 Bingo, four o'clock rock, think tech, community matters. With Brent Obergaard from the School of Journalism at the School of Communications at UH Minoa. Thank you for coming down, Brett. Thank you for having me again. Great to have you here. We can think and explore so many interesting issues with you about journalism and about the condition of the media and all that. And it seems like to me, and we've covered news morphosis, I call it news morphosis over the past 10 years, but now we're in a different place. Now Donald Trump has changed it. And he has, he has, in a funny way, may I say, he's attempted to use the latest technology in dealing directly with the people. You know, who needs media anyway? I have the power with my Twitter feed at two o'clock in the morning to tell them what I want. And I think that changes things, not only for him, but for his successors. Because now, once you establish that as a political culture point, it's gonna happen. His future campaign, people campaigning for president, and for that matter, people in public office are gonna be irresistibly drawn to this, aren't they? Well, I think he has been in the right place at the right time. I don't think he did anything special except for exploiting the technology that existed. And if there was somebody else in his role, he probably would have played out in similar ways. Maybe not quite so dramatically, but yeah, it has changed the way we view politics. I think it's changed the way we view civic engagement. I think it's changed the way we view the media advertising. And the whole game has shifted because of this. We've seen something very dramatic happen due to social media, and this is a watershed moment. Yeah, you know, it seems like to me there's a convergence. You know, people always talk about Nate Smith used to run Oceanic cable years ago. And he was famous for discussing the whole possibility of convergence. And in that conversation, convergence meant the convergence of television and computer, television and the internet. And he saw that as a future thing. You know, but actually, I think convergence is something else to me. And it goes beyond just, you know, we're having already convergence within, you know, the internet and television, it's all same box already. And you can get the same content on both boxes that that's happening. But what the convergence that I refer to is the convergence of fact and entertainment. They become the same or indistinguishable one from the other. Infotainment, if you will. I'm not sure, or entertainment info, I'm not sure which comes first. I think most people see, you know, I think people saw that campaign as a game, as entertainment, as better than the Sunday football, or at least as good. And they would be drawn magnetically and, you know, locked onto it for days, for weeks. And they had to know everything that he said about everything. And he played on that brilliantly. It's, I'd like to say it's a new idea, but I think it's an old idea. And we have seen it before in demagogues earlier. But don't you agree that it's indistinguishable between, say, Madam Secretary, one of my favorite shows, or at least it was when it started, okay, and studying, you know, what's happening in the State Department, what's happening in the world. And they follow, they follow the events in the world. So you begin to get confused, don't you, about what's, are they telling you accurately what's happening out there in diplomatic relations, or is that fiction? But it sounds like that. I mean, we just have, we have a whole bunch of different things happening all at once. And there are historical precedents. I mean, if you look back at the Penny Press, that's where I always go back to where journalism changed dramatically by introducing advertising and large circulations, large audiences to make a dollar. The commercialization of the media really has affected it dramatically. And now we're seeing the fruits of that. But then we also, I think one thing that sort of snuck up on me was the John Stuart and Stephen Colbert and that genre of- Rachel. Matt Matic, is that name? Rachel Mato. Well, I'm thinking more of the comedians. Okay. And how they basically turned the news into entertainment. And at first it was kind of novel, and then it became normalized. And pretty soon, like you said, you can't distinguish between news and entertainment. And I don't think that's changed since the election. I think people are still picking up their mobile devices and checking to see what Trump did today. And a lot of times it's just some means of distracting from what's really happening behind the scenes. Yeah, a cover is what we have. Well, if you've ever seen the musical Chicago, or read the book, or read the play, you know that that was something that's 100 years ago that the dazzling objects in the public's eyes will distract them while nefarious things happens. So you have a great stress point. And we had just the last hour, we had the communications director of the city and county, and I asked them, you know, we have changes in the media now. We have changes in journalism. We have changes in the way we consume news. How does that affect you as communications director? It makes it harder. Makes it harder. We have to get through that. Well, convergence is a good word for it. And then when we talk about convergence, we used to talk about, like even a few years ago with the mobile device, how the mobile device converged all our other media forms. But there's also a convergence culture, which means that basically all the cultures that used to be separated by the different mediums have also been blended and kind of mixed together. And that's created this weird swirl as well that people are still trying to pick apart. Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, this is something you and I've talked about before. This all, if you assume the First Amendment is a core, you know, constitutional point, and I think we do. And if you assume that it's necessary for the public not only to be well informed, but also well engaged in, you know, public affairs, we do, I think it's part of the founding fathers' concept vision of how this country would work. But it's been depreciated, deprecated over the past few years, it seems to me. We live in a time when that's a visible, you know, evolution's visibly happening and the public is not so well informed. The public is more often than not, it's vulnerable and victimized by people who would give it a line instead of the facts. And where can you get, you know, you and I have talked about the burden on the citizen to inform himself or herself. It's hard and it's harder. Oh, it's really hard. In fact, for most people with their education, it's too hard. Or without the interest. I mean, to me, it's like, okay, if I get it, if I'll see a hundred stories on social media today, how many of those am I gonna spend an hour tracing back to the original source? I just can't do it. So at some point you have to trust your feeds or trust, you know, the person who posted it or whatever it is. And then the more you trust and extend that ladder, the more likely you are to be tricked. Yeah, and social media, we talked about this earlier, has resulted in the accentuation of bubbles. You and I live in a bubble. I don't think we should call ourselves the elite because the elite is only on the East Coast, I think. But we should, you know, we treat ourselves at least people for some part of our lives. We cared a lot about education and being up on things and all that. And yet our bubble is an incomplete bubble. Bubbles by definition are incomplete. You live in a bubble, you don't know what's outside the bubble. And your point, and I take it, is that we have not been sensitive to what's outside the bubble. We talk to people who agree with us on most points and therefore, you know, we are fooling ourselves. Well, the technology has enabled us to live in the bubbles in ways that we couldn't before. Like, I don't know, maybe 30 years ago, the nightly newscast would come on and everybody would hear the same, three people say the homogenized news. And there were flaws in that. But that said, at least everybody was on common ground in terms of what they heard and what they believed in. Now, I mean, you can really live in completely different universes where you will never cross paths with the same information as the person in the other bubble. And that can be very scary because I really don't believe that there's an evil empire out there brewing. I believe there's people who understand the world in a different way than me or maybe other people. And those people are well-meaning. They want a good life. They want to raise their families. They want to have their job. They have all these noble goals. But they have been disconnected from the rest of the folks who have different viewpoints. So does that create a burden on the people in one bubble to look across the way into the other bubble? I mean, if we wanted to be really sensitive, we would look, wouldn't we? Well, one of the primer exercises I do in introductory classes is just have people listen to all the different media perspectives. So we identify, okay, what's a left-wing channel? What's a centrist channel? What's a right-wing channel? Locally or regionally and then also internationally because it's really an amazing exercise if you look at an international news event and you only look at American media sources and then suddenly you look at how the European or Chinese or Australian or whatever, how they see the same news event. It's another example of a bubble like we don't even comprehend how another country could see this. And it can be very shocking. And so I know the students I've put through that exercise have gained a lot from it. And I gain a lot from it every time I even work with students on it because it is mind-boggling to imagine these ideas that you never even knew existed that are out there. And held forcefully by somebody. And held forcefully like gospel. Yeah. Well, it reminds me of the whole notion of, if you go, for example, to a country like Vietnam and get into all the mangle we got into over there, at the end of the day, the people, the US became more sensitive to their bubble and they became more knowledgeable and presumably sensitive to our bubble. And now we have come in ground, at least we have exposure to. And I have felt wrongly, I think, but I have felt that this could happen in the Middle East as well. Is that we're there, they know who we are, they know what we're made of and presumably they can feel better about us. And we know more about what they are than at the evil empire. They're just people and we can look into their bubble and feel better. I'm not sure that's working, by the way. But, but, you know. Well, the propaganda is very difficult to overcome. It gets in the way. It gets in the way and it perpetuates. So it says in a word that bubbles, part of a bubble, I'd love to scare myself, part of the bubble is you tell the people in a bubble they should not look at the other bubble. That the other bubble is all wrong. They should stay where it's comfortable in our bubble. That's part of bringing the bubble. Yeah, I mean, you can look back historically to the allegory of Plato's Cave, if you're familiar with that. Basically, the idea is that there are people underground chained to a wall and all they can see is their reflection from a fire behind them. And so they should see shadows. One day one person escapes, climbs out of the cave and said, there's this whole world out here, you know. Come check it out and everybody won't believe them because they just see the shadows and think that's reality. There it is. And that's a 2,000 year old story that's still true today, you know. Well, you know, I worry about it because I think that actually my bubble, I believe my bubble, I can see the other bubble now. I mean, I've been shaken by this election, election, but I can see it more clearly now. The question really is, can they see my bubble or are they all mad at me? Well, it's a matter of desire. Do they want to? And I'm not convinced right now that anybody's in the mood for seeking common ground. I think it's been framed rhetorically as a winner take all type election. And one group has won that election and they're pretty much intent right now as far as I can tell on claiming the spoils of the victory. The spoils of the victory, what a perfect way to put it. I'm gonna have to contemplate that for exactly one minute. We're gonna take a short break. Brent Obergaard, assistant professor at the journalism program in the U.S. Minoa and we're ruminating about how the world is changing around us, especially in the media, we'll be right back. Hello, I'm Marianne Sasaki. Welcome to Think Tech Hawaii where some of the most interesting conversations in Honolulu go on. I have a show on Wednesdays from one to two called Life in the Law where we discuss legal issues, politics, governmental topics and a whole host of issues. I hope you'll join me. Aloha, my name is Carl Campania and I am the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Movers, Shakers and Reformers, the Politics in Hawaii series. Join us each week as we have guest after guest talking about the policy and the politics of our state, of our islands and of what really matters to each of us. So please, join us each week and engage in that conversation. Mahala. Hey, how you doing? Welcome to Abachi Talk, my name's Andrew Lening. I'm your co-host and we have a nice program here every Friday at one o'clock on Think Tech Studios where we talk about technology and we have a little bit of fun with it. So join us if you can, thanks. Aloha. We're back, we're live with Brent Obergaard and we're talking about, you know, his personal journey on this thing. You know, for a month or two or three ago, life was different the way you perceive things, the way a professor of journalism would perceive things is different. Now, and he's coping with this. Talk about it, will you? Well, I just think that possibilities have arisen in the world that I just couldn't imagine two months ago or one month ago. And for example, the Canadian government recently held an exercise to imagine what their country would be like if their two largest newspapers folded and how that would affect their information systems and everything. And so I started thinking, what would happen if New York Times and The Washington Post suddenly disappeared? And it's not outside the realm of possibility at all. In fact, like I said, a month ago I would have thought no possibility, now I think it's certainly possible. When you say folded, do you mean folded or get crushed by government? Well, whatever happens, disappears. And the drill was what happens if these big Canadian newspapers just are gone. How does the information system change? And when you reflect upon The New York Times, not only their original reporting that people get firsthand, but then the second-hand ripples of every news organization that responds to The New York Times, including The Washington Post, I mean, to me it would, I don't know, I was just kind of shaken by that thought. I've always been appreciative of The New York Times, but more now than ever before. Oh, yeah. They stand as the beacon. They stood as the beacon during the campaign and they continue to serve the public in tremendous ways. Yes, and they're taking a beating financially. I mean, they're down, I don't remember the latest number or something like 7%, 10%. In circulation? Or in stock price. Stock price. And if you think of the regional newspapers that used to provide a lot of great content and Pulitzer Prize winning work, a lot of those have shriveled up lately. And like my hometown paper, The Oregonian, used to be one of the greatest newspapers in the country and now it is really struggling. And it would not be, well, you would consider a beacon of anything. No criticism to them, but that's the kind of folding up of the journalism tense that scares me. And then on the other side of that, we have what has been known recently over the last few weeks as fake news. This is very chilling also. Fake news, the kind that contaminates all news as potentially fake. Yeah, fake news is very troublesome because not only does it mislead people directly, it erodes the trust in the real news. And I have this big fear that pretty soon nobody will believe anything. Nothing will be valid. And in that kind of world, there are no checks on power and corruption runs rampant. Well, let's talk about that. I mean, I give you the ghost of Christmas Future. Since we're coming on to Christmas and Charles Dickens wrote the Christmas Carol and talked about Scrooge's view into the ghost of Christmas Future where he was threatened by what he saw, changed his ways maybe. So if I take the New York Times out and I take the Washington Post out, you have a huge deflation in credibility, a further deflation in credibility and in original reporting. And then I have the prospect of fake news coming from everywhere. What happens to our society? Before you get to the question of government, what happens on the daily life of the person who consumes news or who is simply living in our society? What happens? Well, I used to have the fear of the zombie apocalypse, but now I have this fear of the New York Times, obliteration and what the world would be like. And I think we already can see it with what most people consume in news each day. They have pictures of lunches. They have cats on the internet. They have whatever will distract them from what's really happening. And that's my biggest fear, is that we talk about civic engagement. People completely become detached from the inner workings of the government. And suddenly those folks in government can do whatever they want. And maybe the people wouldn't approve of that if they knew. You keep referring to government, but before we get to government, what about our daily lives? What about, well, I don't know, knowing what happens on the block, knowing about things that are more in the gossip column than are in government? Well, we've already had a crisis across the country in what's called news deserts, where small dailies and weeklies have folded up and you'll have a swath of the country, maybe hundreds of miles with no original news source, zero. Not a newspaper, not a radio station, not a television station. And these, if you imagine, say the infographics of Africa drying up with the water, you know, like getting more and more parched, that's what our country has become in terms of its news circles. Where an isolation comes to mind. I'm on my block, something happens on the other block, I have no idea about it, I'm isolated. Well, isolated from any information about their community. Any kind of journalistic information where somebody actually asks tough questions of city counselors or business owners. You're talking about government again, but... Well, no, I'm saying the journalists asking those. Okay. In these news deserts. But what about the quality of my life, not knowing what's happening on the next block? The news desert, as you call it. How does that affect my life? Oh, it'll become like in a place like Hawaii, we'd become so isolated, we'd become incredibly isolated from the mainland interests. Because who would report it? I mean, you have to think like, who would replace the New York Times or Washington Post? I can't think of any entity that would do that. I mean, yeah, we would have, you know, the somewhat of the television stations, you'd have occasional bureau reporters. But I think the Washington Post originally put a dozen reporters on Trump's campaign, a dozen people full-time covering his campaign. Where would you get something like that from? It wouldn't. It would just... If they went away, then he would be able to do a lot more with impunity. Yeah, and at least we know what's happening. I mean, we may not be able to respond to it in any way. Like oftentimes as a citizen here in Hawaii and you're in a kind of a one-party state, you don't really feel like anything you can do politically matters. And I think that is, you know, somewhat of a challenging position to be in. But that said, at least you feel like, you know, emotionally you can respond to it, whether it's ranting on your Facebook page or whatever it is, you can do something about it. And in that kind of scenario, I think you would feel even more isolated and more powerless. What I'm getting here though, is that the major effect of getting news, of getting good news, of getting, you know, hard news, is the relationship of the citizen and government. It's nice to know when they're having a sale at the grocery store, but that's not important relative to who's governing us, who is setting the governmental standards, who has the power, physical and economically over us. And that's really, you've been getting at that, and I'm resisting until the end now, but that's really what we're talking about. Well, it's a watchdog of not only government, but of power and business, I think, is something that people don't often think about with journalism, but journalism keeps that watch on businesses of all types. And, you know, from pollution to poor employment practices to, you know, firing people or whatever it is, we know what's happening, and then that knowledge affects potentially what you would do in terms of helping the business or patronizing the business or whatever. But if you lose that, then suddenly, you know, Walmart paying $2 an hour, nobody even knows about it or something. You become a victim, we all become victims. Yeah. So now, the bottom line question, the question that really counts here now that we have a new president who has a different approach to all of this and who likes to do direct tweets at two o'clock in the morning and stir things up without regard to the media at all, direct media, if you will. How does this, how does he, how does this entertainment info kind of confusion, how does this affect the relationship of the citizen and the government? This is the scariest question of all. Well, number one, it's a broadcast medium. He's not responding to people on Twitter unless it's a chance to kind of reinforce his message. So with journalism, you have a person in the room asking questions that, you know, in the place of the public, you know, asking critical questions. And in this direct access, there are no questions, it's just a propaganda machine. And I'm not trying to drum up some kind of scary situation. It's just the truth of it is you get the message and you can do with it what you want, but you can't in any way respond to it like a journalist could, especially a journalist in the room that can ask the person about like, why did you say that? What did you mean? What are the details behind this? Like I'm going to build a wall. Well, what do you mean by that? You know, who's gonna pay for it? How is it gonna be paid? So there's all these things that the journalist does for the citizen that just can never be replicated on social media. Oh, it's true. And I'm reminded that the last time Donald Trump had an actual press conference was back in July, that he hasn't had one since. He's been speaking without the opportunity for the press or anyone to really push questions back. And this is not just Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton did the same thing. And that's why I said, I think Trump has given this prestige as figuring this thing out. I think it's really a matter of him being in the right place at the right time. He does have some talent for it, no doubt, but Hillary ran the same kind of one-way street. One-way transmission, messaging, very little access to reporters. And I think that's dangerous for everybody. I mean, in my mind, the public official should be available at any time anybody wants to ask them about something. Yeah, but the reality, though, is that here on both sides of this campaign, they've done this. On both sides of this campaign, they have not, they have avoided interaction. And they have done one-way streets. And the likelihood is that in the future, this will be a political cultural point for the United States and maybe elsewhere too. They're setting a new standard. So my question for you, this is a hard one, we only have a minute to answer it. Sorry. I'll try. So what's gonna happen here? We've seen, you know, I know it's hard because everything's changing and it's hard to get a beat on a trajectory. But what do you think, at least at this moment here in late November of 2016, what's gonna happen? Well, I can tell you my fear. My fear is that we'll lose more and more confidence in journalists than news until the whole system basically goes down. And it's not going to be an easy thing to rebuild. It'll be very, very difficult to rebuild. And citizen journalists won't do it. I love what citizen journalists can do, but they can't replace, you know, a thousand full-time professional journalists covering the president or something like that. And I don't really see any way that this is gonna turn around anytime soon. At least in the next four years. So that's my fear. Where it goes after that, I don't know. I mean, I think there are a lot of digital media organizations emerging and doing great work. Locally, we have civil beats. We have ProPublica on the national scale. We have a lot of very exciting, interesting news organizations emerging. But, you know, can they fill that void? Can they sustain the pressure that's on the system? I don't know. I have an idea, Brett. We should get together on a regular basis. Okay. And make sure that we do what we can to protect the public republic. I hope so, yes. Let's do it. Take care of them.