 Hello, and thank you for joining us for this web chat commemorating World Press Freedom Day. I'm Jane Carpenter-Rock, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Diplomacy in the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs. I'll be moderating this discussion today that features press freedom advocates, civil society, and journalists from around the world. This week and this program are an opportunity to recognize the fundamental importance of a free press and its role in a democratic society. Trends of expression and of the press remain under threat in many parts of the world, both by governments and terrorist organizations. Journalists and bloggers face censorship, surveillance, restrictive laws, and violence for simply reporting the news. The negative trends also reflect continued actions by authoritarian governments to stifle dissent and increase government control over the Internet. We will highlight best practices for journalists' safety, increasing trust in journalism, and how social media can be used to combat threats to press freedom. Those of you viewing online can ask questions by submitting them in the chat space next to the video player or tweeting them using the hashtag WPFD2017. We are especially pleased to be joined by renowned journalist Richard Lewy from MSNBC and NBC News Network and Dr. Courtney Raj from the Committee to Protect Journalists. Prior to joining NBC, Richard was a news anchor at CNN Worldwide where he became the first Asian American male to anchor a daily national news broadcast. Most recently he reported on the ground about the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks and in Ferguson and Baltimore during heightened racial unrest. Richard has 30 years of experience in network television, technology, and business. Dr. Courtney Raj is the advocacy director at the Committee to Protect Journalists. As a veteran journalist, researcher, and free expression advocate, she writes and speaks frequently about the nexus of media, technology, and human rights. Courtney is the author of cyber activism and citizen journalism in Egypt, digital dissidents and political change. She previously worked at UNESCO and Freedom House, where she conducted training for activists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Additionally, we have with us today viewing groups at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria and the American corner in Tehran, Albania, who will be asking the panelists questions and sharing their perspectives. I'd like to ask Abuja and Tehran to introduce their viewing groups. Ambassador Simington, would you like to introduce your group in Nigeria and say a few words? Great. Well, you all, first let me say how lucky all of you who are not in Abuja are to have Nigeria in the mix today and to have this group. As you can see in this room full of Nigerian journalists, there's a reason why Nigeria is influential in the world. And it's the same reason that Nigerians mentioned when I say, what is it that you like the most about your country? And that is the people of Nigeria. Literally, I've heard that from everyone. And in this room are the men and women who connect the people of Nigeria with government and government people. So what we'd love to do today as we celebrate this moment to recognize the importance of not just a free press, but an ethical press. And in my view, a press that addresses the most pressing problems in the world, which is how do people guide their governments and how do governments respond? I want to thank all of you for joining us. Thank you, sir. Yes, Embassy Toronto, can you please introduce your group? Hello from Toronto, First and India. We are here, of course, at the American Corner in Toronto with a great group of promising journalists. These are young reporters, journalism students, as well as some well-known veteran journalists. They represent a diverse swath of outlets here in Albania across the spectrum of TV, print and online media. And we're thrilled to be taking part today. Thank you very much. Excellent. Thank you so much. Welcome. So let us go ahead and start with turning to Mr. Richard Louie. Sir, can you start off by sharing some of your thoughts on press freedom and the current state of the media around the world? Jane, good day to you and thank you for a great opening. Hello to everybody in Abuja and Toronto. And I wish I could be there with you. Instead, behind me, you'll see I'm at 30 Rock, which is right here, downtown Manhattan in New York City. Quick question. As I say hello to everybody in Abuja first, how many are print journalists there in Abuja if you could raise your hand? Great. OK. One, two, three, four. And how many are broadcast journalists in Abuja? It's always the folks sitting in front, isn't it? It's always the ones sitting in front. Tarana, to you, how many folks are print journalists and how many print journalists first? None. OK. Any broadcast journalists in Tarana? OK. Always in front, see? I was right. Well, this is an important day, and I'm so glad that the State Department has put this together because anytime we have the opportunity to talk about why journalism exists and why we do what we do, and all of you journalists and those who follow journalists understand how difficult a job it is. It does not pay well. It is hard work. You don't sleep. Your family wonders if you are sane or whether you are a little crazy, but you do it anyway. And for some reason, you enjoy it most days. Other days may be a little bit more difficult. And so when we think about World Press Freedom Day, it's a day at least for me as a journalist that is very respectful of every other journal, such as all those in Abuja, Tarana, and those who are participating and watching us at other missions and stations around the world related to this State Department event for World Press Freedom Day. I am always sobered by what everybody does in terms of what fellow journalists do. So when I speak with those who are so well experienced in tough spaces, such as war correspondents or in areas of conflict, those are very difficult. And when we, I think journalists in the United States, we just have to look at the numbers. And this is why it's sobering for me, because we look at 2016, about four dozen journalists around the world were killed doing their job. And for me, I know the numbers show that there were no US journalists that were killed. That was different here 100 years ago, certainly. And there's some sort of sisterhood, brotherhood that we all understand. And I know that my fellow journalists there in Abuja and Tarana as well as around the world feel the same way across country and across the seas that what you do is so important. And you inspire us when you do your job. And I don't know if that is well known. But when I hear about the stories about our fellow journalists facing tough situations, being jailed, being beaten or being killed, I cannot help but appreciate the job and the profession that we all exist in. And when I speak with my fellow war correspondents at CNN worldwide or now here at MSNBC and NBC News, it is something that is so sobering. So on this important day of world press freedom, I can't help but high hands for all of you who are out there doing this. Because we do think about you and I think that you think of us too as we work to what we call protect the fourth estate here in the United States, but protect the right freedom of the press. So thank you all. I can talk more later about some of the experiences as well as the stories that I've been involved in. But I wanted to absolutely start with this because it is so invigorating and encouraging to me when I get to have this interchange with all of you fellow journalists around the world on this important day that sometimes as I said earlier based on our profession and our choice, it's not always so obvious, right? That we should stick with it, that we're doing the right thing given the amount of bodily harm that we may face, given the lack of respect in some places, the lack of compensation. And for all of that, I understand, I sympathize and I empathize. And so to all of you, welcome to this program. I might look forward to our conversation moving forward. Jane. Excellent, great, Richard. Thank you so much. Courtney, let's turn to you. Thank you so much. Well, I'm also delighted to be here and to be in the company of fellow journalists from around the world, including especially in Abuja and Albania. So thank you so much for the invitation. I'm the advocacy director at the committee to protect journalists. And for those of you, hopefully all of you who are journalists have heard of the committee to protect journalists because we're here to protect you. But in case you haven't, I just wanna talk a little bit about what we do because we're kind of like a news service where we document attacks on the press and publicize those so that everyone knows what's happening. And I took a look at what we've published about Tehrana and out of Abuja recently. And I saw that in March, we had documented attacks against journalists in both of these places. And these were both physical attacks as well as attacks that resulted in arrests by government authorities. And as Richard noted, this is a really challenging time to be a journalist. There were record numbers of journalists imprisoned around the world last year. So more than, or at least I should say, 259 journalists were imprisoned according to CPJ's last census. One of the things that we do is we try to track the journalists who are imprisoned around the world, but it's not an easy job. Obviously a lot of countries are not exactly forthcoming with that information. So we do a census once a year that's kind of a global snapshot. And what we saw last year is that the vast majority of journalists jailed around the world are jailed on anti-state charges. And what that means are charges like terrorism. We know in Nigeria that's a big issue that trying to cover terrorism can be very dangerous, not just because of the terrorist groups, but also because of the government responses to that. Turkey, another situation. We also saw that more than 48 journalists were killed last year just for doing their jobs. Excuse me. And what we also see is that the vast majority of these journalists are local journalists. So usually about 90% of the journalists killed every year are journalists who are working in their communities to cover issues of importance there. Oftentimes they're covering issues around politics, around corruption. Corruption is a very dangerous beat terrorism and other issues like human rights. Even the environment can be very dangerous. Last year we saw that war was the most dangerous beat for journalists to cover. But I think what I wanted to talk about today on World Press Freedom Day in 2017 is the challenges that journalists are facing around the world from the fight against terrorism and the threat of terrorism. So that means journalists are being killed by trying to cover terrorist groups, being held hostage, kidnapped, et cetera. And it's very dangerous, but we depend on journalists on the front lines to bring us information about what is happening, whether we're talking about Boko Haram or the so-called Islamic State. Now we're seeing kind of the convergence of these two groups, whether we're talking about the attacks in Paris or San Bernardino. But what we're also seeing is that government responses to terrorism and the whole countering violent extremism agenda is also taking journalists and putting them in the crosshairs. We see in Nigeria, for example, that journalists are being accused of defamation and publishing false news. In Egypt, did you know that it is considered that you're publishing false news, which is against a criminal statute? If you publish information or statistics about militant or terrorist groups that are not official statistics from the department, or sorry, from the Ministry of the Interior. So this sort of thing, this challenge of covering terrorism, we've seen it especially in Turkey where a record number of journalists were imprisoned. In fact, Turkey accounted for a full third of the journalists who were incarcerated last year and Turkey's ostensibly a democracy. But what we're also seeing now is the whole rise of this fake news debate and we're seeing a lot of the same dynamics come forward. So actually dozens of countries, I think about 20 at least in the world have false news statutes, which can make it illegal to publish false news or open journalists up to criminal or civil penalties. And that's deeply challenging because who decides what false news is? As I mentioned in Egypt, this is one particular version. And what we're seeing now is around the world that the topic of fake news and the issue of fake news is not just about the information, but it's also about tarring journalists and pilloring them and turning them into the opposition party or enemies of the state. And we've seen this rhetoric around the world from Russian leaders, from leader in Cambodia, from Egypt, as well as from here in the US. And so it's really up to us as journalists on World Press Freedom Day to really emphasize the importance of the press, the role that we play in bringing the news to the world and enabling the public to play its role, to be good citizens, to be stewards of the environment, to bring information to the world. So thank you for the work that you do around the world to bring us the news. And I hope that we'll have an interesting conversation over the next hour. Excellent, great, Courtney. Thank you so much. And before we open up the questions to our online audience and to our audiences in Abuja and Toronto, I just wanna briefly ask the panelists and Courtney, you touched on this. First, what do you both see as the largest threat to journalists around the world right now? So Richard, let's start with you. I think the very question of what journalism stands for, why we tell stories, who we interview, are we truthful and are we indeed seeking to find out the reality? And do we source properly? Do we have two or three sources to confirm and verify the story by which we're about to report on? Do we have a single trusted source that we work with, that we can use? All of these have been put into question in various places around the country in different levels and different ways. And I think when we look at the United States specifically, when we think about the threat to journalism, in addition to the existential question that I brought up earlier, meaning when I'm in the field, when our fellow journalists around the world there in Toronto and Abuja and the other missions in Mumbai and Singapore and in the EU who are with us today, is that question of is our profession healthy and is it strong? And I will reflect limitably for what I think has been watched in many spaces here in the United States. And that is a question as to the idea as Courtney was bringing up of being fake. Now, originally that idea came up in the last election cycle because of the results or the stories being pushed out during the election cycle in the US and in other elections around the world. Was that news real? And then the definition of what fake news turned into was not only these very stories that were created by individuals and groups in various spaces in different countries. Number two, its definition became us. Us journalists, right? Are we fake? And that being propagated in large spaces and big spaces by prominent voices, respected voices and seats of power are unhealthy for our industry because as I started by saying earlier, if there is any profession, if there is any group that works, doggone heart to get it right despite all those other things I describe, you know, about family and compensation and what have you. We do it because it comes a lot of times from right here, right, right here. And then we use as much as we can up here until we can no longer stand and we do that. So the question of are we fake at our heart? And I think that's a question that I had a year ago pulling out the very idea of what journalism is, the freedom of the press and exactly what that is, has been, I think, existentially ideologically, in addition to that, very much something that has shaken journalists now in the United States, but I think journalists who work very hard, regardless of where they're at, is not the truth and not the majority. And in fact, what this whole dynamic has done here, Jane, when you think about what is a major issue for this industry, for this profession? If you talk with journalists, they are more energized than ever because of this idea of fake news or us being fake news. But we're working harder. Consumers of news want more news because they know that it's important. It has invigorated the supply, it has invigorated the demand for good news and good reporting. So the very, if you will, erstwhile campaign to label many of those that you may disagree with under the idea of them being fake, has instead invigorated this industry, invigorated what all of us do, all of us fellow journalists here that are on this, on this very discussion today, to do more, to work harder and to not give up. And if anything, that's kind of good, that is refreshing. So if there's a takeaway from this challenge that I'm bringing up here, Jane, it is that there's been an equal and opposite, if not greater energy to combat this fake idea of fake news. Excellent, okay, thank you, Richard, very much. Courtney, what would you identify as the largest threat? So I agree with many of Richard's points in terms of the threat of fake news and the important response to that. But I think what the fake news and that whole issue discusses in terms of a threat is this idea that the value and the role of journalism as an independent check on power as a fundamentally important role of the governance system, it is the only branch of the governance system that is truly independent and can hold those in power accountable. And what we're seeing with the fake news debate is the attempts to undermine the press and delegitimize its role in that. But in addition to that, I think there is a perennial threat that can't be ignored, which is impunity. So around the world, as we've discussed earlier, there are record numbers of journalists being killed for their jobs and because of the work that they're doing to hold those in power, whether we're talking about political, economic, territorial power accountable, they are being murdered with impunity. Nine out of 10 murderers of journalists go free. We just released a report in Mexico yesterday looking at the endemic impunity record there and we're deeply concerned about the lack, particularly in democratic countries like Mexico, Brazil, the Philippines, where murderers of journalists go unsolved and no masterminds are ever brought to justice because what happens, not only has that silenced the journalist and the important work that they were doing personally, but it also sends a broader message to the journalistic public, to people in the profession saying, be careful, these are the red lines, it creates self-censorship and it impinges on the right of the public to receive information, which is a right that is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So when you murder journalists and there is no repercussion and there's no justice brought that has broad negative repercussions on the profession and on broader society. Very provocative. Okay, thank you very much, Courtney. So with those thoughts, let's open it up to our viewing audiences around the world. First, let us turn to our group in Abuja, Nigeria for your questions. Abuja, do you have some questions for our panelists? Thank you very much. You've almost preempted the question that I have, but even if it is to make the point more clearer, I want to understand the vision of these fake news that is actually in the composition of American politics. Okay, thank you. So just to rephrase, you would actually like for them to discuss the role of the fake news debate in American politics. Perhaps how it will affect the democratic institutions. In the United States. Okay, thank you very much. So let's turn to Richard first and Richard and Courtney, I'm just gonna ask you to keep your answers brief. Thank you, Richard. Jane, are you saying that I'm talking too much? No, not at all. I've been known to do that, so... No, not at all. I will definitely try to keep it short all the way through, a great moderation on that point. The issue, there was a study that came out of Stanford. I love your question. And if our questions can tell us their name and their profession along the way, that'd be great. And that is, it found that the likelihood that the election outcome was affected. And this is more nuanced than other reports that have not only come out from government sources or other reports, but Stanford said it would have to be this. You've probably seen broadcasted political ads that might be on TV or might be on the radio for a political candidate. And they're commonly used in every country in the world, these political ads by a group that supports the candidate. Now, you've heard an ad like that before. And we all know what they sound like because they support the candidate that's running for office, whether it be a national office or a regional office, provincial office, a state office. And what they found was, if you read a piece of fake news, a piece of news that had a fake brand that did not exist written by a fake journalist and then asserted certain things that were not true, that article would have to be 36 times more believable than a political ad. Now, if that was the case, if that were to be the case that you were to read a piece of fake news and it's 36 times more believable than what a typical political ad is, then it's possible or probable that the election in the United States was affected by these fake news articles, the outcome was. That's what Stanford came up with. Now, what is the likelihood of it being 36 times more believable, pretty low? And so this is consistent, I think, with the reporting that has known about what government sources as well as other reports have surmised that the outcome was not affected. However, the process or the system itself, I should say the system, by which we talk about politics. So for instance, when we look at the DNC and the RNC, there was an issue of, if you will, digital compromise in these important political parties in the United States. But back to specifically your question, just about every single source says the answer to your question is no. I have more to say about this, but I will cut my time here and elaborate later if need be. Okay, thank you so much. We're gonna turn to Courtney now. I think it's very important. I know we're using fake news as a way to talk about a very complex problem, but I think it's very important that we distinguish between misinformation, misinformation with the intent to deceive counterfeit news, which is what we're talking about like false news when it's designed to look like a real newspaper or real journalist. Satire is often being lumped in. I mean, the Daily Show and the Onion and things like that are fake news, but everyone knows that and that's part of their ability to comment on issues of public importance. So I think we really need to be clear on what we're talking about. But if we're talking about this broad category of fake news that is encompassing all of these different types of information, I think that what we're seeing is that in the US, the studies show that there are low levels of trust in the media and that people don't have a tendency to read or consume online information that reinforces their preconceived notion. So I think to that extent, I don't know that fake news really influenced the election. I think there are lots of studies to be done on that, but ultimately the greatest threat that the whole fake news issue poses to democracy is the idea of undermining the role of the press, undermining the idea that there is journalism, that there is fact, that there is an actual reality out there, and we know that one of the techniques that Russia uses is to muddy the water so that there is no concept that there is truth or reality and then everything is relative. Well, there are some basic things that are not relative. Human rights, press freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, these are not relative, these are absolute rights that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our right and ability to govern ourselves depends on our ability to enjoy those rights. So I think we should be specific in what we're talking about, we have to realize it's very complex, that many actors are playing, it's not just about foreign governments, it's also the role of the private sector and private social media companies, but we have to be careful in how we address it and also be precise in what we're actually trying to address, is it propaganda or is it counterfeit news? Excellent point, thank you, okay. So the gentleman asked the question, did you say your name and your news organization or your affiliation, what kind of journalist you are? Anabuja? Thank you very much. My name is Hamza Musa Makalipi, I work for the NTA. I have been there for close to 28 years, I'm an assistant director. I do presentation, production of programs in soil. Excellent. I'm from Nigerian television authority. Thank you. Nigerian television authority, that is what NTA means. Okay, thanks. The largest on the African continent in terms of coverage. Okay, thank you. Thank you, thank you so much. Okay, so we're gonna take another question from Abuja and whoever asked the question please, introduce yourself and your news agency, okay, sir. Thank you. Yes. I'm Nuruddin Abdullah, investigation leader of the literate newspapers here in Abuja. My question is this, in the last four months, about eight journalists were arrested, one was murdered in oil-rich Niger Delta State and the last one was expelled from the presidential villa. So what is the committee to protect journalists doing, apart from publicizing this in arresting the spread of suppression of press freedom in Nigeria? Thank you. Thank you, sir, very much. And fortunately, we have Courtney here who can speak to this issue, thank you. Thank you so much. So one of the most important things that we can do is to document and investigate to figure out what the facts are. And so that's the first step in what we can do. Once we have determined what's happening on the ground, then we have a set of options that we can look at. I can't speak to that specific case because as you mentioned, there have been several attacks and arrests, but as I mentioned earlier, we're seeing that there is this very challenging dynamic between the government's response using defamation and using false news as an excuse to arrest and threaten journalists. We are deeply concerned about this. So some of the tools that we use to take specific action on cases are we may write letters to the authorities who have the ability to improve the situation. We have done missions. Actually, my colleague, Angela Quintal, who is our Africa program coordinator, was just recently in South Africa. I know we were trying to get into Cameroon to see what's happening there. We were in Nigeria either last year or the year before. We work with correspondents who are on the ground who are able to work with the journalists there. We also have an emergencies response team which provides safety guidance to journalists on our website, cpj.org. You can go there. We have a journalist safety manual and I would just encourage you to be in touch with us and let us know how we can help. I will say we cover the world. We try to do our best. We want to be able to document every attack but we're a relatively small organization but please be in touch with us. Let us know how we can help you and we'll see what resources we can master. What is the best way for journalists to contact you all, Courtney? So the best way is to go to cpj.org. We have, every country has a landing page. Every region has the regional program coordinator listed there and if you need to communicate with us securely or anonymously, you can do that through SecureDrop. So you'll see in the bar on the page on our website that we have a safety resources for journalists and within that you'll see a way to communicate with us via SecureDrop or via email. We're also on Twitter, that's not a secure way. Facebook, not a secure way but you can at least initiate contact and then we can connect you with the right person. Excellent, thank you very much. Okay, now let's turn to our viewing group joining us at the American Corner in Tirana, Albania for two questions. Tirana, do you have a question for our panelists? And please introduce yourself. I'm a TV journalist for more than 16 years. The election in US is over but Ms. Hillary Clinton is still making news. So my question is mostly for Mr. Louis. I presume he has seen that last interview for Cristiana Montur. By the way, in the middle of the interview, she again accused two people, again, the FBI director James Comey and the Russian president Vladimir Putin. My question would be, do you believe, Mr. Louis, that the American media will be ever able to clear these suspicions of Russian interference in the US elections? Is it able to properly investigate and not make it still remain a big use? Thank you. Great, thank you. This is a question I ask on air fairly frequently when I have guests on either those who have worked in cybersecurity or currently work for the government or formally work for the government of journalists that have worked in the Beltway and the Washington, DC area for decades is when and if. And I will only say that based on those conversations so far, you know, as we do, as journalists do, whether it's on air or whether it's at an event, we'll ask questions like that, right? And we try to get a sense of maybe where this might go. The question of the Russian connection, which I call the Russian connection question for the last election and the current administration remains to be for all of us journalists at the top of our priority. It remains for us to be an energy that is high. It remains a conversation that we have in our editorial meetings consistently that we do not take our eye off of any questionable activity set related to the election and related to the administration. As Courtney was saying, we hold it high and it's a very important obligation that we have what we call the fourth estate outside of the executive branch, judicial, and as well of Congress. And then there is us, the fourth estate journalism. And it is our job independently to keep all of these branches in check despite any sort of criticism or attempt to mitigate the role that we have as journalists. So do I believe we'll find the answer to it? I do. The question is under what timeframe and the key thing to watch at the moment would be what's happening in Congress. If it continues to be stuck because we have several committees, three, four different investigations ongoing right now in terms of that very question, the Russian connection question and not because Russia inherently is not good. No, it is because that if there was any sort of influence or dealings that are not consistent with law here in the United States, then we must report on it. That is why there's no sort of inherent belief that necessarily Russia or Vladimir Putin is either good or bad. It's merely did they follow the rules and if they did not, we need to report on it. So there are those committees right now that should be watched. The second thing to watch, if nothing happens in the next two years, 18 months, is then to watch what we call the midterm elections in the United States. This will be when 2018 Congress again needs to go up for vote and we will see whether the balanced shifts from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority. If that shifts, that says that those around the country may have large interest in moving a different way because the lack of progress on major topics like this. So those are the two things I would watch in terms of timing because the interest remained strong. If you talk to the Washington press corps, which is where Courtney is always hanging out with and so she might have some better insights than I, but I spent also a good amount of time in Washington and with the Washington press corps and they are fired up and they are working hard and they're more energized than ever. They're hiring more people. They're telling more stories. If you look at story counts coming out of folks like the Washington Post, it's going through the roof. So I just try to give you some data behind the statement that I do believe it will be found a yes or a no. Definitively, that's a better question, right? Definitively is a tough one. 80%, 70% surety on the answer to that question you asked, I believe we're ready to get there. Thank you, Richard. And thank you for your question. Tarana, do you have another question? Hello, everyone. My name is Andy Bora. I'm a Journalism and Communication student and I'm part of Journalism and Communication Lab supported by USM City, Tarana. My question is short. How does the economy of a country and especially economy crisis affect the freedom of press? Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe the question was about the economy of a country. Okay, thank you, Courtney, if you wanna address that. Yeah, it obviously affects the press quite a bit. So, economic sustainability of the press and when we talk about the press, we're talking about the news industry, not just the actual printed press. Even the printed press exists mainly online now. It is incredibly challenging economically for the press around the world. We depend on a strong economic model to ensure a sustainable press and to ensure a pluralistic media ecosystem because the goal is to have many different types of economic models that journalism outlets can depend on, whether that is privately owned news organizations, subscription-based, nonprofit-supported, micro-payments. There are all sorts of different kinds of economic models that are being used around the world, but it certainly does have an impact on the press and it does matter if you're able to pay for news. And it's become very complicated with the new technological environment because, of course, you have some kind of intermediaries, you have new ways of paying and raising money for news online. Many of those revenue models are still in flux as news organizations try to figure out how to make their businesses sustainable. So it does have an impact and we also know that in many countries, the way that advertising is allocated by the state can have a specific impact on the press as well. In many countries, advertising by the state constitutes a pretty significant chunk of the advertising market and so we've seen that they will use state advertising as a way to put pressure on particular news outlets to encourage or discourage types of coverage and that's deeply disturbing. So to your question, it has a lot to do with the freedom of the press and with the sustainability of the media in the long term. Okay, thank you, excellent question. Okay, so now is the time in our program when we are going to turn to the chat space and take a look at some of the questions coming in from those following on Twitter and using the hashtag WPFD2017. Let's see if we can go to our first question and I want to, pardon, yes? I wanted to reflect on that last question. Oh, sorry, go ahead Richard, sorry to cut you off. Oh, no problems. It's only because being based in a lot of small businesses before I became a journalist and in startups, I wanted to reflect on what Courtney said and to the question about economics and journalism and the parallelism or what might be analogous and I think that some might say on one side that journalism is an affectation of economies that are a healthy journalistic industry is an affectation of a healthy economy or an economy that's more advanced and in reporting in Africa and in South America, in Asia, the EU and the United States with my limited sort of touch points, I would see that evolving commensurately, right? So as you see the economies that are healthier or more wealthy, that you also saw a healthier journalistic industry as well. But I think what's upsetting that that all of you are seeing around the world that's really taking away those structures and constraints of what journalistic power might be. So here in the United States behind me in this building what you see here is called 30 Rock and about a hundred years ago, the government, the US government said I will now give a certain ability to three companies around the country to broadcast and broadcast news in addition. And this is one of those buildings right here and it started here right behind me about a hundred years ago when we first had broadcast news in this very building. And so it's not without understanding that the advantage of doing it for a hundred years is that you are growing along with a healthy economy. What has put that on its edge though is the fact that we consume so much news digitally now and that we as journalists, all of us, our readers either the current or future expect us to have digital footprints. They expect us to provide news outside of the organizations that we are associated with. And it is an accepted practice in most cases that we would provide facts, real news via our social channels and it will start small and then it'll grow in terms of the number of followers. So we as individuals just as any teenager would expect any teenager might expect that they can be famous because they can use Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and Weibo and whatever else. We as journalists already have a platform. And so through our social channels we become our own news organizations. And I liken it to my father who's a pastor. He would always say, yeah, Richard, I do all my preaching in the courtyard after the sermon one on one. We as journalists will do our storytelling one on one. We will be able to get our facts out and our stories out through our social channels. So I think that is upsetting the dynamic and that's why we have seen the consumption of content just over the last 10 years increased from one Zettabyte that's 21 zeros by the way, one with 21 zeros from one Zettabyte 10 years ago to 13 Zettabytes today. Just seeing that number shows that the way folks are getting real news is evolving in ways consistent with what Courtney is saying in platforms we never thought of that is changing the power structure by which an economic boom or bust may affect our industry. That's been good for us as well as challenging in many other spaces. Yeah, I do note that you have a significant background in the tech sector and actually are quite social media influence of yourself. So this is a topic very relevant for you. Yeah, I love the topic but of course I don't wanna as we say in the States, I don't wanna filibuster. All right, well thank you so much. All right, so yeah, let's go with our first question from our online viewers. We have a question from Matthew in Liberia and he asks, what role can civil society play in keeping the media ethical and unbiased towards the government? And I'll remind our panelists to keep your answers brief, thank you. So if I can start, I would say there are many ways to do this, it's important for example, there are lots of new fact checking organizations that have emerged in the past several months. There were already kind of a core around the world but we've really seen the proliferation of fact checking units, so that's one way. I think also by realizing that journalists and civil society exist in an ecosystem that are interdependent on each other. So respond to journalists when they request information, reach out to them and if you're in civil society and make sure that you're covering as civil society if you're a human rights organization, make sure that you understand the risks that journalists are taking to bring the news. Excellent, thank you. Richard, did you wanna contribute there? Yeah, that's a tough question, a really good one, Matthew. How can governments ensure a healthy and robust and ethical news industry? And that will vary place to place the stories that we will have or talk about on the ground in one country, I may be asked to pay money to be able to speak to a certain government official, I may be also put in situations where I'm more worried about the interviewee than I am about my own safety. And all of these sorts of spaces vary region to region and country to country. And I would only say that as a hat tip to what Courtney was saying earlier is that what we need to do is make sure that the industry itself is respected and seen as relevant and then the laws will therefore follow. But we all understand at least I think the basis of your question, not all governments want a healthy news industry for various reasons. And so that unfortunately is a tops down consideration that often journalists on the ground in these tough spaces don't have any power or platform to stand on. And so that's where organizations like Courtney's are so important. Excellent, thank you. Okay, so our next question comes from Burundi. What can journalists do to combat threats to press freedom? Courtney. Yes, so Burundi, man, journalists there, I really feel for you. It is such a dangerous situation in Burundi right now. There are many things journalists can do. I mean, first of all, use journalism, right? Use journalism to combat threats to press freedom. First of all, do good journalism, right? Show as Richard was just indicating, show your utility to the wider community and to the wider society by doing good journalism. Cover issues that are important to do with press freedom. So if there are new laws or regulations coming forward, cover those as news. I think it's also important, we've seen for example in Pakistan where previously media wouldn't report on the names of the journalists from competing outlets who were kidnapped or killed because they didn't want to inadvertently give those outlets additional visibility or whatever. And so the editors actually got together and said, no, we're going to cover attacks on the press. We're going to cover the names and the outlets and we're going to work together. And they actually created a network of editors and so now they're in communication whenever someone is kidnapped to immediately let all of the other journalists and outlets know so that they can cover it, but also so that if they have journalists on the ground they can investigate, they can warn their own journalists. It is important to cover threats to press freedom so that your colleagues know what the situation is or so that any foreign correspondents coming in from outside also understand the situation. You can also combat threats by being prepared. So if you're going into a dangerous area or if you're covering protests or have your threat model, understand what is your threat model? Is it, you know, covering protests on the ground? Is it from terrorist groups? Is it from the government? Is it digital threats? And how can you prepare accordingly? Make sure that before you're going into a dangerous situation that you do have a plan for that. And of course, you know, get in touch with groups that cover press freedom globally so that we can help amplify your message. Richard, did you wanna address that question? Yeah, sure, very quickly. So I'll go back to the guides that are on CPJ that are very detailed and very, very helpful. It's interesting when we talk about civil unrest, riots, terror attacks. These are things that I've unfortunately had to cover on the ground, not only in the United States, but also in Europe. And folks might think, well, why would you be in Paris covering terror attacks? Why would you be concerned? You know, after the Bataclan standing there, there was a line of 40 journalists, all of us. And it happened that our network was the first one in line. That was closest to the night of the Bataclan terror attack. And, you know, we did not know necessarily how these ISIS related attacks would unfold. And we were so close to this incident and they were still at large, the mastermind and some of the attackers. And so we were certainly standing there in a situation where we didn't know what might happen over those next 24 hours. Standing in the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore in the United States. You could have been anywhere in the world to see the civil unrest we had there. We didn't necessarily know where the four walls were. This is the United States. And, you know, we had protesters, marchers throwing rocks at us. We also had questions of whether, because it was a very volatile situation, whether law enforcement was going to be able to handle the situation in ways that we were used to seeing in the past, allowing journalists into certain spaces because we were not being allowed to certain spaces to report. And again, that is part of what the Fourth of State stands for, that we are able to get into places, tell the stories when we were being cordoned away from what would normally be normal access for journalists. And so all of those spaces, and I know when you talk about threats in Burundi, they can be whether you're covering something as overt as civil unrest or a march, it could be something as much more insipid where you are covering a political story and unsure of what you might write and what may happen. There's a story in Singapore of a journalist who was reporting on judges on the judicial branch and later on became jailed. From all sorts, I understand what you mean by threats to journalism and it's a long and wide arc, and fortunately that Courtney and her organization has documented so well. Yeah, excellent, thank you. Okay, all right, so let's, we have so many questions right now. I just wanted to let you all know lots of questions coming in from all around the world. So we're gonna try and get to as many as possible. We have a question from a magazine in Togo called La Depeche-Lome, and they're asking, according to reporters without borders, the freedom of the press has declined around the world. What are the causes of this decline? Courtney, we'll turn to you first. Sure, obviously that's reporters without borders. CPJ doesn't rank countries, but I can say looking at what our data says, killings have been at record highs for the past five years since the uprisings in the Arab region, the war in Syria, ongoing conflict in Africa, drug cartels in Latin America and Central America. So if we look at what some of the causes are, we have the changing technological environment in which journalists are no longer in this privileged position where those in authority need access and need journalists to get their message out. So they can take their message directly to the public or to whoever their constituency is, which has put journalists in a position where they're less powerful than before. So they're seen now sometimes as props in terrorist activities rather than as intermediaries needed to get the message out. So that's one thing. Another thing, as I mentioned, impunity, which continues to send a message that it's okay to murder journalists, that it's okay to attack journalists. Historic levels of imprisonment is, I'm sure, another reason that we're seeing this decline worldwide and the impact of imprisonment, which is done solely by governments. So we're seeing that a lot of the governments and the states that used to be leaders on press freedom are not standing up to this role anymore. The European Union, for example, has member countries such as Hungary and Poland and Macedonia, which are seeing major backsliding, and yet they're members of the European Union, which has a set of values that includes press freedom. We're also seeing, for example, in the United States where there lack of rhetorical support and these rhetorical attacks on journalists, which thankfully have not yet turned into legislative or physical attacks, for the most part. We're seeing this has a negative impact around the world because it sends a message to authoritarian leaders and others around the world that it's okay to attack the press. And so I think there are range, that's just a few of the things at play. Okay, all right, thank you. So just to keep moving through the questions, we have our next question is for Richard. Richard, can you talk about your definition of media ethics? There are many journalists who don't understand journalistic ethics. What advice do you have for them? I'll go back to 101. And that is when it comes to sourcing and coming to storytelling, being first is nice, but not necessarily, it is not the most important. Having worked in cable news in spaces where we did wanna be first at one point, that was sort of the style of the day has certainly changed now where the style of the day is to get it right. In this building, when we had a key issue coming down on our national healthcare plan, we were not the first to report the Supreme Court's decision. We were in fact close to last, but we were the only ones to get it right. And so getting it right is the most important because that's what we do as journalists is we're trying to get to the truth. And another thing related to that, the subtext to that is, do we have a trusted source? As I mentioned earlier, single source and here in the building, we do have a list of single source, trusted sources, and if not, depending on your organization and your space, three or maybe two different sources that confirm the fact that we are about to report on. So when it comes to media ethics, that's I think at the core is to not report on what we might believe to be truth when it is not. And I know that with as much digital sourcing often we are and have been pushed when it comes down to our phones and we're hearing something via tweet or we're hearing it via text. Those are good tips, but that's all they are, right? They're tips. And therefore we need to use them as, and my parallel to this in terms of when we do get sourcing out of this is I see it as a lot like a tsunami and a tsunami after an earthquake is that big wave that comes over and hits landfall. The water goes down before tsunami hits on the ocean. The water goes down at a precipitous rate and that's how you know that a potential large wave after an earthquake is gonna hit the shore. That is what these tips are that come in on social media that are important to look at, but they are like the water going down so that we can prepare if that wave actually ever does hit. When I think about media ethics specifically, those are I think the day to day operational questions and how we need to apply that idea of sourcing. And but I will leave it there in terms of what I think is the basic and we can go deeper on media ethics. And I mentioned some of that earlier about pay for play, which is as much as it is a binary decision of one or zero. There's a lot of gray spaces that I think critics would say everybody's doing pay for play in some way. And that is certainly a rich conversation that we could have. Excellent. Now that's, you made, gave some great advice there. So thank you so much. All right. Let's go back to our audience in Abuja for a couple more questions. Mr. Cheney, I'm looking for our report for AIT. I am the Foreign Affairs correspondent. Now, my question is, how would you suggest that journalists report on issues, very important issues that could be threatening to their lives and still be safe? Excellent. Okay, Courtney, let's turn to you for that. Did you hear the question? Important issues that what? How can journalists, if I understand your question, you said how can journalists report on important issues but also keep themselves safe? Yes. Okay. So I mean, I think it goes back to some of what we were talking about earlier is to understand the threats, before you get into a story. Again, if you're going into a dangerous area, if you're going into a situation to be prepared, have your communications plan, have your threat model, have your secure communication, make sure that you, if you're crossing a border, do you have your device backed up? Is it clean? If you're going into a protest, are you using encrypted data? So if your phone gets stolen or something and that's what you're using to report, you're not going to compromise your sources. So it really depends on the story that you're covering, but one of the things about media ethics too and the founding principle of journalism is protecting your sources. So you should always make sure that you are protecting your sources and that you are also protecting yourself as a journalist. Mm-hmm. Okay, great advice. Okay, Abuja, do you have another question? My name is Benga Kembule. I write for the Wall Street Journal. My question is this. In view of the growing terrorism across the world, when it's got to do with Nigeria, you have the Boko Haram crisis. And in elsewhere, you have ISIS terrorizing people. How best in the face of this growing terrorism, how best can the world fight the threat to press freedom as regards to journalists? Thank you. So I'd like to respond to that because I think this is so important, especially in Nigeria, in Cameroon, where you have Boko Haram, you have this alliance now between ISIS and Boko Haram. I think one of the most important things is that governments don't use terrorism as an excuse to clamp down on critical or investigatory media. For example, in Cameroon right now, there is a journalist named Ahmed Abba who was just convicted of 10 years on charges of terrorism because he was covering Boko Haram. And so we're seeing that journalists around the world are being accused of terrorism because they're covering these issues. So they're speaking to members of terrorist groups in Egypt, for example. Anyone who is affiliated or seen to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood is accused of terrorism. There was a photo journalist who was covering the robot massacre and ended up being thrown in jail with a bunch of other, hundreds of other people and sentenced in a mass trial of terrorism for this supposed affiliation. So one of the key things, and I would say that, this is something the State Department can help with, is to pressure their allies and other governments not to use terrorism as an excuse to imprison journalists, to restrict press freedom. We're seeing around the world, for example, with countering violent extremism, that that is being used, again, as a framework for putting into place laws and regulations that restrict press freedom, that restrict the right to report on certain issues, to access certain areas. As I mentioned earlier, Turkey, this is a huge issue. If you try to report in Southern Turkey, you can be accused of terrorism because that's where the PKK is. If you're reporting in Sinai, in Egypt, again, you have the risk of being accused of terrorism. But of course, it goes to media ethics as well. So making sure that you are doing good journalism, that you're protecting your sources, that you're doing what you need to do, but also, we have to make sure that we're not using terrorism as an excuse to clamp down on journalism. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the question. Let's turn to Tirana again for a couple more questions. Hello, my name is Aurora Goliath, journalist. I work for News 24 Television. Being a journalist or a reporter in Albania is a difficult job, obviously. There is a big problem with self-attensorship and censorship in general. How can we change the culture, this culture, the culture of professional journalism? I want to take an example. These ago, two local journalists were fired because they were critical with government actions and they expressed their opinions on their personal Facebook. So there is a cultural fear here. So do we have any tips or advice? Thank you. Yes, great question. Thank you, Richard. Did you hear that question? And Aurora, I have worked in an environment like that before. And what used to happen is that reporters, fellow reporters then would, and in the entire system, I should say, would react understanding that censorship did exist and that you did not want to get your hands, you did not want to have your wrists slapped, right? Based on the reporting that you might come out with. And I tell this story because when something of controversy, quote unquote, may potentially be broadcast or a story that came out or development, there would be the big boss that would come out of the room go down to the producer or senior producer, executive producer. They would huddle and talk very quickly. And then all of a sudden, the rundown, the series of stories that were going to be reported, of all, shall I say, and the words used may have changed or the story might have disappeared all together. And the problem with what that does, I think, to hardworking journalists, is then we start to self-edit, right? We start to go, oh, I can't report on that or I can't say it that way because if I do do that, it's not gonna, the big boss is gonna come out. I will get potentially, in some cases, arrested and jailed, depending on how far one goes. And I think the careful thing to do, and it's a tough tension line here, at least what I was doing in this situation, is I made sure not to self-edit, but I also was understanding where that sort of line existed as to how aggressively I could discuss potential storylines and did not feel, because look, all of us as journalists, we're fairly go-go people. We just wanna, you know, we're gonna change the world and we're gonna get the truth out and that's what drives us. But in these situations, which have to do with not only ethics, but also press freedom and threats to one's health, is understanding where that tough line is and how far and how to dance on that, not compromising ethics, but also getting our jobs done because getting jailed or getting hurt, getting injured or killed is not the goal and not worth it personally for many who are in our profession. So I would say don't self-edit, understand where that tough line is, continue to follow the storylines that are relevant, understanding that censorship does exist on that list that is put out by reporters without borders. I've been on, I've worked in countries that sit at the bottom of that list. So that would just be one sort of day-to-day operational ideology that I would use. Don't give up, continue to dream the right story, don't self-edit, but still understand, you may not be able to put everything on the table at once, if you will, that it's going to be, you put one slice of that pizza in front or two slices of the pizza and you continue to add to it based on that particular situation's factors. Thank you, Richard. Let's see, Tarana, do you have another question? My name is Marjan Dotsi, I'm an online media journalist and my question is, we try to produce good investigative stories, but why the situation often doesn't change after that? Thank you. Let's ask Richard this first because you've reported on lots of stories that might have changed or might not have changed. So let's hear your thoughts on this. You know, Jane, if we can go back to Tarana, my follow-up question to the question would be, you pursued an investigative story and something has changed. Elaborate in terms of what you mean by changed. Okay, did you hear that? Yeah, in terms of, if I investigated something and the government has not... Oh goodness, I think they dropped off the line. All the time. Yeah, but for the benefit of everyone else watching, Richard, I think what he's saying is, what if a reporter has reported on a story, particularly regarding the government, but then nothing changes, there's no change afterwards. I mean, I'm sure it must be frustrating for journalists. So I think he wants to hear your thoughts on that. You know, the one thing of getting older and telling more stories is that I am often sober by why we do what we do. And we do what we do hoping for major change where there was wrong, good where there might be evil and progress where there is none. And I, although like everybody here want to hit that big, at least in US context, I want to hit that home run, but I am fine with what we call singles. So I am fine with the little bits and I know investigative pieces are so tough to number one, get support, number two, because of the cost and the time that there's often questions when you're done with the story, well, what did you get out of it or what happened after? And whether it is explicit or implicit as to how those are valued, it's tough because investigative pieces inherently require more resources. So when I have done pieces like that, whether it be on human trafficking or whether it be economic, my return, the way I value it, is if I just am able to tell the story and get a broadcast and is it gonna be broadcast at midnight on a weekend or is it gonna be broadcast during prime time, 7 a.m. in the morning or 7 p.m. at night? If it gets broadcast, if it gets printed, I've done my best, I've done my honest best. So I know that's really tough to say, but that's what we do, right? We tell these stories and if we can get them out there, what's great is the virality that is there requires a call to sell is there. So you just have to get it out there and those small steps, those small pieces of progress despite the huge resource and time that's required for an investigative piece. Our investigative department sits like 30 feet right over there and we've got four or five very seasoned journalists and they work on these pieces and you only see one of these pieces maybe every two weeks. They're really good, very well done. Are they going to be broadcast in the most prominent places? Not all the time. And so I guess for me, I'm saying to you and Tarana, go get them, keep on doing it. It's just that it's going to be the small steps and those small steps are big, big wins. Don't expect it to be on prime time news. Just make sure that it is out there because if it's about the government, critical of the government, just as we're doing stories right now, we're about the FBI director is about to speak to Congress if he hasn't already started on Capitol Hill here in the United States. And I can't tell you how many stories we've done on the Russia connection question. Yet we, as your colleague sitting very close to you as I was saying to her earlier, we're getting slow progress on how fast, right? We're going to get an outcome or an answer to this question. I was saying it could be years, right? That's what I was saying earlier, but it's that little by little by little that counts gargantuanily. So to you, my friend, the investigative piece, I'm so glad you're doing it because I know it's very, very difficult. And the fact that it may not have gotten big, big play, the fact that it is out there is means that it is a small step forward. And those small steps, as you know, as storytellers add up to something big at some point. Thank you, Richard. I just really jump in quickly because I think this links to a question that somebody asked earlier, which is how does civil society work together with journalists? And I think this is really critical because the question was about what happens when you do that investigation and maybe you reveal corruption or you reveal whatever the X policy problem is and the government doesn't respond. I think the critical role, and as Richard was kind of alluding to, is journalists' role are to storytell. Their role is to get the information out, to dig into it, to do the investigation, to bring it to light. But their role is not necessarily to enact policy change or change at the government level and that's where civil society comes in, that's where the broader public comes in. Excellent point, Dan. Thank you. Okay, so in order, we're slowly running out of time or quickly running out of time, so let's get to a few more questions online before we go. So we have a question from a freelance journalist in Maseru, Lesotho. Many African governments use legislation as a tactic to clamp down on the media. Can elections be truly free and fair under such circumstances? The short answer would be no. A press is essential to ensuring free and fair elections. You really depend on a population that knows what it is voting for, that understands the issues, has access to information, so the press is really critical and we can see that many of the election observer organizations and officials that have done that have often said that elections were not free and fair because there were limitations put on the press and that is something that journalists around the world are facing and that we're deeply concerned about and elections are actually very difficult and dangerous times for journalists. We see around the world that there are often attacks on journalists, threats on journalists, restrictions put on them and so again, if you are covering an election or the issues around an election, know what sort of risks you might face. All right, so we only are gonna take three more questions. The first one is a question from Twitter at W. Soyinka Center in Lagos, asks, how can the multiplicity of platforms be used to improve press freedom? So Richard, let's turn to you because you're someone that does operate on different platforms, so can you address that question, please? Yeah, absolutely, and we alluded to this a little bit earlier here, Jane, and the idea of the multiplicity of platforms, press freedom and how that helps or assists in this very day that we're here for World Press Freedom Day is hopeful because as I was saying earlier, the old days, there were only certain channels where you could be, number one, a practicing journalist, two, being viewed as a practicing journalist and the beauty of the multiplicity of platforms today has challenged us as we started our conversation earlier based on the concept of fake news providers but the flip side of that is we now can operate as who we are as storytellers, as truth tellers, and as individuals that are trying to get out what needs to be told. So I think when we think about press freedom, if handled the right way and little by little, our different social channels invigorate us to tell stories and be heard and be respected as journalists in ways that have not existed before, this whole idea, remember the beginning of it, it was, oh, we can't trust anything on the blogosphere, we can't trust anything on Twitter, then journalists started to come forward, early on, journals were not using it. If you look at any of the established names or brands, they were late to the game, they're now there and they know that trust, right, that word trust can be gained on these platforms. And so I think for those environments, countries, regions and spaces where there are these old school constraints of either the government or the government-linked media organizations, either censoring you or being in spaces where you would be threatened physically, that these multiple platforms allow us to be more nuanced. Now, it's not to say that we dive in wholeheartedly in ways that are rash and not reflective of the culture and context we're in. What when I post, I post as though it's going to be on the front page of the New York Times, everything I write, I try to think, what if you took my tweet or my Instagram or my Facebook post and you put it on the New York Times? Would it be okay? And I think for us, when we think about this multiplicity of platform, yeah, it's there for us, but treat it in the beginning just as traditionally as other journals have in the past that it could live there for years and years and years that you will be tested on the very word, the very preposition, the very capitalization and punctuation that you use on these platforms. And I think if we as journalists use it with that sort of responsibility that it can absolutely work in ways, slowly, it'll work slowly, but it does work. Thank you. Yeah, Courtney, did you want to weigh in on that too? So I think it's so important, the multiplicity of platforms has been really important for enabling journalism to happen in very closed countries. So as you mentioned, my book is about cyber activism and citizen journalism in Egypt. So citizen journalists were the ones who started reporting on torture under Mubarak, who started reporting on police abuse. And that was because they had access to a multiplicity of platforms that were not controlled by the state-owned telecom or by the broadcasters or the party-affiliated newspapers. And so that was very important. In Ethiopia, for example, we see that the Zone 9 bloggers were really important. They're a group of citizen journalists who have been reporting on issues that there's no way that the Ethiopian government would let get out. And I would also say that one of the important aspect of this multiplicity of platforms for press freedom is enabling us as press freedom advocates to reach populations that might otherwise we might not be able to reach and to show our collective voice. So for example, we've done Twitter campaigns and raised these issues so that it becomes very embarrassing for governments who are imprisoning journalists. For example, in Azerbaijan, when they were hosting a major sporting event, we were able as a community of press freedom advocates to kind of hashtag, to hijack the hashtag and then send a different message. So it's not just, hey, Baku, let's go check out how great it is. It's, hey, Baku, Azerbaijan, you have all these journalists in prison and you're trying to become this world leader and encourage tourism, but how can you do that when you're imprisoning journalists, when you're forcing them into exile? So that can also be a reason that these multiplicity of platforms are important for press freedom. Okay, and in a related question from Addis, Ababa, Ethiopia, how does social media support the promotion of press freedom? Any further elaboration there? Yeah, I mean, I think the last question kind of answered that, hopefully. Excellent, okay. Yes. I mean, I think to build on what Courtney was saying there, what's great is that now we're all reporters without borders back to that statement because we have these connections that Courtney's talking about, that we can interact with other journalists around the world based on what their sourcing might be and to get our stories promoted and the whole idea of virality. We talk about press freedom. This is the great thing about what these platforms, now that they are so widely used and accepted as distribution channels, means I think for those journalists that are in tight spaces, close spaces, tough spaces, now it's not just going to be them in that particular market. And the whole world will be able to interact with what is happening and the examples were already given by Courtney. Okay, excellent. Okay, so this is gonna be our last question, sorry to say. A journalism student from Malawi asks, what advice do you have for journalists working for government-owned media in terms of balancing between national interest and pleasing their employer? That's delicate. So let's turn to you, Courtney. So yeah, I have kind of a little bit of experience with this. I worked for Al Arabia, which is a Saudi-owned news organization. It was based in Dubai, but they have very similar national interests. And you are doing journalism, right? Even if you work for a state outlet, Voice of America, for example, the BBC all have relationships with the government. So you can still do good journalism. I think understanding where those red lines are, and sometimes you have to recognize there are red lines, but always trying to push at them, right? Get a little bit more space. And sometimes you're going to have to make a professional choice. I know, I decided when I was working for Al Arabia, I knew that, for example, writing or publishing about human rights or women's rights in Saudi Arabia or the Emirates was going to be not going to happen. So I was okay with that because I felt I could do really good work covering other issues that were very important. But when it came to a story about the public interest safety issue, there were some safety issues on Emirates Airlines, I thought that's the very basic foundation of journalism. If I can't, and I was told not to publish that story and I did not agree to that, I published it because I felt that publishing something that is in the very basic public interest is the fundamental of journalism and I couldn't compromise those values and I was fired and kicked out of the country for that decision. So it's not an easy one. They can have economic repercussions but I think you have to decide as a journalist where your own red lines are, where you are willing to compromise because sometimes you can do very good journalism and you can learn things by working in a specific outlet but when it comes, when push comes to shove on your own red lines and where you draw the line up, professionalism and ethics, then you might have to take a stand. Wow. Richard, did you wanna comment on that? We are wrapping up now so I am gonna turn to both of you for final thoughts. Why don't we go to you, Richard? Sure, I'll answer the question here. First off, to the student journalist, learn to love every moment of your job if you can and I know because I've been in the space that you're talking about and stay away from the big fires or the flashpoints. Find the beat where you're not gonna be put in situations where your values will be compromised. Also understand this is just one chapter in your long, long book of being a journalist and that you will finish this chapter and move on to the next one but start writing that second, third and fourth chapter now so you know where you're going. So day to day, find a space that's safe for you is a beat so you won't be in conflict with your values. Two, plan forward knowing that this is again just one chapter. Final thoughts is on a well-pressed freedom day. It is really great to have this conversation. It is reinvigorating for me to talk with our fellow journalists in Abuja and Tarana. Thank you all for joining this. I wish I could be there personally and maybe I will be there at some point either for a story or because we are there for the speakers program. And thanks to everybody else who has tweeted and or asked a question digitally. You can find me on my social handles as well and I would love to interact with you and I thank you all for your time today. Thank you, Richard. How can they follow you on Twitter? Richard Louie, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-L-U-I. Excellent, thank you. Courtney, final thoughts. Sure, I mean, I think that there are many ways to do journalism these days and although I lost my job in journalism I get to use journalism every day to protect journalists and I love my job and so many organizations these days are able to engage in journalism and you really see this proliferation of types of journalism. So I just encourage you to look broadly, look at what you wanna be doing on a day to day basis. And it's world press freedom day to day. It doesn't matter that we put this on the agenda that news organizations cover these issues that we cover our colleagues when they come under threat that we cover the issues that affect journalists because it's not just about the journalists as individuals it's about the rights of the public. It's about the ability of the public to know and to be informed. And so I wanna thank the embassies so much. I wanna thank the journalists for your questions and I look forward to more opportunities like this and I really appreciate the role of the US government today, especially bringing this conversation together and showing that it does care about this issue and that we'll continue to be a leader on press freedom worldwide. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much. And again, thank you to our distinguished panelists. We really thank you for your time, your insights. We thank all the journalists that have attended both in viewing audiences at our embassies in American Corners and at online. So we also wanna give a big shout out to some of those online viewing audiences. I'm just gonna name a few. Lome Togo, Monrovia, Liberia, Bujambura, Burundi, Lilongue, Malawi, Banjul, the Gambia, Kigali, Rwanda, Maseru, Lusutu, Harare, Zimbabwe, Brazzaville, Congo, Kolkata, India, Pristina Kosovo, and Kotenu Benin. We also have viewing audiences that joined us from American Spaces in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, Kalaba, Nigeria, Pretoria, South Africa, Trieste, Italy, Caracas, Venezuela, Kinondo, Burundi, Moscow, Russia, Gitega, Burundi, and Bauchi, Nigeria. Amazing. This was truly a global audience. We thank all the journalists out there for all that you do every day. We thank you for your bravery, for your courage, and we encourage you to continue working in the areas that you're working in. And thank you for joining us on World Press Freedom Day. Thanks, everyone.