we see how 
algorithms--recommendation algorithms that work, particularly 
on search engines and social media, can actually lead to people 
being shown more of--reinforcing content which, when it is 
political speech, can be moving into more extreme and 
eventually kind of violent areas.
    So social media companies have been addressing that. And I 
think that this is where norms and social practices are really 
important, that we recognize that there is a problem. There has 
to be will among the political--the media elite and the 
technology elite to actually kind of do the right thing, as it 
were. So, you know, it is--but it is a real danger. You know, 
we have seen there is a real danger.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Ms. O'Brien, should the American people similarly be 
concerned that an increased acceptance of this content will 
incentivize news outlets to provide more of this type of 
content?
    Ms. O'Brien. There is a reason that the phrase ``If it 
bleeds, it leads'' is a phrase that everybody who has ever 
worked in local news can roll up. And, as a person who has 
spent a lot of time in local news, you kind of know what is 
going to be your top story, right?
    And also, by the way, it is inexpensive to cover. It is 
easy to shoot. It is very fast, right? So there is a financial 
element that makes the pressure more to cover news that is 
over-the-top, violent rhetoric.
    And also, it engages people, right? I mean, part of, I 
think, the debate, when it becomes very visceral and very 
emotional, it is good--you know, what we would call good TV. It 
is good drama. It drags people in. It makes them feel a certain 
way. The worst thing that could happen is that someone is 
watching and feels absolutely nothing about what you are 
putting on the air. As a producer, that would be extremely 
problematic.
    So, yes, obviously, I think the point about this idea of we 
have to figure out how to get people to do their best, you 
know, and sort of appeal to all the better angels who could 
potentially be involved in a solution is a very, very good 
point by Professor Bell. And I think the public should be 
concerned. I don't think that any of this is a surprise.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time. I had a lot more. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back. At this moment 
in time I do not see any other Members on the screen who 
haven't spoken yet, Republican or Democrat. If somebody is to 
speak who hasn't spoken, the Members--OK, seeing and hearing 
none, we will commence the closing of this committee hearing.
    And I will start by thanking our witnesses, and thank you 
so much for being here today and giving us your information and 
offering to be part of this hearing. We really appreciate your 
participation.
    And also I remind the Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. I also ask that the witnesses please respond as 
promptly as possible to any questions or inquiries asking more 
information of you.
    Also, a housekeeping matter: We do, in fact, insert all the 
letters of testimony that have been--or would be part of this 
hearing. And also we are, in fact, accepting the request to 
have documents and letters submitted for the--that have been 
requested to submit for the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ One set of letters has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And with that, at this time, the committee is adjourned. 
Thank you all very, very much to come together on this so 
important issue.
    And also, a point of personal privilege. Before everybody 
got on, I saw a beautiful comment back and forth in catching up 
between Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Turley. You wouldn't think so, if 
you just assumed that they don't get along or appreciate and 
respect each other. But it was really beautiful----
    Ms. O'Brien. Turley has been a guest on my shows many 
times.
    Mr. Turley. That is true. That is very true. Thank you.
    Ms. O'Brien. Thank you, we appreciate it----
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you all very, very much.
    Mr. Doyle [presiding]. Tony, I just want to also thank all 
the witnesses. We have run back and forth for votes, but we 
appreciate all of the witnesses appearing today. And I--you 
have been a great benefit to the committee. And we thank you, 
and hope to see you again soon.
    So stay safe, everyone.
    Ms. O'Brien. Thank you. Thank you.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]