Lunch Hour Lecture: On Data, Media, and Democracy – Professor Lee Grieveson

Lunch Hour Lecture: On Data, Media, and Democracy – Professor Lee Grieveson


Good afternoon, everybody. I’d like to welcome you
to this afternoon’s lunch hour lecture. These are really exciting opportunities,
I think, to showcase the exciting work
that UCL academics do and show the applicability
of our research to the world around us. It gives me great pleasure
to welcome you today. My name is Jonathan Bell,
I’m Professor and Head of Department of the Institute of Americas
at UCL. I’m here to introduce
today’s speaker. I’m really pleased to welcome
Professor Lee Grieveson, who is Professor of Media History in the Centre for Multi-Disciplinary
and Intercultural Inquiry at UCL. He’s a professor media history, and the author of
his most recent book, which was published just this year, Cinema and the Wealth of Nations: Media, Capital
and the Liberal World System, published by the
University of California Press. He’s also co-editor and author
of a number of other volumes, including Cinemas, Military
and Industrial Complex, Empire in Film, and a key text in the field,
Inventing Film Studies from Duke University Press. He was also co-director
of a funded research project, Colonial Cinema,
Moving Images of the British Empire. Before coming to UCL, he taught at King’s College London
and Harvard. He was made professor here at UCL
last year. Today, he’s going to be talking to us
on the subject of Data, Media and Democracy. Without further ado,
I will hand over to Lee. Thank you. In elections in the US and UK
in 2016, a block of militant liberals
and neo-fascists fashioned new media and data practices to smash existing political norms
and institutions in order to restructure reality, deconstruct the administrative state and further hollow out democracy and deregulate capital. Ongoing press, parliamentary,
legal and congressional investigations broadly reveal that political actors worked the recently established
practices of surveillance capitalism to marry the data produced by people
in their interactions with social media
and the Internet to psychographic messaging, designed to influence their thoughts
and actions. Commercial procedures
of data surveillance such as those integral to
the business models of entities like credit rating agency, Experian,
from 1996, multinational search and media
corporations like Google, starting in 1999, and Facebook in 2004, were supplemented by practices that
had emerged in the governmental sphere in the early years
of the digital revolution, when new routines of mass data
surveillance were established. Like the PRISM programme
I’m showing here from 2007, as part of the expansion
of exceptional state practices. In the early 2000s, hybrid governmental
consulting institutions began meshing data surveillance with what one of the British entities
close to the centre of this history, Strategic Communications Laboratories,
SCL, called ‘influence operations’. There’s one more slide about that. Cambridge Analytica,
much in the news recently, grew out of SCL and built on data harvested
from Facebook and elsewhere, things like censuses, credit reports,
insurance data and so on, to construct psychological profiles
of populations for political campaigns to develop a near-personalised
propaganda system using digital screen media to influence
political attitudes and conduct. The campaign for Britain
to leave the European Union broke electoral laws about spending
and collusion to amass this data and use it
to deploy media to shape the attitudes
of voting populations. Ongoing revelations show too
that the Russian state fostered digital practices
to try to influence people or simply to virally spread confusion via strategies of propagating
disinformation that have long been significant
to KGB strategies for controlling populations and are now integral to its successor,
the FSB, and military practices in the GRU, to use the digital and cyber sphere as a component of information warfare to foster state interests, Here in the case of Russia
and Brexit, specifically the weakening of NATO
and EU alliances and the rolling back
of liberal globalisation, a project that has frequently found
common cause with fascism. Broadly, then, the ‘influence operations’ enabled by
the meshing of the collection of data about people
integral to the digital sphere with media as a form
of psychographic messaging or viral distortion were operationalised
to transform political reality. I’m going to sketch out
just a few fragments from this recent media history, in part as part of a genealogy
of the myriad ways in which media is operationalised
to facilitate and sustain exploitative political economies that has gathered pace
in the digital era of hyper or militant liberalism, mutating in complex ways
into forms of fascism. Let me start with some
of the details. In the early 2000s, a former investment banker,
who specialised in financing media, called Stephen K. Bannon, became a documentary filmmaker making a number of films
like these, that argued for what Bannon called the deconstruction
of the administrative state, broadly meaning a hollowing out
of forms of social democracy, that opposed the precepts
of liberal globalisation in favour of an economic nationalism, that segued into ethno-nationalist
forms of exclusion and the traditionalism that
is significant to current formations of fascism. The films were widely circulated
in the new digital spaces in the post YouTube era, and became significant
to right wing, or more accurately,
neo-fascist… Excuse me, I lost my place. More accurately, neo-fascist
media networks that grew in particular
in the early 2000s. Bannon became editor
of one of those media entities, called Breitbart News, which some of you
will have heard of, financed by a billionaire
investment banker, a militant libertarian
called Robert Mercer. In 2013, Mercer funded
the creation of Cambridge Analytica, and Bannon became
its vice-president. Cambridge Analytica and Bannon
deployed this data media complex in the 2016 election of the former
reality television star, Donald J Trump, to the position of 45th president
of a former colony of this country. Bannon became the Campaigns Manager, and then Chief Strategist
to the administration, which meant that for a time, the two most powerful people
in the world were a director of online
neo-fascist documentaries and a former reality television star. If nothing else, it should at least
make it harder to argue that studying media
is a trivial subject. Because to reiterate, an expanded digital media
was deployed as the Avant Garde
for a militant liberalism bent on stripping back
the state that began to merge and mutate
in complex ways with new strains of fascism. Bannon’s films connected to an emergent
radical right use of documentary cinema in the post 2005 YouTube era. Close ties were formed
by Bannon and Mercer with a conservative action group
called Citizens United, who financed films in pursuit of a
conservative and religious agenda, as you can see here in a selection
of films made by the group. You probably have heard of Citizens
United, even if you don’t recognise it, because this organisation
was a plaintiff to an enormously significant
legal case that was decided in the Supreme Court
in 2010, that basically defined money as speech, and voided any restrictions
on political spending to influence elections. It is this decision to deregulate
campaign finance, and enable what Justice
John Paul Stevens described in his dissenting opinion as, the corporate domination
of the electoral process, that is at the route of the massive
expansion of untraceable dark money, in the political system in the US
from 2010 onwards. Because of this, extraordinarily
wealthy individuals like, for example,
the oligarchs Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, or investment banker,
Robert Mercer, were able to funnel enormous sums
of untraceable dark money into political campaigns, shaping the turn
to a radical libertarian and neo-fascist position, from 2010, and indeed the,
the election of Donald in 2016. Mercer, and his daughter, Rebecca, funded a political action committee
called Make America Number 1, the same slogan that Trump used,
just about, that financed parts
of Trump’s campaign. Bannon and the guy who ran
Citizens United, David Bossie, were parachuted in to run
Trump’s then floundering campaign. Documentary filmmakers, that is,
provided the fictions, that were necessary to convince
enough people, damaged by the neo-liberal
deconstruction of the administrative state, started under the Reagan administration, that the solution to their problems was the further deconstruction
of the administrative state, marshalled by a tax-dodging
property billionaire. I suppose documentary filmmakers
have always been good at what Trump’s media manager
called ‘alternative facts’. Or what John Grierson, when he came up
with the term documentary, described as the creative treatment
of actuality. Indeed, there is a further twist
to this quite extraordinary story, because the extraordinarily significant Citizens United vs
Federal Electoral Commission decision was actually made
about this movie. The decision that enabled
the massive expansion of dark money was made about this movie, that was produced by Citizens United
in 2008, as part of a long-term campaign
against the Clintons as key actors in the expansion
of liberal globalisation. Back now to Mercer
and screen media, the banker who earns
about 135 million dollars a year, also financed an organisation called
the Government Accountability Institute, run by Bannon and a guy called
Peter Schweizer, who collaborated
to make this movie in 2016, called Clinton Cash, by the film production
Glittering Steel. That was run by Bannon
and financed by Mercer. Here is a glimpse
of the freedom of information requests that document the movement of money
from Mercer to Glittering Steel. Here, how much the Political Action
Committee spent in the 2016 election. Here are some of the moving image
attack ads, that Glittering Steel made. Bannon and Glittering Steel made. Cash turned into media that was widely
shared through digital networks to shape the public sphere. Clinton Cash, the movie,
was co-produced by Rebekah Mercer, Robert Mercer’s daughter, and it directly accuses the fabulously
wealthy Clintons of wielding their influence secretly
for financial gain. Digital networks became crucial
to an emergent radical right and neo-fascist media network, that began to flourish
in the early 2000s. Notably from 2003, when the
message board 4chan was created, which picked up pace from
the Mercer funded expansion of Breitbart News
from 2007 and further in the post-2008
economic crash era, when Bannon
and Citizens United accelerated film production
and circulated them online, and when a number of neo-fascist
websites and media entities emerged and flourished,
including the Daily Stormer, V-Dare, Radix
and American Renaissance and others. The creation of a neo-fascist
and libertarian media network filtered into the mainstream
through connections in particular with the NewsCorp owned
Fox News. Often through guests
who were… I went too far there. Often through guests
who were employed by a network of think tanks
and front groups that have been established
by these libertarian groups. For example, people like
Charles and David Koch who shape the public sphere. The Koch brothers
and other billionaire supporters have spent enormous sums of money
over time from the 1970s in particular onwards, funding and creating think tanks,
focus groups, political parties,
university departments and so on to shape the public sphere, a subject explored in part in recent
journalism and scholarship, including Nancy MacLean
and Jane Mayer’s Dark Money. Here, for example, are people employed
in those ideological think tanks who then expose their opinion
on mainstream news reports. Over time, the Mercer financed and Bannon edited
Breitbart became a crucial node
in this media network as this image created by
Jonathan Albright to track the digital circulation
of right wing propaganda shows. Breitbart linked an emerging
neo-fascist media network together, helping spread emotionally charged
disinformation and propaganda, as part of a militantly liberal effort
to strip back government in terms of things such as social
welfare for the disadvantaged and taxation of the wealthy. For the beleaguered billionaires
of the Koch ring, the question of taxation is an example
of government overreach trampling on liberty is surprise, surprise,
a recurrent subject as it is of course
for Donald himself, who had refused to reveal
his tax returns that would show the methods by which he
has successfully avoided paying taxes. But then of course,
tax avoidance to minimise contributing
to the general public good, while amassing extraordinary
private wealth, is essential to the global financial
system, routed through a network
of tax havens, located mostly in former
imperial territories that are used by the wealthy
like the Koch brothers and Mercer to hide their wealth. As well as number of members
of Trump’s cabinet, as revealed in both the Panama
and Paradise papers. Even including,
if you could imagine it, our own unelected head of state, though to be fair
to the extraordinarily wealthy free-loading, land-owning royals, it is also true of other heads of states
in equally undemocratic states like China and Russia
as well as corporations like, for example, these. The tax justice network estimates that there is somewhere between
24 – 36 trillion dollars unreported in tax havens. If this money was taxed, perhaps, for example, our students
would not pay for their education. Bear with me just a little while longer, as I pursue this recent history
of the enmeshing of political, economic and media power, before I will draw
some conclusions from it. These conservative
and libertarian networks to weaponise media were supplemented
by new digital strategies to use data to micro-target
propaganda that in turn mutated into
the production and amplification of fake news
and alternative facts as part of the broader campaign
of misinformation that is essential to this libertarian
and neo-fascist project. One of the key institutions here was created by Mercer
and Bannon in 2013, and which had spun out
of the British company, SCL. They were using probably the same
PR agents as UCL were. There’s got better. They were loaded,
I suppose UCL isn’t. SCL was founded by a former
advertising executive to use behavioural science
in what they call, influence operations. It is basically
a psychological operations organisation which is hired at great expense by dubious state actors to shape media and propaganda and perception,
to influence people. Cambridge Analytica emerged
from this organisation with capital from Mercer and began buying up
enormous amounts of data about people from data brokers like Acxiom
and Experian, and new media entities like Facebook and began to correlate this data
with well-established techniques of personality profiling. The current slide shows the company’s
former CEO explaining how this works in a talk pitched to gain business
for the company. Here is more detail on the well known
OCEAN personality profiling that the company use. The idea was based on research
carried out by a PhD student, in the Psychometric Centre
at the University of Cambridge, who had shown that
social media posts including the things
that people like on Facebook, Facebook introduced this feature
in 2009, specifically to extract
more data about people. If you liked a number of things
on Facebook, this PhD researcher suggested
that it could accurately predict your personality type,
using the personality profiling as well as a host
of simpler things. Like your gender, sexuality,
political orientation. Cambridge Analytica basically
stole this research and correlated the data they were
buying and harvesting from Facebook in particular with personality profiles, enabling them to amass, they claimed,
about 50,000 data points on each person in the US and precisely target people
in crucial swing states, who might be susceptible
to particular messages. Behavioural science
had showed simply that angry people are more likely
to click on ads and share them. This became central
to the purposeful production and amplification
of fake news, to amplify anger and division. At the same time, new software
was produced, that enabled automated
fake news videos to be produced on the world’s largest
moving image site, YouTube. These were widely circulated
to game algorithms. Pushing this media
and these agendas up on lists that people
see on their feeds and as suggestions
of other things to watch. Quite possibly, these films are amongst
the very first all-machine produced digital movies with no input
from human beings whatsoever. AI-generated films,
along with other forms of propaganda, and purposefully fake news, were massively amplified
by enormous robotic armies, which were programmed
to push propaganda and fake news through digital networks
to game algorithms, in an effort again
to influence people and if nothing else, to virally spread
distortion and disorder to create chaos. It seems that most of these bot networks are located in Russia
and Eastern Ukraine, and they were, as the brilliant
journalist, Carole Cadwalldr surmises, probably subcontracted
by Cambridge Analytica, to flood social media,
and important digital media platforms, like YouTube, with propaganda
and disinformation. One of the remarkable tiny details
that emerged after the fact about this particular part
of the story, is that one of these bot networks had previously been used
by the Israeli state, to circulate propaganda about its brutally violent ongoing
illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, but it was reprogrammed to circulate
propaganda and misinformation for these related interests, in enforcing ethno-nationalist
definitions of sovereignty. Obviously, those of us who lived through
the recent European referendum in this country, will recognise some of these strategies
and developments, in, for example,
the purposeful effort… The purposeful efforts
to belittle expertise made by the former Secretary of State
for Education, if you can believe it,
Michael Gove, who is a graduate
of the English programme at the University of Oxford. Do note the double emphasis, please. Or in the circulation
of misinformation, or in the production of deplorable
neo-fascist dark ads, like this, taken from films produced
by Leave EU campaign and circulated in particular
on Facebook, targeted directly
to a person’s news feed and there after disappearing. One of the reasons
for this recognition is that the Leave EU campaign too
used Cambridge Analytica and spent money illegally
in the final months of the campaign to produce digital propaganda
and misinformation to influence a political decision to some venture capitalists, the neo-fascist ideologs
of sovereignty and ethno-nationalism, and seemingly to the geopolitical
ambitions of the Russian state. Considerable sums of money were spent
to produce media to influence people by a shady businessman,
and mostly failed capitalist, called Arron Banks, who bankrolled
the UK Independence Party, and parts of the Leave EU campaign, although it’s entirely unclear how he
came to have so much money to do so, even despite the brilliant
detailed investigative reporting of a number
of journalists. The plot thickens a tiny bit here. This guy, Banks, who financed
most of the Leave EU campaign, is married to a Russian woman,
who has been investigated for spying, by the British services. Her father is a senior
Russian state official and Banks himself lied consistently
through the referendum about the meetings he was taking
with the Russian embassy. In any case,
wherever this money comes from, clearly it’s Russia,
but you didn’t hear it from me, some of it was invested
in this film, slickly produced
and widely circulated to over two million people on YouTube
and other digital networks, in the run up to a referendum, that was decided by 600,000 votes. Brexit the Movie,
made with dark money, is suffused in nostalgia
for Britain’s imperial past, and one of its central arguments
is that leaving the EU will allow Britain to strip out
all of the regulations like, for example,
on environmental law, that is a break
on the circulation of capital. Clearly, one can see connections
with libertarian ideas, about meddlesome social democracy
getting in the way of freedom. Albeit, of course, quite incoherently, given that this freedom required
secretive funds from who knows where, clearly Russia, to produce propaganda and harvest
ever more detail about people. Then, coherence and logic
are no longer a pre-requisite for the discourses and practices
that shape our world. Evidently then, dark money
from financiers probably Russia, certainly neo-fascist supporters, and the three of those things
are often intertwined, sluiced through our media system, to enable the production
and micro-targeting of propaganda as part of an expansive,
digital psychological operation. Both the Brexit and Trump campaigns
used media and data to destroy reason
and hack democracy, modelled a toxic mix
of neo-fascist ideas about tradition, sovereignty, of the necessity of murderous borders
keeping out racialised others, many of whom have been devastated
by the various legacies of imperialism civil wars, and the emerging realities
of climate change. Whilst further enabling
the accelerated movement of capital. People cannot move
but capital can. Here to make you annoyed
is a picture tweeted by the former
commodities trader, Nigel Farage, who led the Leave EU campaign, and who is friends with the bankers
Mercer and Bannon. Nigel with Donald, the day after
Donald’s surprising election victory in the gold-plated lift that services Donald’s gold-plated
apartment in Trump Towers. To help my argument, I have taken the picture
from the free right wing propaganda that is given out every evening
in this city. It is free, because it is monetised
by selling your attention to advertisers who want to influence you. It is also a good example
of media being used to foster pro-business policies in this, one of the financial
centres of the world, and indeed of the complex
enmeshing of media and political power that I’ve been in part
talking about, given that the Evening Standard is now edited by the former Conservative
chancellor of the exchequer, and champion of austerity,
George Osborne, when he is not spending time
as a visiting fellow at Koch oligarch-financed
Hoover Institution, at Stanford University. If you pull out from the picture
I showed you moments ago, and the image that was used
widely in the press, you see that the two of them are
actually surrounded by a bunch of other people, including Arron Banks,
the shady failed capitalist, who had money from
who knows where, to influence Leave EU, some of which was spent
on Brexit the Movie. Strange times. One or two simple conclusions
can be drawn from this whirlwind tour through some of these
recent developments in the intertwined history
of political and economic ordering and media. The intensification
of this radical liberalism as it mutates into forms
of fascism. One of them is simply
that the control and shaping of media forms and systems are essential to how power, I’m quoting from Manuel Castells, as the relational capacity
that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the
decisions of other social actors, operates. I have sketched out some
concrete examples of that process, where media, in some of the expanded
ways I’ve talked about today, is directly used to try
and influence people, the way they think
and act, particularly in terms of a freeing
of imperialising, globalising capital, and the scaling back of forms
of social democracy. By any number of metrics, an expanded, convergent digital media, has become ever more central
to our lives. Kids spend an average of six hours a day
looking into screens. Your phone is touched on average
2,600 times a day. New hybrid forms of digital media,
telecommunications and technology, have become ever more significant
to our post-industrial economy, so that by 2015, 3 out of
the 5 largest US corporations were Apple, Google and Microsoft. Six large global corporations own
roughly 80% of the media that circulates through these networks. This slide is no longer
entirely accurate, but it’s indicative. And… tech hybrids like Google,
Facebook and Apple wield extraordinary monopoly power. Obviously, our world
is increasingly media-tised, such that is ever more filtered
through the optic of a media system and secondly, that becomes more
and more profoundly embedded in the fabric
of our everyday life. I’m near the end now,
I promise. Both the militant liberal
and neo-fascist project to reshape political, economic
and social reality relied then necessarily on media and it flourished in particular in the digital revolution of information
communication and media systems that gathered pace around
the turn of the millennium. Broadly speaking, new digital spaces and networks emerged outside of the existing
corporate controlled media system and these became important to groups
bent on challenging the liberal consensus. Be those fascist
or militantly liberal. This shift from a controlled,
corporate liberal model of broadcasting and print journalism, with muted investment in ideas
of objectivity and expertise to a new digital media sphere
of participation, opinion and algorithmically-driven content, brought with it a radical disruption of
reigning epistemological norms. The clearest example of this
is in the phenomenon of what started to be called
fake news or alternative facts to generate capital by people
clicking on it, principally for those
new digital media entities, or by interested actors, like,
for example, the Russian state, simply to spread distortion
and disinformation, and disable effective action. It’s worth noting that these
practices of disinformation to transform political realities, enabled by the broad transformation
of media systems, were operationalised
by other state actors too for varying goals. One of the key threads her,
tragically, has been the denial
of anthropogenic climate change. Essential to the continuity
of extractive fossil fuel industries. Radical libertarian oligarchs
Charles and David Koch, have long used extraordinary
amounts of capital to fund research that doubts
the overwhelming conclusions of climate science as well as buying the politicians
happy to disable effective regulation, defeating Clean Air regulation,
pulling out of Paris and those things. Climate scientists, in contrast, and you will have seen
the UN report last week, I suppose, asserts that delaying responding
to climate change will usher in the end
of organised human society. Clearly, the truth of climate change is in the way of the profits
of carbon capital. Indeed, of the continuity of a globally
expansive, extractive capitalist system. Obviously, this then must be doubted
as Naomi Klein, amongst others, has argued. Obviously, the strategic destruction
of reason and the disabling of the distinction
between facts and fiction long significant to fascism, was boosted by the epistemological shift
of the digital, and marshalled by
militant liberals and neo-fascists alike to further deconstruct
the ability of the state to regulate capital. And by others, to weaken the ideas
and practices of democracy, even in its attenuated,
liberal iteration. In the midst of a turn
towards authoritarian governance, in a number of states in the late
neo-liberal period. One final simple conclusion
to be drawn from this history is simply this: media is essential
to how power functions and to the sustenance
of a political economy driven by the interests
of capital that is accelerating in ways
that are irrevocably damaging to people and our shared habitats. Yet, the study of media remains
the most derided discipline in the humanities, perhaps even the university
as a whole, a clear sign of the dumbing down
of the academy, but clearly one offshoot
of the arguments I’ve made, is that the study of media
ought to be thought of as foundational for the university today
in our era of deep media-tisation, particularly as these institutions too experienced the sharp edges
of a militant liberalism and the ongoing efforts to deconstruct
the administrative state. Thank you. Thank you, Lee
for that stimulating talk. We do have time
for a couple of questions, but I’m very conscious of time, so there are microphones and I’m going
to ask if you do want to ask a question, can you wait for the microphone
and keep it as to the point as you can, so we can have a discussion, but there’s another lecture
starting at 2, so I’m conscious of time. Shall we start here and then there? You mentioned the disreputable image that media studies might have
within the academy and in general. Do you think that it might be better to drop separate departments
of media studies and just have a basic study
within politics and political science about power and how its mediated? I don’t have a good answer. I think the second thing should happen. I’m not sure we need to stop having
media programmes and departments in order for the second thing
to happen. Politics, historians,
people in political science, people in public policy, people in these disciplines that tend
not to think about media, probably ought to think about
media more carefully. There’s a gentleman
in the middle. Thanks for the talk.
I’m a documentary maker so feeling a bit bruised
by the attack collectively. As a documentary maker
and as citizens, what can we do to counter
all the scary things? How long do we have? I don’t have a good answer. There’s policy things that one
can be talking about and dealing with and there are ongoing policy debates
about what we should do about these massive entities
like Facebook. Generally, what we should do
is have a revolution. That’s the only solution. That’s the solution. Policy things will be okay, but what really needs to happen is to
radically transform our world works, otherwise, we’re all going to get
too hot. That’s a positive answer. Revolution is the answer. One more question. It’s kind of a specific question. The chap you mentioned,
Peter Schweizer, do you know anything
about his background? I don’t know much. He wrote the book
Clinton Cash and he was financed by Mercer
in doing so. I don’t know
what he was before. I suspect he was a journalist,
do you? That’s why I asked, because this relates
to your pet hate about advertising. I knew Peter Schweizer, who was the worldwide chairman
of J Walter Thompson advertising. Seriously? Is it the same Peter Schweizer? I don’t know. That’s why I was asking
whether you knew. But, you talk about corporations. There are now only five corporations who
own all the advertising communication companies in the world. Martin Sorrell, you know, he’s WPP, just
got kicked out for being a naughty boy. He was head of one,
which is WPP. The there’s Inter Public and Publicis,
a French one. Two Americans, two British
and one… In the same way as
you’re talking about corporations. It’s a sort of logic of how that form
of capitalism works. It tends to produce oligopoly, and that’s what happens
in the major studio systems, and it happens here
and it happens there. They all used to be private, that’s why
they’ve got the names of people. But now of course,
they’re all public, as you say. One last question down here. After the lecture, I feel great
uncertainty in our safety, because it seems we are living
in such a world where we are flooded
with all the fake news on real things. So, I just wanted to ask
a personal question. As a member of the public, how could
we protect our safety and distinguish between
the real and the false? It’s a good question
and I don’t have a good answer. A lot of you are younger than me, so you’re probably part
of social media. That’s a big mistake. Firstly. Don’t be. Delete Facebook
would be one of the solutions. Then, I don’t know
how to help you I’m afraid. I don’t have a good answer. It’s extremely difficult
in the digital world we live in to discern the differences
between true and false and that’s precisely what was
part of this narrative. That’s what happened. Is it possible to transform
that difficulty? I don’t know. On that note of uncertainty, I think it’s given us
a lot to think about. I’d like to thank you all
for coming. Please join me in thanking
Professor Grierson.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *