 Let's get to that idea of the power of social media, because here is, we have entered in a time, and I think, I don't think Donald Trump is, just the way JFK was to, FDR was to radio, JFK was to television, Donald Trump is to social media in a way, he's used it beautifully, whether you like it or not, he's the best troll around. He uses effectively to govern, to make announcements, to undermine people, to attack today, he was attacking Justice Sotomayor. And for this information, and Justice Ginsburg, which is dangerous, what is that, what responsibility do social media companies have to that? When you're doing your job, because you use it too, you're quite active, what do you imagine has happened to the news environment in that case? Let me put it this way, I've been doing the newscast with Univision for 33 years already, and I can assure you Cara, that without presence in social media, I wouldn't have a job right now, because now we're doing sometimes TV for people who don't even own a TV. I'm also doing a program just for the internet, because people are somewhere else, it's shifting. And by the way, some people in TV right now, they're in complete denial. The same way that people in newspapers and magazines were 10 years ago, it's exactly what's happening with right now. So does the newscast matter at all, like the idea of a newscast? The content matters. Okay. But the way we approach it is completely different. Let's say 10, 15, 20 years ago, we were reporting facts, and people were expecting the facts for the newscast, definitely, not anymore. I think everybody knows exactly what's happening right now. And when we come on the year at 6.30, they expect more analysis, more context. And they are expecting from us something different to tell them the truth, the way we see it. Especially when we have a president that is lying constantly. Again, is that a confrontational position from a journalist? Well, that's our responsibility. If we don't do it, nobody else is gonna do it. It's really interesting, because I've been recently watching a lot of Edward R. Murrow stuff. I just, for some reason, I've been looking at it. And he was quite confrontational, actually, in a lot of ways, especially for the day. What then happens to the media environment? Because it becomes so fractured. There's so many voices, and everybody does have a say, which is a good thing. But at the same time, the noise creates dysfunction, it's amped up, sort of engagement is enragment. And it creates this situation where nobody knows what the truth is in it. Well, but at the same time, as it happened with Edward R. Murrow, and as it's happening with us right now, the most important thing that we have as journalists is our credibility. If what I say, if nobody cares about that, or if people think that I'm lying, then I'm done as a journalist. I wouldn't have a job. Let me give you an example. Every year here in Miami, we have hurricanes. And I personally, yeah. And I've chosen two people from two local stations who are very good, because I trust what they say, and my life, and the life of my family, and my home depends on what they say. Should I live my house? Should I go somewhere else? So that's exactly what we do in social media. Many people follow you, and they trust what you say. Hopefully many people follow me, and they trust what I say. And that's exactly the same way as with Edward R. Murrow. The only difference is that now, instead of having two networks, or three networks, say BCNBC and CBS as it was back then, we have millions of networks of people using Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and that's a big difference. Where do you think it ends up as it moves forward? I mean, obviously, there's a lot of people looking at regulating some of these companies. Do you consider, given these platforms are so important, whether it's Twitter or Reddit, or Facebook, Facebook's the biggest among them, where's the responsibility? Do you think there's a responsibility on these tech companies to act? Cause just the other day, Mark Zuckerberg said, we're somewhere between a telecom company and a publisher. And it reminded me of that old skit and I'm showing my age here. Is it a dessert topping or a floor wax? You know, if you remember from SNL. What are they? I mean, cause it's all the old people. Well, they are saying that they are not a network. They're saying that they don't have a journalistic operation. Right, a publisher. But maybe, can I switch the question and send it to you? So what would you do? Do you think they need to be regulated? Yes. And in which way? How? Well, I think, if you look at the top 10 companies or the top companies right now are tech companies in terms of market valuation. Maybe not in the market today, but because we've had to sell off, but most of the economic growth has happened through tech in the last 10 years essentially. And a lot of the wealth creation, everything. The top 10 rich people are all tech people. It's an industry, unlike Wall Street or cars or pharmaceuticals. Even if it's problematic regulation, they have regulation. There's not one law on the books about internet companies at all, not one. And in fact, the one law that does exist is very adventations to them, which allows them to be immune from any legal action. So what kind of, would it be government regulation? I don't know. You want a big sensor? No. No. So how would that work? Well, it's an honest question. It's an honest question. I don't know. Well, Univision's responsible for the things that is on your air. All the time. And the things you create cause havoc, you pay for it. And I think it's the responsibility. It's being legally liable for creating things either sloppily or with malintent or things like that. I am responsible for what I do and you are responsible for what I do. But how about if there's someone else who's posting on your network, on your platform? Right. Where is their responsibility? Well, the New York Times is actually responsible for those too. So they're abrogated around the comments, but at the same time, on some level, they have to create tools where it can't be used for disinformation. They have to be more... It's gonna be incredibly complex to figure out because they can sort of get out of it and at the same time have created the tools in such a sloppy way that, you know, you can look at any of the areas of the world. In Myanmar, they didn't have enough speakers. They didn't do this. They didn't do that. They do things. I'll give you a good example, Facebook Live, for example. And I've told this story before, but when they created it, they bring in reporters to look at it before and they're all excited and they get all... They're like, literally it's like 12 year old boys all there going, look what I made. It's so cool. And I was in the room and I said, okay, this is a live, you know, immediate live posting by anybody in the world can do this. And I said, what do you if you do if someone murders someone on this? What do you do if someone commits suicide? What do you do about bullies? What about child pornography? Live child pornography? What about if a mass murderer puts a GoPro on the top of his head and starts broadcasting? And the person who was showing it to me said, you're such a bummer, Kara. And I was like, yeah, I am. That's me, you know. I have had some experience with the human race and I've noticed that when they get tools, they tend to use them in a malevolent way sometimes. And I was like, where are the safeguards that you've put into place before? And they were like, well, that part of it they hadn't thought of. Now that's changed, obviously, when they create things now because of the experiences, but not because they had any, they weren't sued for it, they were not, they didn't pay any price for the mistakes they made. And so I'm trying to figure out how you create a price for when you make shoddy products. Okay, that's an interesting proposition. But as a journalist, we cannot just wait to see, well, let's see if they regulate them or not. Our responsibility is completely different. I think our responsibility would be to find facts, to confront those who are in power and that's what we need to do. Right, absolutely. But I think one of the things is it has repercussions well beyond that. Like there was a really great series in the New York Times recently about child pornography on these sites and the very little is being done to mitigate the problem. You can do that with addictiveness with teens. They know very well inside these companies how addictive these products are, akin to cigarettes, akin to other things, still not doing anything about it, yet facilitating it. And so you have to sort of start to think they're not benign. And so if they're not benign, they're not making things of the mind that affect people, there has to be some kind of regulation, smart regulation that doesn't hinder innovation. And when they worried about hindering innovation, they tend to go to the China argument. Well, China, if we don't do something, China will beat us. If we don't do this and we'll have, they'll be running the internet in the next year. But for instance, let me just put it this way. What would happen in authoritarian governments? What would happen in China? What would happen in Saudi Arabia? What would happen in Cuba? Well, they're already doing it. Exactly. They're already doing these tools. Exactly the way. But do we want to do that? No. No. No, no, of course not. But what I'm talking about is they tend to say that there can't be innovation without freedom for them. And in fact, when you have one or two or three companies, in this case, it would be Facebook, Google, it really would be Facebook and Google, essentially, sort of buying up all the companies, shutting down innovation, you don't get the kind of innovation needed to create new paradigms. So if we say on the political conversation, we know for a fact that a president or a candidate is lying and that he's buying arts and publicity, should we stop them? Well, we don't. Facebook doesn't. They made the decision not to. I mean, how do you feel about that? Let's get back to politics. What is the political landscape look now? You have Bloomberg spending every, I'm going to say every dime he has because he's got a lot of dimes, but spending enormous amounts of money on social media, on Facebook, the Trump campaign, quite good at it. Brad Parcell is a genius at using social media. What would you do if you were running Facebook? Or now Twitter decided to cut them off, say we're not going to have lies, we can't even figure it out. Well, I agree with you that in certain situations, child pornography, you mentioned, for instance, there has to be done. There has to be something done. But my problem is with political discourse. Are we going to start censoring political discourse, even if we don't want to? How about white nationalist? Should we stop that? Should companies stop that kind of information? They do sometimes, they do other times. My issue is that it's done in a haphazard way by people who are not necessarily qualified. I would like elected officials and citizens to start talking about this as a larger thing rather than say in the case of Facebook, it's a company that is run by someone who cannot be fired ever. He's like a dictator of that company. He's unfireable, he controls the board, he controls everything, and so do you want one person making decisions that affect lots of people? And it's something everyone needs to think about at the very least. And I think this conversation is obviously is going to continue. But since I cannot do anything about it right now, my responsibility, I'm just going back to my role as a journalist. Yeah, we have to, if someone is lying, we have to say it. If someone is harming children, we have to say it. And if a president is lying, we have to say it. Except that when you get in a digital environment, it's different than a network. If there's a lie on a network, everyone sees it. In this case, they can send a million different lies to a million different people, all geared toward the information they've gleaned. Now, probably one of the great ways to solve this would be to have a really good privacy bill to know about what happens to your data, to not be tracked the way you are, to be not microtargeted. And so they can't send a million different lies to someone. That's not even being done. There's no privacy bill in this country. We're the only country, there's a lot going on in Europe, there's a lot going on in Australia. We have a bill in California that's the de facto rule for this country, but there's not a national privacy bill to protect your privacy. So the two most important things that you would do is regulation some content and then on privacy. No, privacy. Privacy starts, this privacy and data starts to take care of the rest of it, I think. Yeah, and I don't want them to use my information. But they do. They do, all the time. Not me today, because I don't have a phone. But right now, if I sign off of everything, actually, I even signed off, they ping you hundreds of times and know everything about you without your consent. And it's interesting, we were having a conversation before we started and we were saying, well, this is not of the record. Well, the fact is that I'm assuming, as you are, that everything that I say on this phone is being tracked and that somebody is listening or reading it. Yes, they are, in fact. So that's the way, that's the way of the record doesn't exist anymore. Everything's public. Okay, let's talk a little bit about covering this election. How do you look forward to it? And I do want to talk a little bit about immigration and where you think we are on it, because that story, one of the problems of this new news environment we're in is it's very twitchy, it's very quick and people move on from the next thing. And so this week, we're talking about this, then we're talking about this, and oh yeah, impeachment, that seemed like six years ago, impeachment. And now we're in, I guess, the Bernie Sanders phase of the discussion, but it goes from one thing to the other. Immigration really has gotten lost as a discussion. Not necessarily, the way I see it, the big picture, the way I see it here in the United States, we're having four major changes. One has to do with climate change. That's another issue. Another has to do with technological revolution that we just discussed. Another incredibly important has to do with the Me Too movement and the fight for equality in this country. And then the last one, the last change is what I call the Latino wave. In 2044, everyone in this country, everyone is going to be a minority. And that's a major change. That's an incredible demographic revolution that we're seeing right now. Latinos will go from 60 million to more than 100 million, and nobody is going to be able to make it to the White House or any position of power without the Latino vote. That's what's happening. And in this election, for instance, for the first time, the Latino vote is gonna be larger than the African American vote. In other words, there's gonna be more Latinos eligible to vote than African Americans. And we've been discussing the 2016 election and what happened in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan. Well, the truth is that maybe the election was not decided there. Maybe it was decided here in Florida and it was decided in Arizona. With the electoral votes in Florida 29 and the 11 electoral votes in Arizona, it would have been a completely different issue. And everything has to do also with immigration. What we are seeing is that the country is being transformed and we have someone in the White House right now thinking that the way the country should look is in the 1920s or in the 1930s. So how do you cover that? When you're thinking about covering this, how do you assess how the networks are covering the elections? How they are, what should be covered? If you could change it in any way, what would you, what do you think is the critical way to cover this? I think we are giving voice to people who don't have a voice. When it was the last time that you saw an ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN or Fox News and undocumented immigrant, very rarely. And we do that all the time. The fact is that we have 10 million people in this country who are not criminals or terrorists or rapists, who are contributing to the economy and we have to do something about it. So that's the first approach. We are giving, for many people, they are invisible. And our job, my job is to make them visible and to making sure that whatever they are feeling and whatever they have to say is being transmitted to the candidates, for instance. So we're asking the candidates, would you stop all deportations? Would you be willing to legalize 10 million undocumented immigrants? That's what we are asking. And those are kinds of questions that you don't hear in other networks. What do you imagine? But it did get a lot of coverage for a short time. How do you keep that going in terms of if it's not done in sort of this build a wall way where it's dramatic, a lot of the coverage around is very dramatic, is the wall gonna get built and your piece in The Times was Trump is the wall? Explain that for people. Well, now Mexico is the wall. Yeah, as you know, Donald Trump said that Mexico was gonna pay for the wall. So what happened is that he hasn't been able to build anything at all. The border in Mexico is not paying for the wall. However, there's a newly agreement between Mexico and the United States. It's called Remaining Mexico Program. So people from Central America, instead of applying for asylum in the United States, they're staying on the Mexican side. So here you have 50,000 Central Americans waiting on the Mexican side. And also the new National Guard created by President López Obrador is helping Donald Trump by stopping Central Americans crossing their southern border. So Mexico in reality has become Trump's wall. And the new National Guard in Mexico is becoming actually the new immigration police for Donald Trump. So how do you get, where do you imagine this is gonna end up? If he wins again and if he doesn't, what happens? What Donald Trump has done is more than deporting undocumented immigrants, because Barack Obama deported more immigrants than Donald Trump has done so far. He has been successful at stopping immigrants from coming in with visa programs, banning people from certain countries from coming in and even stopping legal immigration. Every single year we used to have about a million legal immigrants, legal immigrants coming in. And now that number has gone down to about 600,000. So he has been successful at stopping immigrants from coming in and by creating fear in other countries that if you try to get into the United States, something terrible is gonna happen to you. And something terrible is gonna happen to you if you try to cross from Matamoros to Brownsville. And then you see people from the cartels trying to kidnap you or asking you for money to come into the United States. What is the ultimate impact on this country of that? And I write about it from Silicon Valley's perspective, is they're not getting as many, a lot of innovation is going elsewhere across the world. Immigration's been a critical part of the building of Silicon Valley and most of the CEOs are immigrants. Elon Musk, Sachin Nadella, Sundar Pichai, each of them, I could name dozens and dozens. The Donald Trump is trying to revert the demographic revolution that we're seeing in this country. Again, just remember in 2044, everyone is going to be a minority. And that's the kind of America that Donald Trump doesn't want. So he's trying to revert that, but it's almost impossible. It was in June, 2015, he announced that he wanted to be president. But then, so interesting, in July, 2015, already the majority of the babies being born in the United States were coming from minority families. So the change is unavoidable. It's unstoppable. He cannot really stop it, but he's really trying and trying hard. So what other things are you looking at in the election on the democratic side? This has been quite unusual. What I'm seeing is that the so-called resistance or the rebellion to Donald Trump, somehow is working. What we don't know if this rebellion is going to be enough, big enough, to avoid the re-election of Donald Trump. That's the way I'm seeing it. So you don't know where in the Star Wars saga we are? Where we could be? We're right in the middle. We're right now. So that's Empire Strikes Back. Yeah, well, there you go. We're right in the middle. But you live in California, how do you see it? Where are we? I don't know. I think everyone's confused. I think I was telling the driver who drove me in today, I'm the only person. He was asking about homelessness in San Francisco, and I said it's been politicized. It's not as bad as it looks, and there's a lot of really important trends that are happening there, including housing prices, including having a more tolerant feelings towards poor people than other states. And California's like an island sometimes, isn't it? Yes, exactly. I was there in Los Angeles yesterday, and it feels completely different than the rest of the country. It does. And so we were discussing that, and one of the things he was asking about was what did I think of Bernie Sanders? It was really interesting. And I was like, I do not know what to think of Bernie Sanders. I'll be honest with you, I don't. And then a friend of mine, who was a Sanders person, said it's a short jump from disliking him to liking him, which I thought was okay, all right, okay. And it was interesting. And then my third experience was my mom, who just stays down here in Florida and stuff, and she goes from, she's a Fox News Watcher, so that's all I need to say. An elderly Fox News Watcher, so you can imagine what's happening there to her brain. I told her when she dies, I'm gonna have her brain looked at, and for FTE, so Fox trauma. But anyway, she called me and she goes, I really like what Bernie is saying, and I'm like, what? Because she was sort of Trumpy, but she doesn't like Trump because she thinks he's gross, and then at the same time, she likes the tax cut, things like that. And so I don't know. That's my answer. I know California is not voting for Donald Trump, but otherwise I don't know what. What I'm seeing is that the country is more divided than ever before. But is it? I think absolutely, absolutely. I mean, even in, I'm sure you're having sometimes the same problem. When you are with friends or family, sometimes you have to avoid Trump, and you have to avoid that conversation because otherwise he's dividing families and he's dividing groups. Let me give you an example. When, in 2016, where I work here in Doral, when you come into the network, on the left side is the TV side, and on the right side is the radio side. And I pass through the radio side all the time, and I used to listen to people calling and saying, well, I'm gonna vote for Donald Trump. And back then, for many Latinos, many Latinos didn't feel comfortable saying that they were gonna vote for Donald Trump because of the sexist remarks that he had made to access Hollywood, and because of the racist remarks that he had made against immigrants. But still, I was listening to people calling in and saying, yes, I sort of like Donald Trump. Well, I should have stopped and listened carefully because we made a mistake. We didn't see this wave that was happening in this country, this resentment that was happening in this country. And 29% of Latinos voted for Donald Trump. And what I'm seeing right now in 2020 is that those who were uncomfortable saying that they were gonna vote, I'm talking about Latino voters, that they felt uncomfortable saying that they were gonna vote for Donald Trump, now they feel sort of vindicated and they feel more comfortable saying, yes, I'm gonna be voting for Donald Trump. So the fact is, if within the Latino community, more than 29% of Latinos will vote for Donald Trump, and according to history, if the Republican candidate gets more than a third of the Hispanic vote, he usually wins. So that's where we are right now. Now, the question is, if you voted for Donald Trump, are you a racist? If you voted for Donald Trump, are you a sexist? Well, many people are putting those questions aside. And many people are thinking, well, maybe the economy is more important. Maybe Cuba is more important. Maybe Venezuela is more important. So something that ethically might not be acceptable as defending a racist suddenly becomes acceptable if the economy or Cuba or Venezuela or Nicaragua becomes more important. So what is the impact of the comments Bernie Sanders made then about Castro just the other night? I've been living here in Miami for quite a long time and Florida might be gone if the vote depends on that. You cannot say, let me just say clearly, Cuba is a dictatorship. It's been a dictatorship since 1959. Venezuela is a dictatorship. Nicaragua is a dictatorship. And that's where you have to start. You cannot start by saying, well, maybe they have a great health program or maybe they have an equation. If they kill thousands of people in Cuba, if they have political prisoners, if they don't have opposition parties, that cannot be a democracy. And you cannot tell that to people who personally suffered from dictatorships. So it's gonna be incredibly difficult. So damaging is what you're saying. It is very damaging. And as journalists, again, we can go back to the beginning of the conversation. It is our responsibility to question those who are in power. So what question would you ask Bernie Sanders now if you were sitting across from, wasn't Anderson? Well, as a matter of fact, I'm gonna have that opportunity and the debate on March 15th in Phoenix, Arizona. So do you wanna give us a preview? Sure, the question would be, no, I can't. Yes. Come on. No, I can't. I thought everything was on the record. What the heck? No, no, everything's on the record, but no, I can't. You can't. This is, it would be unfair for him and it would be unfair for all the other candidates. But it will be something around that topic. It would be a question, yes. All right.