 Hello and good afternoon. Welcome back to Knight Foundation's weekly live show, Informed and Engaged. We are absolutely thrilled today to bring you futurist Amy Webb and Sam Guzik from the incredible, amazing, bring you behind the scenes of the work that they are doing to identify the top tech trends during this COVID-19 pandemic and also the Black Lives Movement. So today, Amy, who has appeared at countless, more than a dozen, online news association conferences, as well as Knight Media Forum, has been providing the field with incredibly data-driven insights that help us understand what is happening, not just in journalism, but in our lives and how technology is changing it. So today, we are thrilled to partner with the Online News Association in bringing you this weekly live show. Paul Chung, who is the Director of Tech Innovation at Knight Foundation, will lead the conversation. Delighted to turn it over to my colleague, Paul Chung, right now. Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for hosting partner ONA as well as Amy and Sam. Before we get into the main conversation, as we know, pandemic and social unrest are powerful forces that has the ability to accelerate certain technology trends. Back in 1918, at the height of the Spanish flu, it was called the telephone. You know, one 1918 newspaper article described high school students holding regular telephonic conversation with their instructor and also a local rec course in Kansas distributed signs for stores that urge sick customers to phone in their orders, something that's very familiar to us today instead of telephone or digital. Now, before we get into the main conversation, Sam and Amy, I would love to hear sort of from your perspective as what is defined as a trend. So I think a trend is something, while Amy's turning on her video, I can jump to get started, but a trend is something that evolves over time. It doesn't come out of nowhere. It's not just trendy and what's in the headlines, but it's something that evolves over time and something that really meets a basic human need. So I think that in the example that you were talking about from 1918, there's really a need for people to shop and to connect and to sort of satisfy that basic socialization. And so I think the trend that we're seeing is evolve is much more about how is connection and socialization evolving as opposed to, hey, here's this brand new thing called the telephone or here's this brand new thing called video chat. Amy, do you want to take it a little bit further? That's right. I mean, I would just add that sometimes it can be challenging to separate what is the underlying longitudinal trend from what is the modality being expressed at that moment in time. And this is where I think newsrooms get stuck and just everyday people get stuck too. And there are countless examples across all different areas of society and technology and communications. So there is a way to sort of figure out using different criteria, but I think the conversation that we're going to focus today on, and this is very important, are those longitudinal trends that have a much more significant force, disruptive force in society than those trends that kind of are quick, trendy flashes in the pan that we wouldn't really consider to be trends, but rather phenomena that are popular at the moment. So in terms of the pandemic, what are some of these sort of like trendy or flashy trends that you think it would sort of quickly disappear? So I think that one modality that you can focus on is it's very clear that video chat has come of age, that we are all on video chat and all of a sudden it's not just something that you have for business meetings, but it's a way to catch up with your family and to talk to your friends and it's how we've used video chat has changed. But I think the underlying trends to be focusing on are the things whose trajectory this is going to change. So thinking about how the algorithms for some of the video chat platforms have shifted as we've seen the pandemic evolve. And so Google Duo, for example, is pushing synthetic media as part of your video chatting. So if you as the internet transmission drops and the audio crackles, they'll use things like synthetic media to give the expected syllable that will make that transmission feel sensical to who's listening to it. And that idea that we're already interacting with synthetic media, I think that's actually a much more meaningful shift other than just, hey, we're on video chat all the time. I think it'll also have a lot to say about what do we feel comfortable with as the world moves into more of a virtual way. Do you want to say more about that, Amy? Yeah, again, I think oftentimes when we are looking for signals of change, we are sort of waiting around for big booms, as it were. What Sam is describing is monumentally important, but it's subtle. And it is, you know, oftentimes catastrophe is a great catalyst for innovation. And we are in the midst of many different innovations that are all in the process of evolving and being born right now. So it's difficult to underestimate just how important this use of synthetic media is because it sets up some great opportunities, but also some thorny questions about the future of communications that we should be asking and answering right now. Could you provide some example of synthetic media actually providing a definition? Because I think, especially when we think about synthetic media now, there's a lot of confusion, there's like fake media, AI-generated media, there's a lot of terminology. I think in this context, the notion is that it's an algorithm which is generating the sound that you're hearing, and specifically the next syllable that you are likely to say. And so Google has an algorithm that's predicting what's likely to be the next syllable out of your mouth. And if the internet transmission fails, it can provide that. That's a far cry from a virtual newscaster reading the news. But it's an incremental step along the way to what are we going to be comfortable with as a society? And how will that shift our experience of the world? That being said, we have also seen some early prototypes in China and also through a partnership that Reuters has to take structured data in a narrative format and couple that with generative algorithmic systems that can produce realistic-looking faces and voices that can be modulated so that they sound quite realistic. And produce what very much feels like a real-time news broadcast, but in fact was produced without a human in the loop. There are lots of instances, again, some positive, some concerning within the entire media ecosystem that range from producing content that a journalist would otherwise be producing to creating commercials and PSAs to developing new kinds of soap operas or telenovelas that incorporate your own personal data. So Paul, when we're talking about synthetic media, which Sam and I have done a tremendous amount of research on, what we're talking about is the ability for data to be scraped, mined, refined, optimized, and generating realistic sounding voices, faces, gestures, and the whole gamut of what a person or a pet or an object would normally do with perhaps some enhanced features. So this is not the same thing as a deep fake. A deep fake would be one piece of what we're talking about. And are these trends, I mean two questions, are these trends good for the consumer and are they good for journalists? And I think that that's a complex question, but I think if the answer is it depends. And one of the reasons to spend time looking at these trends is because it gives us the time and it gives us the opportunity to ask really deep and meaningful questions, to inform the conversations in our organizations, in our newsrooms, about how to turn that either into an opportunity, because sometimes things that seem very threatening can actually become an opportunity. So I think that the key is what questions are we asking of ourselves? So what are the questions that we should be asking? I mean I think that as it relates to video and how that's shifting, we might want to be asking questions about how is that going to shift consumer behavior going forward? Is it going to shift people's appetite for reading if they're spending more time consuming video? But even more deeply, what does it mean to go off the record if you're on a video chat platform that's always recording? And what does it mean for an event strategy that your organization had if all of a sudden we need to adapt to a whole new way of producing events? Is the willingness to pay for synchronous events going to be different from the willingness to pay for asynchronous events? And I think so it's that kind of question that is informed by the trend. I think there's one more piece of that to Sam, which you and I have talked about a little bit, and that is we live in a complex regulatory environment right now. So more and more people are using video chat. What does the system of informing the people that you're talking to look like in places where two-party requirements are or are not required? And how much tech support is a journalist supposed to include in their interview if they're talking on video and the other person on the other end doesn't entirely know how to turn that recording function, you know, off if it's set to default. So I think these, you know, we've sort of been discussing just how profoundly these seemingly small signals could impact the future of journalism many years to come from now and how I think it'll prepare a lot of newsrooms are to answer some of these ethics questions going forward. Aside from the ethics questions that the newsroom have to grapple, do you see how these trends could be an opportunity for new kind of journalism jobs? And if so, what might that be? I think, absolutely. I think that in terms of understanding how to craft a really intimate event to be able to inform people that way or to try to understand how do you directly deliver events to people that think there's opportunities there and thinking about really the whole the whole life cycle of how people are consuming media. Amy, do you want to say more about that? I think I need to organize my thoughts. Well, I know one of the things that we've been talking about internally is, you know, again, sometimes when a catastrophe results in sudden disruption, there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance. But from that, the way that we do business, the way that we communicate, some things get reset. So the question right now I would be curious to know is, will there be an appetite for more conversational style news products going forward? And I'm not talking about podcasts or news shows. But in what way will all of this video chat and we've really only talked very briefly about traditional video chat. We really haven't talked about TikTok or House Party or all of the other emergent streaming systems that are being established at the same time that mesh networks and 5G and all the other parts of the video ecosystem are really blossoming. How does that shift consumer behavior and expectations going forward? And really, can you start anticipating and building out new models for new types of news that would also offer an ability to not just inform your audience, but to potentially earn meaningful revenue? And you know, when we think about the TikTok platform, just this weekend, we have the K-pop stands and the TikTok user allegedly organized a whole campaign to disrupt President Trump's rally. Do you see these platform is going to be, and they use this term that's less trod data, right? Do you see this sort of becoming sort of like an emergent apparatus that a lot of folks are going to use? I think that it's certainly a really fascinating application to see blossom like that. And in some ways, it feels connected to ways that we've seen other technologies evolve. So it feels really connected to the way that forwarding WhatsApp messages grew into a way of passing along misinformation or disinformation. I think that it feels very much like a continuation of people using these platforms in unexpected ways to connect and to pass messages along. So it feels like that's a really useful, maybe going back to what we're talking about, a trendy versus a trend. I think that's a really trendy moment to see right there. And I think we'll continue to see this going forward. And if I was running elections or running a campaign, I think that's absolutely something to think about going forward. But it also speaks to how are people going to keep trying to push the limits of what messaging platforms can do and how do people want to expand their reach beyond just their immediate circle? And just from here, because we started with the pandemic, but at the same time, we're also seeing major social unrest around the world from the protests in Hong Kong, where citizens are losing a fear of losing their rights to freedom, to black life movements, where they're trying to dismantle centuries of institutional racism in America is becoming quite a cat and mouse game between how the authorities and the activists are using technology. And for example, the protesters using encryption messaging technology to organize, while the police are using facial recognition to identify protesters, how do you see the two sides sort of leveraging technology to achieve their mission or goals? And I think it's actually fascinating because we're at this moment of great contradiction, where we see because of the pandemic, this blossoming of a surveillance state where there is bio surveillance being placed everywhere, people taking temperatures and taking pictures at entrances to buildings to be able to facilitate contact tracing. And also at the same moment, we see protesters for pushing back against what that surveillance state can do and what policing powers should be allowed. And I think that's a really plain contradiction and should push us to sort of ask some deep questions. I think it's also been really fascinating to see how the skies have been used in policing this. So one of the places that is I think most interesting to look at in terms of how organized governments have responded to these movements is the use of drones and the use of different aerospace technologies to really surveil what's happening and use that to put together a picture on the ground and try to disrupt the movements. Right. So Sam and I and others at FTI have been looking at the sort of emerging flying internet of things. And what's so fascinating about this moment in time that we are in is that pre-virus, you know, between the EFF and other privacy activists, not just in the United States but around the world, there was a lot of pushback on any type of aerial surveillance, let alone, you know, many of the new facial recognition technologies that were becoming more widely used. This is something that both of us talked a lot about at the online news association conference last year. And honestly, that wasn't the first time I've mentioned it at ONA. So this has been sort of a constant brewing issue. And with the emergence of the coronavirus, it was looking like the only way for us to get back to work was to submit to widespread biometric surveillance, the type of which you would expect out of a place like China where surveillance has become part of the, you know, governing philosophy. But very much not the case in Europe where there are express regulations against surveillance. You know, all of a sudden we've got this flying internet of things via drones and with all of the different technologies, the cameras, the recognition systems, the algorithmic processing, as well as things like millimeter wave machines that, you know, some employees have been walking through in order to get into their offices and factories that don't just scan your temperature, but also look at things like your respiration and your heart rate, your pulse ox and other things. So we went from what looked like an sort of acquiescence to sort of constant persistent biometric surveillance to the opposite. So on, you know, May 25th George Floyd is killed and suddenly there's a sharp lens on what biometric data are being collected for what purposes and who has access to them and all of the bias and problems associated with that. And so we had this sudden about face where not only was there much more public scrutiny, but IBM announced that it would no longer, it would sort of abolish its facial recognition program, not that it really had a robust one to begin with. But Amazon and Microsoft followed suit saying they're going to give a year for the U.S. government to figure out what its regulatory position is. All of this points to a future in which we know that technology is going to and must inevitably help us recognize different things about each other. But our regulatory structures are just not there. And I think for those involved in informing communities, this is going to be not just an important story to cover, but it's also going to impact you and the work that you're doing. This is a really difficult situation that we now find ourselves in. And it again is another reminder why it's so important to track these longitudinal trends. Because if you were just looking at like a drone, or if you were just looking at facial recognition without taking sort of a bigger macro view, you would be missing these fluctuations that are pointing to something bigger. And it sounds to be a lot of these technology are fundamentally changing the relationship between the citizens and sort of their elected officials and government. And what do you see in the next couple of years as sort of like the critical questions that journalists should be asking? And where do we begin sort of uncovering this trend? And I think certainly it's important to be looking at as we generate all this data, who has access to it? And what can it be used for? Are there checks on the way that data is collected to make sure that it's being collected in equitable ways and that it doesn't make certain assumptions about some groups and not others that there's very dangerous things there? I think operationally as for newsrooms, I think as we see different types of surveillance, whether it's location-based surveillance for contact tracing or photos as you come in and out of a building, what does that mean when you go to meet with a source? And how does that shift? How do you protect your sources? So I think those are the kinds of questions that I think are important to be asking in order to make sure that we can hold accountable the people who are building these systems and designing them. That's right. And we're facing an election in the United States in a couple of months, but there's no doubt that worldwide we're sort of living through this era in which there are very strong politics but relatively weak political parties. And that sets up a sort of interesting vacuum. And I think it's part of the reason why we've seen the volatility that we have in so many of our communities. So for those who are listening, who are managers or leaders within their organizations, we are headed into a really challenging decade or longer. Part of it is transition that will set us on a different course because of the coronavirus and the long-term economic impacts, among other things. So there are business decisions to contend with. We have had, I think, a global social and racial injustice reckoning that is not going to go away overnight. And even some of the protests that we've seen in places like Hong Kong, these have been brewing for a while. I lived in Hong Kong for many years. I remember when, I think it was in 2014, I wasn't living there at the time, but citizens had gotten together and built their own mesh networks so that they could safely communicate with each other as they were trying to protect speech and freedoms and their democratic policies. So we're in this period of transition, and I know everybody wants to know when is the new normal and what's that going to look like. And the answer is I don't, Sam and I cannot model that for you. There's too many factors, which tells us that those who are in charge of things need to heed the words of Peter Drucker, who years ago said that management is doing things right and leadership is doing the right things. What those right things are, you know, you're going to have to really think about and project farther into the future, because that impacts all of the decisions that you are making in the present. And something more practical in terms of, you know, helping news leaders and news organization, what kind of skill set do they need to acquire now to meet this future, especially in an industry that's contracting? So I think fundamentally the skill set that has worked for journalists historically is still the one that is important today, and that's curiosity and being able to ask really good questions and being willing to follow those questions in in deep ways. And so whether that's how you chase down a story or how you ask questions about the technological context that you exist in, I think that ability to be inquisitive and engage with the world is really important. And then I think there's a whole stable of technical traits that we may need to think about looking at, but what those traits are are going to be specific to each organization and how they choose to reach their audience. Okay. You know, we just want to do a time check and we have quite a few questions from the audience. One of the question is, what economic and business trends are you paying attention to globally that might affect the largest technology companies around news and information? And you alluded to some of the legal issues that that, you know, we'd be contending especially in the next couple years. You want to start with that, Amy? Yeah. So there's a lot. So pre-virus, we were looking at widespread regulatory and policy uncertainty, not just in the United States, but elsewhere. And, you know, that had dramatic impacts, not just within the media industry, but, you know, if you're a manufacturer of something and you don't know what the regulatory framework looks like, and you're in a situation in a country where that might be in, you know, flux, depending on which way the wind is blowing, it's really difficult to figure out what your marketing and advertising spend looks like or your hiring or other things. So that was already a problem, clearly in the United States, but in other parts of the world, which had some ripple effects and impacts on what advertising and marketing look like. You know, there are questions around antitrust and competitiveness and what future ad markets might look like for our largest platforms. A lot of huge companies and the tech companies in particular have sort of launched their own corporate foreign policy groups within their organizations. You know, so we're in a situation where there's a lot of question mark, a lot of questions around what the platforms can and cannot do. We have now very likely a lingering economic recession. You know, we have big changes in different parts of the economy that didn't exist pre-virus. And I think we're probably looking at another housing crisis, although, you know, I have yet to hear an economist say that yet. So we have some challenging factors going forward at precisely the time that digital distribution is changing. So as Sam has mentioned, you know, we're on the cusp of synthetic media, which isn't just about how content looks, but also how it's distributed. We have a data ecosystem that's in flux. So, you know, if you are somebody who has to make decisions, now you must double down on tracking signals outside of simply media or media and technology. You must start paying much closer attention to factors that are adjacent to the field that also take into consideration some of these bigger indicators like, you know, the economy and geopolitics and things like that, and then model those changes in accordance with what you're seeing within your industry and also your organization. I think if, if recent months have told us anything, it's that consolidation and layoffs are probably going to become more common in the near future. So again, catalyst can be a great catastrophe can be a great catalyst for change. Now is the time to start experimenting with alternative models for earning revenue. Sam has done a ton of research in this area and last year at ONA presented some really, really interesting findings. So if you go online and look up that video and fast forward to him talking, you're going to get a, I think a wealth of information and some new perspective. I have a couple of questions from audience, really talking about sort of like with this synthetic media between reality and, and so this isn't like how, how did we let the audience know? Do you think they doesn't matter? Like, for example, if suddenly this video dropped off and somehow synthetic media kick in, do we need to disclose it? Does it make a difference to our audience? And so, and would it take jobs away from journalists, which is sort of like the perpetual questions about synthetic media? And I think to me, that's actually why this question of how are we first interacting with synthetic media is so interesting, because I think that if it was really, everyone had sort of a little bit of a heartbeat when they saw the Google demo about Google being able to place phone calls to restaurants and make reservations on your behalf. That was a really big disruptive demo that they put out into the market. And everyone sort of had that kind of question of do you need to relate, is the person talking to a computer? But in this case, it's such a small incremental shift that I don't think anyone would, would even notice it. And that, that level of comfort that people have with it, I think is going to impact those bigger pieces. So those are, those are important ethical questions that I think we need to be asking. And ultimately, I think it's going to have a lot to do with the world outside of media. It's not just newscasts that are going to be needing to make these choices, not just journalism panels that are going to struggle with how do you create remote presence for people. And so the type of media that people are consuming in entertainment and on the telephone generally, I think is going to speak a lot to what, how we need to make disclosures on those choices and why it's going to be so important for us to, as an industry, be aware of what's happening more broadly. I would, I would just add that we are talking about a systems level change. And systems level change requires systems level thinking and solutions. What Sam is describing points to a perfect opportunity for news organizations to get together to figure out a point of view, a shared collaborative point of view on this, so that somebody else is not making decisions on watermarking or ethics or no watermarking, no ethics, whatever it might be, and sort of dragging you into the future when at that point you will continue to face scrutiny during an era when public trust is, again, volatile. So now, but like, don't put this off. They're, they're, I realized that we're all going through a lot of disruption, which again is the reason why now is a good time to be asking these questions and actively working towards some kind of solution. We have a lot of questions coming in, so I will send them to you, but I do have one final question I'd like to ask from Michelle Ferrera. She said, black people are dying over here with these technologies. And with the fascinating and interesting longitudinal trend, can you address ways that journalism is playing through these trends and endangering the lives of black and brown communities? Michelle is a tremendous journalist and it's great that she asked this question. I would say that we are in a situation in which the stories that must be told are deeply nuanced and complex. And we need to give those stories the time and the space and the right venue for them to be reported and written or produced and told. And somehow we have to galvanize public reception for those stories to be heard. This is a challenging task. I don't, Sam might have some ideas on how to accomplish that. But, but everybody plays a role. You know, we, the three of us right now play a role in shape, because we are currently shaping the conversation. And when all of us are done and we start tweeting, that's going to help shape the conversation. So we all play some role in what's coming. But Sam should, should weigh more in on this. Yeah. I mean, I think that the, what you had to say, Amy, is exactly right. And I, I think my mind is sort of torn at this moment between trying to think about the systems level conversation and sort of thinking about the day to day implementation of what we need to do right now. And I think I'm finding myself thinking a lot about it's, it's important that the choices that we're making right now about the important stories that we need to tell need to think about how technology is shifting in the long term. But we can't only be focused on the long term, we need to be able to do sort of have our, have our minds at both ends of that, of that timeframe where we can think about the, the long term disruptive impact of these technologies and also think about how are we going to tell stories today right now and connect with our audiences. So before we end, I do like to leave on a positive note. What are some of the, what are you optimistic about in terms of, in terms of some of the technology trend that's due to Black Lives Matters and COVID? Like what are you hopeful for? You know, I think that I'm optimistic that the focus on the way that systems can oppress people in our society will encourage us and equip us better to have these systems level conversations. That I think we've seen really great evidence over the last several weeks and months and, and all the work leading up to this moment that shows us that we have a generation coming of age that is capable of grappling with really deep systemic questions. And I think that's really hopeful. Coming back to the question about what, what values should newsrooms be hiring for, I think that ability to think about systems level challenges is, is one of those core values. And so that, to me, that's a really hopeful piece to think about. All I can tell you is over the weekend, my 10 year old, sort of overwatched me reading Taylor Lorenz's story, positing that maybe the K-pop stands were the ones who, you know, have been shutting down a lot of the more racist hashtags and possibly got on the list for all the tickets for the rally. You know, and my, my 10 year old said, I can't, you know, I could do this too. And nobody's being mean. You know, it's, it's sort of being done in a joyful manner, but there's a recognition that things need to change and technology can, can, you know, as much as, as much damage as it can cause. You know, you can flood the internet at any given moment with K-pop videos as, as it means of stopping something bad that's happening while at the same time surprising and delighting people. It's like, it's like, it's like a lovely version of Rick rolling. And, and I, I, you know, the fact that my 10 year old is even aware of all of this and has pieced together what it means and the significance of it and the shift from the acrimony that we have seen to this more slightly snarky, but also just like lovely positive responses a way to, to catalyze and change how people are acting. I mean, I, I'm a pragmatist, but I would say this gives me tremendous hope for the future. And with that, I want to thank Amy and Sam and our hosting partner for ONA to help us with this week's conversation. And next week, stay tuned, same time, same place where my colleague Karen Runet will bring together journalists from diverse background to talk about how they are covering racism in communities, immigrant communities, and, and what light are they able to shed on colorism and classicism within the communities to end explicit racism about these issues. So please join us next week. And thank you.