 So I want to finish up and then we'll get some questions from the audience. When you think about, you know, your career, if you were to start it right now, right now, what would you do? Where would you work? Not in a network, not in a TV network, because our job is disappearing. I remember when I started my career, I was 28, I was an anchor. It was not because I was the best or the worst, I was the only one in the network. And so they put me for a month, and then it was two months, three months, and it's been 33 years. But everybody wanted to be an anchor, I remember. Everybody wanted to be Peter Jennings. Yeah, I see your name says anchor up there, but go ahead. Exactly. Well, that's wrong, because nowadays you have to be everything but an anchor. You have to be able to move from one platform to the other. You have to be able to survive in social media. You have to be anything but an anchor. An anchor is not good. All right, so what would you be? Not an anchor is not a job. No, but simply a great journalist. I wanted to show you, that's why I brought this. I mean, when was the last time you read a paper like this? 1994. Okay, well, but two great journalists. Right. Jodi and Megan. Exactly. And could you ever imagine a couple of years ago, Weinstein guilty? Those are good journalists. Yeah, absolutely. In fact, I was writing Jodi this morning. I was texting with her, and I said most of the credit should go to the women who came forward and testified against them and the stories like Ashley Judd and others, but you have to take a moment to understand your impact. And I thanked her. I said, thank you for my kids. I have two sons and a daughter, and I said thank you for my daughter, but really thank you for my sons. And let me just say about that, the impact that is having worldwide. That's what we're doing on Univision. We're trying to approach stories in a different way. And for instance, in Mexico right now, I don't know if you're aware, but on March the 9th, there's a huge, incredibly important protest movement. And on March the 9th, all women in Mexico have decided not to go, not to be public, not to go to work, not to go to colleges, not to buy anything. So it's going to be a date without women in order for Mexicans, for Mexico to realize their importance. And it's a protest against the macho culture in Mexico to put it in context in the last year in 2019. More than 34,000 people have been killed and more than 1,000 women were killed just because they were women, just because of that. Something has to be done. And there's Manuel Lopez Obrador hasn't been able to put a stop to that. So the impact of the Me Too movement here in the United States, just imagine it's going to be an incredible scene to go to Mexico and then suddenly all the women as protest deciding today you don't come with me. Which was also a social media campaign too, Me Too. There are a lot of the stories started to begin to bubble up and people begin to get brave around it. Of course there's been a backlash just the same way, although this is a great victory. When you think about what's really happening, let's finish up talking about journalism to journalism right now. That's sort of like one of those journalism conference questions. But what do you imagine? I feel very bullish about journalism. I do not feel everyone's sort of like, oh, we're being attacked, which we always were. And I'm reading right now the Ron Cherno book about Hamilton. I've been reading it for four years now. I am. I literally pick it up. I read four pages. I put it down and I'm like, I'm only on page 604. But on page 604 it's all about his use of media and media at the time. Under assumed names, he wrote under all these unusual names to go back and forth. And it was a really ugly time politically. It was an ugly time from media point of view. I'm reading about James Callender, the one who was used by Thomas Jefferson to attack. It was the same. As I'm reading it in this fourth year now, it's the same thing that's happened. So I'm very positive. I think this is not a new thing, that this has been the same way. And it is, I think it's a great time and a very important time to be a journalist. So what do you, any advice for this group of people here gathered? And then we're going to ask questions. Well, again, our job is to confront those who are in power. Right. Of course report reality as it is, please, and be careful, be very careful. But then, especially in moments like this, when we have a president like this, when we have still dictatorships in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Nicaragua, when we have women being killed in Mexico, our responsibility is to ask the tough questions. If we don't do that, then nobody else is going to do it. That's what we do, to ask tough questions. All right. Questions from the audience? We have one over here. And I'll take this one first, because I'm closer. But stand up, please. It'll be easier. Thank you. Son House from the Emma Bowen Foundation. Thank you for sharing. I'm really interested about covering the Latinx community, because you were saying almost 30% of Latinos would vote for Trump. And so if you don't come from the Latino community, and you're trying to report on Latinos and their perspectives towards the election, how do folks outside the community try to wrap their arms around the diversity within the Latino community and understand the implication, for example, of the U.S. election? I think the easiest way to explain that, just try to go from the traditional term of Latino to the new term Latinx that you just mentioned. And then with the term Latinx, many people don't feel very comfortable yet with it, but it's much more inclusive. It includes everybody. It includes groups that in the past were not considered Latinos or were not giving enough credit. And if you understand that we are not monolithic, that we are incredibly diverse, that we are very young, that we use social media more than anybody else, that we are connected to our phones, and that when I got here to the United States in 1983, it was so easy. You were saying, oh, Latinos, yes, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, that's it. Next. Now it is not. It is very, very different. We second and third generation Latinos tend to marry outside the Latino community. My son, Nicolas, without the age, he's Puerto Cuban, Mexican-American, and he feels more comfortable with football than with soccer. In other words, we are very, very diverse and don't think of us as a monolithic structure. Yeah, that's something that media tended to do is monolithic, looking at all groups, whether it's African-Americans or gays or anyone else. You know, I was thinking about that the other day when they were covering the guy, the NSC guy who's completely unqualified for the job, Richard Grinnell, and I was thinking, I have nothing to do with that gay guy, and I'm gay. They were covering the gay aspects of him, and I was sort of like, that has nothing to do with him. So, yeah, I would say pay attention to what we have to say. Pay attention to those who don't have a voice, because when you talk about the Latino community, it's just those who can talk on MSNBC and CNN. But the fact is that there are many voices that are out there and that we are simply not listening to. And the future is there. Cesar Chavez used to say in 1984 in San Francisco, he once said, we've looked into the future and the future is ours. It's just the numbers. For the first time in the Latino community, we're going from big numbers to a little power, and it feels great. But still we are underrepresented. We only have four senators. We are about 20% of the population. So our role as journalists is different. My role as a journalist is not only the role that you would expect for another anchor in another network. It's not only to give information, but also sometimes to take a stand. And I know it might be controversial, but that's the way it is. We have four questions, and we may only have time for three, but go, please. Hi, my name is Alice Sineshan. I'm with the Blandin Foundation in northern Minnesota. So exactly to my question, what do we all need to do to make sure that we have a full and fair 2020 census? Well, yeah, we didn't talk about the census. You want to go ahead? Wow, it's all about data as usual and the ability of people to give accurate data because so much is based on it. In some ways, I think that tech companies should be doing the census because they already know everything about everybody and they know where they move. So I think it's going to be critical. The ability to screw with two things. People are talking about voting machines. Also voting databases are more at risk. The ability to change and address slightly, and then you can't vote. The ability to suppress votes, I think, is really much more at risk than people realize. They're focused only on the machines, which also need to be secured and backed up and using this technology, this super interesting called paper. But I think that the census is the same thing. It's a data play and it's going to be open to so much abuse and you're already seeing that. It requires that we have a functioning senate, for example, to pass these security laws and these privacy laws in order to be able to do it right. So I am slightly worried about the abuses of the data that's collected and then the fear of people giving up data, although they do it every day. So I think it's going to be, it's one of the biggest stories, I think. Yeah, and for the Latino community, it is very important for us that we are being counted because we're growing and if we grow more, then it's going to be, we have more power. We don't have that power yet. Again, four senators cannot represent the 60 million Latinos. And then when you tell an immigrant, don't worry, just answer the questions on the census. If he's going to do anything again, well, can we trust the government? I mean, can they trust the Trump administration? That's a difficult part. And they've just put a fear in it. There's enough fear there so that people won't... Already there's a lot of fear right now. Yeah, so I guess we'll just have Facebook do it. We have a question right here. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi, John Rudolph from Feet in Two Worlds. Thank you for a very interesting conversation. I want to go back to the story you told at the beginning about Donald Trump taking out your private phone number and ask what guidelines you would suggest for covering something like that. You talked about the need to provide context. So, and we see lots of reports now where tweets by important people are included in the news coverage. But there isn't a lot of context around them. So how would you cover that incident today and provide the appropriate context? This is what happened when I was in that press conference and when I got ejected by a bodyguard, taller than me, well, everyone's taller than me. Only two reporters, Casey Hunt from MSNBC and Tom Yamas, they stood up and they told Donald Trump, you cannot do that. And thanks to them, I was able to go back to the press conference and then ask my questions. Nobody knows that I came back and I had seven minutes with Donald Trump back and forth. But all the other reporters, they stay silent. I bet that today it would be different. I bet that today would be many more Tom Yamas asking the questions and confronting President Trump. And this is not a profession for people who want to be silent. If you want to be silent, you've got to choose something else. I am always amazed by silence sometimes from reporters. It's fascinating. But in this case, it's not anymore. Everybody, the sort of the lid is on. This is not a time to be silent. If you want to be silent, you've got to do something else. But this is not a time to be silent. And I know it's not easy. But the more power they have, the more the tougher that we have to get as journalists. And one of the things, access journalism, I think, is over. The idea that you get anything from access is, you know, one time the head of Uber was like, we're not going to be talking to you. I go, oh, fine, good. Uh-oh, not that. And of course, he's gone and I'm still there. But I mean, it's just, you don't need it anymore. And I think journalists have been trading access for shitty coverage for so long. And I have a rule, usually with people with a lot of power, I have two things in mind. The first is that if I don't ask the question, nobody else is going to do it. Obviously, that's not true. But that's the attitude that I have. And the second one is that I'm always assuming that I will never talk to that person again. And if you think of that, then it's going to be a different, it's going to be a completely different interview. They also end up talking to you more, which is interesting. Mark Andreessen used to say that someone asked him why people keep talking in Silicon Valley. And he said it was Stockholm syndrome. But they do. When she becomes an access journalist, you get... They're afraid of you. I've been reading. Apparently. We have a question back here in one final. Hi, Sarah Bartlett with the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. Jorge, can you tell us what's going to happen now that Univision has been sold or is in the process of being sold? What's the outlook for the kind of journalism that you and your colleagues are doing there? And explain the sale. Well, yes, just this morning it was announced that two companies are buying Univision, 64% of the company. And I think they're buying into a great company. We are the leaders in the Hispanic market. We have a great news department. We're doing things that nobody else is doing. I think they were listening to all the people that are saying that the future is Latino. Again, I think that when I see it 30 years ago, nobody pay attention to who we were. I used to work for the Cine Network, Spanish International Network. Not exactly the best name. That's a great name. What's wrong with that name? Yeah, I work for the Cine Network. Well, not anymore. And now we are fully part of the American experience and we participated, for instance, in this electoral campaign in two debates in many forums. In other words, people do understand that without Latinos it is impossible to make it to the White House. And to be part of a company that led the way is just fantastic. I think they're buying into a great house. And you're going to see lots of different ownership structures going forward, whether it's Bezos buying the Washington Post and largely leaving it alone. I think he's been a pretty good owner. He has other issues with that one. And the growth is there. Again, 60 million Latinos right now in 30 years, 100 million Latinos. We're buying a lot of stuff. We're using phones. We're consuming. We're traveling. I think it's a great business. Thank you. Jorge, you just mentioned you can't get to the White House without the Latino vote. Every election cycle, there's always the question, is this the year Hispanics are finally the decisive force that they need to be? I want to ask the question just a little bit differently, though. I'm from El Paso. And so I'm just wondering, with the experience in El Paso last summer where Hispanics were targeted by a domestic terrorist, by somebody using rhetoric that's also coming from the White House and media sources, does that realization activate more Hispanic voters, that physical threat to them and their children? Is that finally sort of what pushes things over the top? I wish I would know the answer. I would say that for many people, they feel threatened. They feel attacked, and that they're reacting to that. And some of the comments are directly related to President Trump. But on the other hand, I'm seeing many Latinos again as I just mentioned that are openly telling us, I feel comfortable with Donald Trump. So I honestly don't know how the Latino community is going to react. Again, in 2016, 29% of Latinos voted for Donald Trump. I don't know if that number is going to go up or not. But I think we ask, as the rest of the country, the Latino community is divided, and the division is called Donald Trump. All right, one last question. If you had to name one thing you're most scared of for media and your profession and our profession, what would that be, and what would be the thing you're most heartened by? What is the thing that gives you the most optimism? I hate it when a reporter or a moderator has the opportunity to ask a tough question, and here she refrains from doing that. And I know how it feels, because when you are with someone in power, and then you notice immediately, your hands start sweating, and you're thinking, oh, should I ask that question or not? Well, that's exactly the question that you have to ask. So I'm very saddened and sorry when I see a journalist that has the opportunity to ask a tough question, a difficult question, and then they don't ask it. And then the greatest thing that I'm seeing is a new generation who's unafraid, who's in your face, and going with a cell phone asking questions. That's the most beautiful thing that I've seen. All right, everybody. Thank you.