I will introduce the lunch speaker, Joshua Micah Marshall, who I want to just say very briefly it's just a huge honor to be able to do this. You can read about him in the program. He's a man of many accomplishments. And one of the people who's bringing the media and journalism into the world we're heading into, whatever that's going to be. Someone whose work is extraordinary. He's a consummate journalist and someone who's adapted to the new world in ways that I think are really worth paying attention to, including in particular, not just the great journalism that goes on there, but the way he has brought his audience into the journalism, which I'm sure he'll discuss in some part today. One quick thing, I want to also thank the Philip Graham Fund and the McClatchy Company for helping bring him here today. And before I introduce him, finally, the program says that he lives in New York City with his wife, Mila, and their son, Sam and dog, Simon. As of last Thursday, we would add their son, Daniel. And with that, Josh Marshall. Well, thanks for having me. Can everybody on this right? What I want to talk today about is the internet and media, but really internet and journalism, and how the two are affecting each other, or perhaps more to the point how one is destroying and remaking the other one. You know, the internet people live in and are geared to thinking about a world of opportunity and abundance, and that breeds a certain entrepreneurial mentality in the way that they approach everything. You know, startups come and startups go, jobs come and jobs go, but the trajectory is always upward and expanding. After the dot-com bust, I'm sure it didn't seem that way to a lot of people, but I think that's really the world that people who, you know, internet professionals, that's the world that they live in. The journalism world is about as different as you could possibly imagine, especially in the last few years, and probably looking forward into at least the medium-term horizon. I would say it's really a terrorized world. It's almost like the journalistic profession today is almost like a plague city, where everyone assumes they will be dying at some point in the relatively near future, but it's, no one knows quite now when, so you have a mix of fatalism and denial that everybody operates in. Now, this is particularly the case, obviously, in print media, but really all of the existing models, business models and editorial models of journalism. I was, recently, I met a reporter for one of the Nightly News shows, National Nightly News, and he said that in their editorial meetings that everything, the editorial and business, that everything they do is based around a five-year horizon for their even continuing to be a Nightly News. That within five years it will either be broken up and put on the web, maybe there will be no Nightly News at all, so that's the kind of, that's the sort of world that people operate in. On the other hand, I'm always struck by, when you think about, if you go back a century to the beginnings of commercial air flight, and that there were existing huge companies existing based on railroads, that were really transportation companies, but were focused on railroads, and none of them made the switch into air flight. And it's a great question, sort of why, why not, why can't companies, large corporations see what they do beyond the immediate technology that they use to do it. So I was, because we're seen as having a successful new journalism model, I'm constantly, people want to, you know, people, executives from big metropolitan newspapers and whatever want to, want to pick my brain and see what it is we're, you know, what it is we're doing right, which is not, they don't get much out of it because we have this tiny little company that we can, we can barely keep running, but they want to. So it gives me the opportunity to get sort of a sense of what these people are thinking, how they're planning for their future. And if I were, if I were running one of the big metropolitan papers that has pretensions to be a national paper like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, I would be thinking in my long-term business planning, how, how are we going to make the tradition, transition to being a news organization at the point at which we're no longer producing a daily physical paper, and this seems obvious to me. The economics of, of, of print, of print for newspapers doesn't make sense, I think, over the medium term, I mean the, say the 20-year horizon.  And the answer I got was like, we're not, you know, it's sort of facing the obvious and, and, and not, and just being in, in, in complete denial about it. But, so one of the best sort of summaries of what's happening today in journalism and how the internet is really tearing it apart comes from Orville Schell. He has this line where he says that the, the mainstream media, the mass media is like the Roman Empire and we're in the period of its fall and it's breaking apart into what you had in the aftermath of, of the Roman Empire, which is a series of sort of, you know, barbarian fiefdoms, but much more broken up, much more fragmented. And, you know, beside the fact that that sort of puts me in the, in the barbarian category, I think this is, I think this is very apt for what's happening. And it's not, I don't think necessarily a, I don't think necessarily a bad thing. I think there's a lot of romanticism about the world that most of us were born into, where no matter which, whichever city you lived in, there were one or two big metropolitan newspapers. There were three national news networks that sort of defined what the news was. And that did give a, basically a common experience across, to a great extent, and across class, across ideological divides that everybody watched, well, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, whoever, whoever it was. But that's a relatively, that's a relatively new model of what journalism is. And I think there are a lot of reasons why it wasn't necessarily a good one. So the, the breaking up that the internet is forcing, I think is, is a good thing. And what we, I think what we, what we see now, what we've seen for the last decade or so, and what we'll probably see for the next decade or two, is a vast transition. Sort of a, a very, well, very uncomfortable if you're in the journalism field. But an example of, of creative destruction, of seeing one entire model of, of business and news reporting being destroyed and then another one coming into existence. I think it's, I think it's an era of, will be an era of, it's good for journalism, but probably bad for journalists. In the same way that any great economic transition is.  And yet, for a century, for the people who were, ground down in those gears, it was terrible. And I see this in my own work, and it's really, it's, it's hard to even talk about. I get, we hire, we have entry-level jobs, reporting jobs. I hope that's not me. We have entry-level reporting jobs that only pay enough to, you know, support someone relatively recently out of college. These are not, these are not jobs with, with, with great salaries. And yet, each time we, we offer one, I will get some application from a, some very senior, incredibly talented investigative journalist. Some people who are how, at least within the journalism community, people who are household names, applying for one of these jobs.  And it gives you a chilling feeling for what's happening in this profession, the human costs of the, of the, of that turnover. So, I want to talk about this model that, that we have, either we've created or in some ways I think it's, it's created us. What we do, how we do it, and how it, how it might fit into what the, what the future of journalism, one part of what the future of journalism might be like. The one thing that besides having lower salaries and, and, and working longer hours, the thing that's really distinctive about us as a news organization is the way that we use readers and input from readers as a constituent part of our reporting model. There's a lot of every news organization today. There's a, there's a huge push for interactivity and, and I'll leave it at that, interactivity, which often there's the phrase and then people try to figure out how they can, what they can do with it because it's just an important thing to do. I think often it's, it's, it's packaging and it's, it's seen as kind of window dressing separate from the kind of the, the actual work of reporting, which is fairly similar to what it's been like for half a century at, at, you know, major newspapers and so forth. But for us, it, it really is central. And there's three aspects of that that I want to talk about. I'm going to talk about a few stories that I worked on that, that where the kind of the model came together. The first is intimacy with readers, which is probably something that anybody who's, who's worked in internet journalism will be familiar with. We, you know, before I, before I started doing this, I, I was in print journalism and I'll still occasionally do something in print. And if you write from my experience, maybe it's, maybe it's because of stuff I write in print isn't that interesting. But you, you, when I've written something in, say, The New Yorker, which has this huge circulation, you'll get maybe a couple of responses. You know, three or four people will, will send you an email or a letter kind of, you know, responding to what, to what you wrote. We get on an average day probably anywhere between five and 800 emails.  And we, it's no longer respond, I'm no longer able to, to, to answer all of them. But we're, we're in that constant contact. And so there's that intimacy with the readers that makes the kind of feedback and tips that we need possible. The other is a style of, a style of writing that I would call iterative where instead of having packaged pieces that we work, someone who works a few days on and kind of puts them all together with a, the lead and a nut graph and, and like that, we're doing iterative dispatches as a story evolves. And that means that when we're reporting on a story, it's always sort of in process. And we can, in that sense, make use of that, of that feedback. So the, the two things really lock together. And the last is to be able to access networks of information based on your readership. And so these, these three things are really core to, to what we do and I think how we've been able to, what we have been able to break stories that have at least at first eluded the mainstream media or traditional, traditional press. There are three, I started doing this in, in at the very end of 2000. So I've been doing it for about eight years. And from the beginning, that aspect of, of that kind of interaction with readers and how I was able to draw on that knowledge base, to draw on, to readers could become sources that had special knowledge of particular, you know, particular areas, was always clear to me intuitively and I used it. But it wasn't until the middle, a period of about six or seven months, starting in late 2004, where there were, there were a few stories that were actually the kind of reporting I do is, is always, it's definitely opinion journalism and there's always been a sort of a backdrop of, of, of activism in it. But three, three stories that were probably in themselves more, more activism than I would normally be comfortable with, but they seemed at, at the time to, to, to merit it. The first was, this is a, I don't know how many people will remember this story, but Sinclair Broadcasting is a company that owns local TV stations around the United States. And towards the end of the 2004 presidential race, they, it's, it's owned by a, the ownership is, is very right wing. And they were going to broadcast a, you know, kind of a, a made for TV movie, which was basically a Swiftboat movie. It was the people who had made the Swiftboat commercials and they were going to do like a whole Swiftboat documentary. So it was a case of something that campaign finance laws are really not quite equipped to deal with and it seemed outrageous to me and I was writing about it and, and, you know, can we do a kind of going back and forth with readers? Can we do FCC complaints or, you know, what, it's, it's, it's so outrageous how, what, what can be done about this besides the, you know, sort of militant whining that is one normally resorts to.  But the keys are local advertisers, not the national advertisers, but the local advertisers that advertise on the individual stations. So whatever that local station is in Minneapolis, who are their local advertisers? And, you know, I know nothing about how that industry works. So this was sort of one of those things that makes sense once you hear it, but, you know, I didn't know that and that led to getting readers in these different markets to find out who the advertisers were, publish the list of advertisers which then led other people to basically threaten to boycott the products of the advertisers that were indirectly underwriting this movie. And before long there was a database that someone else had set up about, you know, all the advertisers in all the different markets and, you know, it evolved very quickly and it actually had some measure of success. A few months after obviously the profoundly disappointing result of the 2004 presidential election there was another case where the House Republican caucus sort of flushed with their victory, went ahead and changed the rules that governed the leadership of their caucus. And one of those rules was that if a member of the leadership were indicted, he had to step down. And this was right about the time when Tom DeLay knew he was about to be indicted. So their first act as a re-elected majority was to, you know, enable Tom DeLay's criminal actions sort of in advance, which is not the kind of thing you would think that a politician would want to do, you know, out in the light of day. They did it in a private meeting with a show of, unrecorded show of hands and so forth. And it struck me, this was one of those cases where if light could be shined on the individual people in question, no one could, no one would stand behind this. And so what I ended up doing was getting readers to call the offices of their local representatives and ask.  And not surprisingly, no one wanted to admit whether they had voted for this thing or not. And so we were able to, or at the time it was just me, able to mobilize a few thousand people across the country who were relatively quickly able to reveal who had voted what way on this measure. And eventually it led to, repeal isn't exactly the right word, but they basically couldn't stand behind it and it eventually ended up being withdrawn. And then the following year during the President Bush's attempt to privatize social security, by this point with these other cases, I was getting more of a sense of how it was possible in cases like this to mobilize these networks of people that were able to bring forward information that conventional journalism was both unable and in some ways uninterested in pulling together. And the focus there was to find out where individual members of Congress stood on this issue, whether they supported privatization of social security or not. And so we came up with short lists, just the people who are on an odd side of the issue, Democrats who were supporting it, Republicans who were against it. And during that period, you know, there are insider trade sheets in Washington, D.C. that the political class basically uses, the hotline, the national journal group stuff, where this kind of information is generally put together. But I think during that period of time, I don't think there's any question that our site, Talking Points Memo, had the best intelligence than anybody had, than the people in the White House had, than the people in Congress had, over just where each member of Congress stood. And that was very powerful to have that information and be able to shine a light on the different people. And that was all from having, out of an audience of, say, 150,000 readers a day, five, 10,000 readers who were going to town hall meetings and asking questions and recording what was said, who were receiving constituent mails, who were calling the offices of their representatives. And we didn't pass this on without checking it, but stuff like that is easy to verify once you know what to look for. So we were able to find out, I don't have any doubt, we were able to find out when people were changing their positions before the leadership in the Congress were finding out, for the people in the White House. In fact, I know we were usually ahead of what the White House knew. Now, these were each, this is journalism, but with a heavy tinge of activism to it. But it was at that point that I really could sort of see, like, wow, if you did this in a concerted way for reporting on political corruption, you know, you could do some amazing things. And that's when I started basically hiring other reporters and we built out sort of to the organization that we have right now where this is the model that we use in everything, in all the reporting that we do. We're heavily dependent on the tips, the feedback and the specialized knowledge of different readers when we come to different stories. Now, one thing to say about this, I think in traditional journalism, journalists get used to using what I would call professional sources. If you're a political reporter in Washington, D.C., you have the people you talk to, those sources have always been sources. They're sources for other reporters. It's kind of in the nature of what they do. Sometimes they're actually like, you know, press secretaries and stuff like that. But more often they are people who are acculturated to the way that journalism works. They know how to contact reporters. They know how to be contacted. And those can be very valuable, especially for stories where you're trying to find out some specific thing that happened in the White House or something like that. But there's a lot of other information out there, a lot of other knowledge out there. Not by people who just have some opinion, but often by people who have the most specialized knowledge or the most inside knowledge of a given topic. But they're not acculturated to the way that journalism works.  And that intimacy and that iterative approach that we have to our journalism, they come to us. And that, again, is what gives us often a, you know, competitive advantage against more traditional news organizations. So, you know, we've been doing this as a group for about three years now. And we've had a number of stories that I think we've been able to get a jump on because of this model. And there's a lot of attention to it because the rest of the journalism community is under so much stress, both in editorial and in business terms. So, to conclude, there's, you know, we exist in kind of, we're new players in the existing journalistic ecosystem. We're both, I think the traditional press is to some degree dependent on us because they often find stories that they later report on, come up to us originally. And in our reporting, we're obviously highly dependent on them because we make use of the legwork that traditional news organizations do. So it's a very interdependent kind of relationship. There's a lot of fear today about the future of journalism. And I think a lot of journalists understandably worry whether there's going to be the money, the business models to sustain journalism as they know it even over into the next few years. I don't have any doubt, I mean, there's one issue and that's the fault of Craig's list, that that has really been a sock at the gut at newspapers because in the old technological world, newspapers were the only place you could place classified ads. And that was a huge source of revenue and that's gone and going. But for the rest of advertising, you know, you're not going to run out of people who want to advertise and I don't think you're going to run out of people who are interested in news. So I don't have much doubt that journalism will be just as vibrant 20 years from now as it is today. I would say even probably more vibrant because I think that broken up, more fragmented series of fiefdoms or, you know, Germanic successor states of news organizations brings more vitality and more cross-cutting opinions to news. Having said that, it goes back to what I said at the beginning of my talk about thinking about something like the Industrial Revolution. These things tend to work out well over the 50-year time horizon, but in the short term, the human cost is awful and the journalistic cost I think will be under a great deal of stress over that period of time. So I think the question that journalists and people who are trying to figure out how the Internet is affecting journalism are asking is how do you come up, not just with editorial models, but business models that will allow the kind of, you know, if you take the thousand plus editorial staff at the New York Times, where's the business model that will allow that kind of journalistic experience and professionalism and output, what will sustain it? Because that's really not clear right now. Again, I have no doubt that eventually, I was going to say Ford Motors, but they might not be around in 20 years, but whoever is, whoever's selling stuff, they'll still want to advertise and the news will give them a place to advertise. But that's, again, that's the medium to long-term time horizon and it's really a question and I think one that is going to require a great deal of creativity and a great deal of, frankly, for journalists, human suffering to figure out what those are so you can continue to sustain all that makes journalism important in a democratic society. That's what I have to say. I guess we're going to do Q&A now. So do you want to? Sure. Can I forgive one small indulgence? When Colin McClay was talking about the wonderful staff here, he didn't talk about himself, the guy who runs the Berkman Center on a day-to-day basis, and Colin's one of the reasons it's so great to be a fellow at the Berkman Center. Okay, this works now, too loud. So let's get quickly going with Q&A with Josh. By the way, he is too modest to tell you that one of his recent projects of this sort led to his winning of a George Polk Award, which, in a business that hands itself awards on a ridiculously constant basis, actually means something. It's a great thing to get, and amazing that we have you here. Let's start here. Shout it out, please. All right. Shout out your question. Do we have only one, Mike? Okay. Thanks. Hi. My name is Tim Wu. I was a Berkman alumni 10 years ago when I was a law student here. My question, I've sort of spent the same thinking about the same thing a lot as what the, you know, what are the business structures that might survive in 10 years from now? And I was wondering if you had thought that the newspapers to survive may have to be more in some sense like universities. That is to say that maybe the only things that will really survive in the future are organizations with giant endowments that maybe, I mean, when you look at them, you know, I agree with the way the economy is that the math doesn't add up. I write for another magazine which barely breaks even, Slate Magazine, and they're doing everything they can. And you know, that's paying people very poorly and so on and so forth. So maybe the only way you can have the sort of Baghdad bureau with 60 people working in it in New York Times, the only times we have these things are in non-commercial entities and maybe the future has to be in giant endowment based media. I guess I feel like the answer is, well, there's definitely a huge place for a non-profit sector in media, but my own sense is that media really has to be able to exist in the marketplace to be sustainable, to be independent in a way that it needs to be, to be hungry for lack of a better word. I mean, I, when I first sort of transitioned out of academics into journalism, my first experience was working in a, you know, for a non-profit based political magazine that, you know, lost money like crazy. And we blew a lot of money because we weren't existing in a market context. Now, I'm not, there's a very important place for a non-profit sector, but I feel like, again, for the dominant media I think has to be able to survive and sustain itself in the market economy. And that probably means, I think that probably means a number of smaller, hungrier, more flexible organizations. I mean, this is, I don't necessarily like the political import of what I'm saying, but I think that's probably where we're going. Hello, hello. I'm Lewis Hyde. I'm a fellow here at Berkman. And when I'm not a Berkman, I teach at a little college in Ohio. And I would like, as you talked, I thought, well, I would love to use this, a Talking Points Memo person to help me with a project of my own. And so my question is twofold. One is, how do you deal with people who come and want to use you? And then I'll explain what I'd like to use for. I cover a lot of ground. I think this fall there's going to be a concerted attempt to suppress the student vote. And it's an issue at my college, Kenyon College in Ohio. So we're going to try to document it and watch what's happening and stuff. But it would be wonderful to have this be visible nationally and coordinated and so forth. So I'm thinking, gosh, I'll write this guy some memos. And we, a lot of, we often take information that people have put together from whatever, whatever means. And then we check it out, see if it, you know, if it checks out. And then we'll publicize it. And one of the freedoms that we have, because we're sort of a niche publication, we have a trust relationship with our readers that they'll often let us sort of take them on what may seem like an out of the way or kind of, you know, even down a rabbit hole. But they trust us enough that it's, that there's something there that's important, which is, which is a real freedom we have. So we're always looking for stuff like that, is I guess what I would say. Phil Hallenbaker, back in 92 when we were building the web, a big part of what we were trying to achieve was actually keeping the mainstream media accountable.  How are we going to hold you accountable? I don't think we have to worry about that. You know, I think this, well, of course. Of course. I totally agree with you. I, you know, I think the same means that have been used to date. I mean, I think that, you know, one of the, there's always been a lot of technological triumphalism swirling around discussions of the web. And I think a lot of it doesn't hold up. But one of the things that does, and I think has withstood all of the incursions of corporate power and wealth and government and everything, is that at the end of the day it is still very cheap, almost costless to start putting out information, to start publishing information. And I think that that is, the web is not going to develop in a way that evolves past that. So it is always going to be, you're always going to have very low barriers of entry to publicizing adversarial or critical voices. So I think basically the same way. That's what I'm saying. Yeah, hi, I'm Richard Sobel and I was a fellow a long time ago and partly an academic and have a project called the Cyber Privacy Project. This follows up a little on our conversation earlier and the comment about student voter suppression. I'm interested in your thoughts on voter suppression generally and how it relates to sort of obscure issues of the firing of U.S. attorneys who did not pursue voter allegations for fraud. The idea that there is a lot of voter fraud, the use of IDs to skew votes, some of the substantive of politics that you're familiar with and written about. I think voter suppression is a very important and too little talked about issue. I think that even though there were a lot of different issues behind why those U.S. attorneys were fired, that most of them were fired because they were not willing to use the power of their office in basically the service of the Republican party by going out and I would say trumping up cases of alleged voter fraud to create basic, you know, to create political mechanisms to make it harder for people to vote. So I think it's a very important issue. I think it is one that the Republican party has exploited to try to prevent Democrats from voting. That's what I would say. Edward Pincas, the Sunday edition of the New York Times costs $5 at the newsstand, $0.75 to download it to your Amazon Kindle. And, you know, and free if you just want to see it on the web. You know, I think that, I don't think the economics makes sense to produce physical papers anymore and, you know, I'm old enough that I definitely, that's a real bummer on any number of levels. I think on the web you lose the serendipitous nature of physical newspaper that you're reading the story, or for me, you know, I'm reading the story about something happening in Washington and there's, you know, laying right next to it the story about something going on in India that I wanted, that I actually want to read but I never would have known I wanted to read it until I happened across it. That said, I think the financial aspects of it are too obvious to miss. And frankly, the environmental aspects of it, I mean, I think when you think about it, we all treat it as, at least those of us who are over 30 probably treat it as just a given that there's, you know, that we produce these big physical newspapers that have a shelf life of a few hours.  So I, you know, I don't say this lightly. I think it's a profound cultural loss to lose what we all know as reading physical newspapers. But I think they're unsustainable financially because it's cheaper and quicker to do it online. Eric Roxas with Cades Foundation. I'd like to know your thoughts on the recent agreement between TechCrunch, very popular technology business news blog, now being republished now on the Washington Post website. They've now kept out the comment section, which is probably what makes TechCrunch quite interesting. But still there's an interesting melding there and also subsequently wired reaction to it that's saying the Washington Post, now you've given up all integrity because you're partnered with Michael Irvington. You know, there's been, we get approached a lot by people who want to buy us or do whatever with us and it's happening all over the place. And even sort of from the inside, I mean, one of the things that I like about the Times is it's blogs. I think the blogs that the Times has created on its own are really, I enjoy them, I think they're good. I think this is the kind of evolution, the sort of incremental evolution of new models and consolidation and trying to bring some of what these non-traditional medias have and the relationship with their audiences. That these big companies that have tons and tons of capital who can give it to these people who own these websites are doing. And I guess that's about all I think. I think it's just natural. And I think it's just part of the experimenting process we're seeing. Hi, I'm wondering another piece of what's come along with the expanded information communication capacities that we've got with the internet and with blogging has to do with the capacity of the state to engage in surveillance and extra legal measures against journalists to suppress information that they don't like. And I'm wondering from your experience whether you feel that the kinds of protections that exist for journalists of the old school media are sufficient or whether the way that they're being adapted is meeting the needs of political bloggers like yourself. You know, I think all of our laws and traditions that protect journalists supposedly in the role they're supposed to play in society, were all put together without a lot of thought, conscious thought of the key barrier to entry issue. And that was that you didn't really have to worry too much about who's a journalist and who's not a journalist because once someone spends five million dollars to open a newspaper, they must be journalists because why would someone blow that kind of money? So this issue of who's a journalist and who's not, you know, it's natural to kind of say, well, everybody's a journalist now, but that can't be entirely true because the same protections can't necessarily, you know, you're going to have people using it for other, using those protections for other means. You know, I would, I think I would say that in my experience, we have not had a lot of problems with that. I mean, I don't know why I'm attempting fate here. You know, we do all the things to protect ourselves that conventional news organizations do. We make sure, we make sure what we're saying is accurate. We have insurance protections and so forth. You know, I think that's really the key, the key, almost everything is in that key right there that everything that exists at the moment is premised on not needing to really determine who's a journalist and who's not. And clearly in this environment where the cost to entry is so low, that kind of throws everything, that doesn't work anymore. I don't know how you, I don't know of a good mechanism to make those determinations, but I would say that from my experience, almost everything that matters comes down to finding a new way to make that determination. I'm, we're going to do a lightning round of four questions, the four people who caught my eye and then we'll ask Josh to respond to any of those and then we're going to wrap up because we're already slightly over time. So first person. You said that competition and urgency are one of the reasons that the, that nonprofits won't work for journalism. Aren't there sort of abundant examples like Wikipedia and Global Voices of situations where nonprofits have created great content in journalism? Absolutely. Let me just quickly break the lightning round rules. I think, I think nonprofits are very important and they do all sorts, there's all sorts of things that they can do uniquely. I guess my point is I don't think it is, I don't think it's sustainable for what, for what the fourth estate needs to be that we say that it no longer, you can no longer make money in, you know, producing journalism. So we're going to, we're going to assume it's all money losing. We're going to do it in the nonprofit sector. I don't think as a whole that's workable. It's not that I don't think that there are all sorts of places where journalism on a nonprofit model makes sense and can do things better than for profit. Okay, now the lightning round. All right. Oh, I already went. All right. Real quick. Can you speak a little bit about intimacy as one of your goals and how it applies to other sort of community aggregated data websites? I'm wondering if you can tell us what you think you should be called. We want to frame you. You're not a traditional journalist. Somebody described you as a political blogger. You said you were a opinion journalist with an activist streak. Is there a word to describe you? I think just journalist opinion journalist. Yeah. Last one here. What's your evaluation of the emergence of blogging by traditional news organizations, particularly around the 2008 campaign, I mean, the Atlantic Monthly, the Tribune, etc., etc., etc. You know, I think it's great. I think it's inevitable. I think some of my, a few of my former employees who are making more money now that they're working for these other organizations, I think it is, again, part of this natural evolution. I think some of these organizations are doing it really well in a way that isn't just kind of using the blog name, but taking advantage of some of the unique possibilities of blogs on the intimacy question, whether it's the trust of our readers, the ability for them to feel comfortable to come forward to us, it's really all about creating a kind of an atmosphere of trust between ourselves, our organization, people who make it up, and readers, so information, I guess I would say, it's really so information can move as fluidly as possible in both directions, and that is, obviously, you want to be credible to them. We also write in ways that are very different from the way that traditional journalists use. We will use the first person. We will talk about the process of reporting in the reports. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the more conventional way of doing it. I was taught to do that, but I do think it creates a distance between readers and reporters that makes drawing on that knowledge base more difficult, how I put it. What do you call yourself? Journalist. Opinion journalism? Journalism?  Certain things are not journalism at all. It's kind of an open form of diary, and other things that are journalism, so it's not at all to denigrate. I mean, this is the model that I've kind of built my professional life around.  You're unlikely to see a photo of a newborn baby on the front page of the New York Times. However, if you go back to the last Thursday, you will see a lovely picture of Daniel on the Talking Points memo front page. Let's thank Josh Marshall.


You know on YouTube, when the video is broken up into sections and those sections are labelled beautifully under the red line of the play bar at the bottom of the video, they're called chapters and here is how you can make chapters on your YouTube videos using timestamps in the description. Hello, I'm Neil Mossy, thanks for clicking on this video, welcome back to the Happy Hearts, I'm a development producer helping high achieving performers and creators like you to get ideas out of your head and out into the world to make people happy right here on YouTube. So thanks for clicking on this video, let's go into my YouTube studio dashboard right now and there is a video. Yeah, I just don't care what other people think because it wasn't for them. So as you can see along the bottom here on my episode of Great British YouTubers podcast, you can see right away on the time code at the bottom, you can see that this section is actually labelled Great British YouTube podcast with Neil Mossy and El Meadows. If I skip it forward to the next chapter, it previews the title, is there something other YouTubers do and when I skip to it, you can see that that's the title of that section and if I move the cursor to this other bar for the next section, what would you say to your 1000 subscriber self? So it's a really handy way of breaking up your YouTube video to help the viewer navigate their way around the video. I want to add chapters to this video, make thumbnails for free. If I punch this up, this is the YouTube video that is actually live. In the description, the chapters aren't there yet. So if I hover my cursor around the play bar, there are no chapters there at all. It's just a plain line with no words underneath. We're going to change that. Now the way to add chapters to your video is to firstly start with the magic number 0 colon 00. That's not enough to trigger it, but it's the first thing we need to do. Now most people put intro here. I've been trying something else and you might like to try this too because 00 is pretty much always going to be the intro, but I've taken this as an opportunity to, I don't know, maybe get a bit more rankability by actually putting the title of the video at 00. That is essentially what is happening at the start of my video. So I'm going to call 0000, make thumbnails for free on MacBook Pro with Keynote. And then let's watch the video just to get another title. If you have an Apple Mac, here is an app or program called Keynote. Right, so that might be my next chapter. The start of this section is at 0.16, that's 0 minutes colon 16 seconds. Let's type in here, 0 colon 16 and I'm going to call this section how to download Keynote for free and we'll watch on for the next section. It makes slides in only two sizes, first size is right. So this is at 0.32, we're going to call this how to set slide size in Apple Keynote. Now it might not look like it, but something magical has just happened. If I hit save, now watch what happens when I view the video on YouTube. There they are. Can you see it?  Look what you've done. The chapters have appeared, so all you need to make chapters, to add chapters to your YouTube video are just three time codes, one after the other and for those time codes to be going up. What happens if the time codes aren't sequential, so go 0.0, 0.32 and 0.16, if I save that, you can see the chapters have disappeared. So the first rule is start with 0 colon 0.0 and then put the time codes on a new line and have at least three time codes where the times are going up. I have now added a whole load of time codes, time stamps for every section of this video. I'll hit save and oh my goodness, I've lost so many time stamps from the browser crashing or closing, so I always try to keep hitting save as much as possible. I want to show you something I was worried about with the colons over here at 3.25. Keynote tips. I've put a dash to show zoom out of side and make picture bigger. What if I were to change that to a colon like that? I was worried that this colon in a description might completely wreck the chapters, but let me show you. If I hit save and we'll watch the video on YouTube, you can see that the chapters are all there. So you can add colons within a chapter description. That's something I wasn't sure would work. Something else on that note, if I wanted to add a YouTube link or any other link that has a colon and slashes in it, would that link also wreck the chapters? Would it stop chapters being added to your video? Let's hit save. As you can see, I'm getting fed up of me waving there, but as you can see, I'm moving my cursor along. The chapters are still there. That hasn't affected the chapters at all. They are still working. So that was something I was worried about. I hope that helps. And I hope this helps you to add chapters to your videos. There's a whole YouTube help center page on that. I'll put the link in the description below. Something else that I do is that I make a copy of the time codes and I go down to the comments and I always add it as a comment to help viewers navigate it. But also maybe, who knows? Maybe this information helps YouTube and Google to rank my video even more for these subjects. So if I save this as a comment, I can go one better than that. I can give it a like and on these three dots here, I can go down to pin and pin that comment to the top of the comments. So this comment that has all of the time codes for the chapters of this YouTube video are right there at the top of the comments. And I think it just helps. I think it helps viewers to find their way in the video and who knows, it might even help the video itself to rank better for these subjects. Has this helped? Leave a comment below. If you have any questions, I'd love to hear from you. Even if you just reached this point of the video, say hi, it'd be great to hear from you. And if you're feeling even kinder, why not give me a thumbs up? If you're feeling even more awesome, why not hit the subscribe button? And if you're feeling even more awesome than that, you might like this video right here. This is the actual video that I've been breaking up into chapters, how I make thumbnails for my YouTube videos. Good luck with adding chapters to your videos and thanks for watching. Can you please help my daddy get 10,000 subscribers? Just click in his face. Thanks, bye. All right, this is going to be the proper one, mate.


Live from Las Vegas, it's the Cube! Covering AWS re-invent 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web Services and Intel, along with its ecosystem partners. Hello everyone, welcome back to the Cube's day three coverage of AWS re-invent in Las Vegas. It's the Cube's coverage. Want to thank Intel for being the headline sponsor for the Cube, two sets. Without Intel we wouldn't make it happen. We're here extracting the signal from the noise. As usual, wall-to-wall, silken angle, the Cube coverage. I'm John Furrier with Stu Miniman, doing a keynote analysis from Werner Vogel. Stu, you know, Werner, they always got this format. Jassy kicks it off, you get the partner thing on day two, and then they say Werner lasts, could nerd out on all the good stuff. Containers, Kubernetes, all under the hood stuff. So, let's jump in, keynote analysis. What's your take? What's Werner's posture this year? What's the vibe? What's the overall theme of the keynote? Well, first of all, John, to answer the question that everybody asks when Werner takes the stage, this year's t-shirt was Osdorp Posse. So, Werner usually either has a Seattle band or it's usually a Dutch DJ, something like that. So, he always delivers the geek crowd there, and really after sitting through Werner's keynote, I think everybody walks out with AWS certification because architecturally we dig into all these environments. So, right, you mentioned they started out with the master class on how Amazon built their hypervisor. Super important, Nitro underneath is the secret sauce. When they bought Anapurna Labs, we knew that those chips would be super important going forward, but this is what is going to be the driver for Outposts. It is the Outposts is the building block for many of the other services announced this week, and absolutely the number one thing I'm hearing in the ecosystem is around Outposts, but Fargate and Firecracker, micro databases and managing containers, they had some enterprises up on stage talking about transformation, picking up on the themes that Andy started with his three hour keynote just yesterday, but it's a lighter on the news. One of the bigger things out there is we will poke Amazon about how open and transparent they are about what they're doing, and one of the things they announced was the Amazon Builders Library. So it's not just getting up on stage and saying, hey, we've got really smart people and we architected these things and you need to use all of our tools, but hey, this is how we do things. Reminded me a little bit of just echoes of what I heard from GitLab, who of course is fully open source, fully transparent, but Amazon making progress. It's Adrian Cockroft and that team has moved on open source. The container group, I had a great interview yesterday with Deepak Singh and Abby Fuller. The container group actually has a roadmap up on containers there, so sharing a lot of deep knowledge and good customers, talking about how they're taking advantage, transforming their business into serverless. I mean, John, coming out of Andy's keynote, I was like, there wasn't a lot of security and there wasn't a lot of serverless, and while serverless has been something that we know is transforming Amazon underneath the covers, we finally got to hear a little bit more about not just Lambda, but yes, Lambda, but the rest of it as to how serverless is transforming underneath. You know, Jassy's got a long three hour keynote, 30 announcements, so he has to cut, save some minutes there. So, Werner, we were expecting to go in a little bit more deeper dive on this transformational architecture. What did you learn about what they're proposing, what they're saying, or continuing to say around how enterprises should be reborn in the cloud, because that's the conversation here. Again, we're the memes that are developing where take the T out of cloud native, it's cloud naive, if you're not doing it right, you're going to be pretty naive, and then reborn in the cloud is the theme. So, cloud native, born in the cloud, that's proven. Reborn in the cloud is kind of the theme we're hearing. Did he show anything? Did he talk about what that architecture is for transformation? He did, actually, it was funny. I mean, watching the social stream while things are going on, there was actually a CUBE alumni that I follow that we've interviewed at this show, and he's like, if we've heard one of these journeys transformation, haven't we heard them all? And I said, while the high level message may be similar, is I'm going to transform, I'm going to use data, when you looked at what they were doing, and this is a significant vanguard, the financial institutions, Dave Vellante commenting that, the big banks, John, we know Goldman Sachs, we know JPMorgan, these banks that they have huge IT budgets and very smart staffs there, years ago would have said, oh, we don't need to use those services, we'll do it ourselves. Well, vanguard talking about how they're transforming, re-architecting, my troop services, I love your term being reborn cloud native, because that is the architecture. Are you cloud native or, I used to call it, you're kind of cloud native or kind of a little bit faux, cloud naive is a great term too, so been digging in and it is resonating as to, look, transformation is hard. This is not trying to move the organizational faster than it will naturally happen, it's painful, there's skill sets, there's those organizational pieces, there are politics inside the company that can slow you down and the enterprise is not known for speed, the enterprises that will continue to exist going forward better have taken this methodology, they need to be more agile and move faster. Well, the thing about the cloud naive thing that I like, and first of all, I agree with reborn in the cloud, we coined the term in the queue, but that's kind of got this born again kind of vibe to it, which I think is what they're trying to say. But the cloud naive is some of the conversations we're hearing in the community and the customer base of these clouds, which is there are, and Jassy said in his keynote, there are now two types of developers and customers, the ones who want the low level building blocks and ones who want more custom or solution oriented packages. So if you look at Microsoft Azure and Oracle and other clouds, they're trying to appeal to the folks that are classic IT. Some are saying that that's a naive approach because it's a false sense of cloud, false sense of security, they got a little cloud, is it really true cloud, is it really true cloud native? So there's an interesting confluence between what true cloud is from a cloud native standpoint, and yet all the big success stories are transformations, not transitions. And so to me, I'm watching this IT market which is going to have trillions of dollars in, are they just transitioning old IT with a new coat of paint or is it truly a skill, a truly an architectural transformation and does it impact the business model? That to me is the question. What's your reaction to that? Yeah, so John, I think actually the best example of that cloud native architecture is the thing we're actually all talking about this week but is misunderstood. AWS Outpost was announced last year, it is GA with the AWF native services this year first. The VMware version is going to come out early in 2020 but here's why I think it is super exciting but misunderstood. When Microsoft did Azure Stack, they said we're going to give you an availability zone basically in your data center. It wasn't giving you, it was trying to extend the operational model but it was a different stack, it was different hardware, they had to put these things together and really it's been a failure. The architectural design point of Outpost is different. It is the same stack. It is an extension of your availability zone so don't think of it as I've got the cloud in my data center, it's no, no, no. What I need for low latency and locality, it's here but starting off there's no S3 in it because we're like wait, what do you mean there's no S3 in it? I want to do all these services and everything.  So why would you say it's sharing, if you're creating data and doing data, of course I want it in my S3 bucket. You know, that makes sense. Now they're going to add S3 next year but they are going to be very careful about what services do and don't go on. This is not, oh, Amazon announces lots of things, of course it's on Outpost. It has the security, it has the operational model, it fits into the whole framework, it can be disconnected some but it is very different. I actually think it's a little bit of a disservice. You can actually go see the rack. I took a selfie with it and put it out on Twitter and it's cool gear. We all love to see the rack and see the cables and things like that but my recommendation to Amazon would be just put a black curtain around it because paying no attention to what's here, Amazon manages it for you. And yes, it's Amazon gear with the nitro chip underneath there. So customers should not have to think about it. It's just when they're doing that architecture which from an application standpoint it's a hybrid architecture, John. Some services stay more local because of latency but others it's that transformation and it's moving. The cloud, the edge, my data center, things are much more mobile and can you to change and move over time? Well this brings you mentioned hybrid. I think to me the Outpost announcement in terms of unpacking that is all about validation of hybrid. VMware's got a smile on their face. Sanjay Poonan came in because Gelsinger kind of was pitching hybrid. We were challenging him then but truly this means cloud operations has come. This is now very clear, there's no debate and this is what multi-cloud ultimately will look like but hybrid cloud and public cloud is now the architecture of IT. There's no debate because Outpost is absolute verification that the cloud operating model with the cloud as the center of gravity for all the reasons, scale, lower costs, management but moving the cloud operations on premises or the edge proves hybrid is here to stay and that's where the money is. So John, there's a small nuance I'll say there because hybrid we often think of public and private as equal. The Amazon positioning is it's Outposts. It's an extension of what we're doing. The public cloud is the main piece. The edge and the Outposts are just extensions where we're reaching out as opposed to if I look at what VMware's doing, I've got my data center footprint. You look at the HCI solution out there. Outpost is not an HCI competitor and people looking at this misunderstand the fundamental architecture there. So absolutely hybrid is real, edge is important. Amazon is extending their reach but all I'm saying is that nuance is still Amazon has matured their thinking on hybrid or even multicloud when you talked to Andy he actually would talk about multicloud but still at the center of gravity is the public cloud and the Amazon services. It's not saying that oh yeah like let's wrap our rounds around all of your existing legacy. The reason why I like the cloud naive, take the T out of cloud native and it's cloud naive is because there is a lot of naivety around what cloud actually is. So don't forget Outposts, cloud itself. And if you look at Microsoft for instance, love Microsoft, I think they do an amazing work. They're catching up as fast as they can but and they play the card. Well we're large scale too but the difference between Amazon and Microsoft Azure is very clear. Microsoft's had these data centers for MSN, IE browsers, global infrastructure for around the world for themselves and literally overnight they have to serve other people. And if you look at Gardner's results their downtime has been pretty much at an all time high. So what you're seeing is the inefficiencies and the diseconomies of scale for Microsoft trying to copy Amazon because they now have to serve millions of customers anywhere. This is what Jassy was telling me in my one on one which is there's no compression algorithm for experience. What he's basically saying is when you try to take shortcuts there's diseconomies of scale. Amazon's got years of economies of scale they're launching new services so Jassy's bet is to make the capabilities. The problem is Microsoft sales force do is out there and AWS can't compete where they're not present and they go into their customers saying we got you covered. And frankly that's working like real well. Yeah so John, we had theCUBE at Microsoft Ignite I've done that show for the last two years and my takeaway at Microsoft this year was they build bridges. If you are mostly legacy, everything in my data center versus cloud native I'm going to build you bridge. They have five different developer groups to work with you where you are and they'll go there. Amazon is a little bit more aggressive with cloud native transformation. You need to change your mindset so Microsoft's a little bit more moderate and it is safer for companies to just say well I trust Microsoft and I've worked with Microsoft and I've got an enterprise license agreement so I'll slowly make change but here's the challenge John. We know if you really want to change your business you can't get there incrementally. Transformation's important for innovation so the battle is amazing. You can't be wrong for betting on either Microsoft or Amazon these days. Architecturally I think Amazon has clear the broadest and deepest out there. They keep proving some of their environments and it has been impressive to watch this. Well the economies of scale versus disadvantage scale discussion is huge because ultimately if Microsoft stays on that path of just we got it too and they continue down that path they could be on the wrong side of the history and I'll tell you why I see that and why I'm evaluating Microsoft. One they have the data center so can they retool fast enough? Can they eliminate that technical debt? Because ultimately they're making a bet and the true bet is if they become just an IT transition in my opinion will lose in the long run. Microsoft's going all in on nope we're not the old guard, we're the new guard. So there's an interesting line being formed Stu and if Microsoft doesn't get cloud native and doesn't bring true scale, true reliability at the capabilities of Amazon then it's just going to be just another IT solution and that could fall right on their face on that one. And John when we first came to the show in 2013 it was very developer centric and could Amazon be successful in wooing the enterprise? You look around the show, the answer is a resounding yes. Amazon is there, they have not lost the developers they're doing the enterprise. When you talk to Andy you talked about the bottoms up and the top down leadership and working there and across the board as opposed to Google. Google has been trying and not making great progress moving to the enterprise and that has been challenging. Oh, I got to tell you Stu, last night I was out and I got some really good information on Jedi and I was networking around and kind of going incognito mode doing the normal reporting and I found someone who was sharing some really critical information around Jedi. Here's what I learned and this is around Microsoft. Microsoft won that Jedi deal without the capabilities to deliver on the contract. This was a direct quote from someone inside the DOD and inside the intelligence community who I got some clear information and I said to him, I go, how is that possible? He says, Microsoft won on the fact that they say they could do it. They have not yet proven any capabilities for Jedi and he even said, quote, they don't even have the data centers to support the deal. So here you have the dynamic. We say we can do it, Amazon is doing it. This is ultimately the true test of cloud naive versus cloud native. Ask the clouds, show me the proof that you could do it and I'll go with you. You've done great reporting on the Jedi. It has been a bit of a train wreck to watch what's going on in the industry with that because we know Microsoft needs to get a certain certification. They've got less than a year the clock is ticking to be able to support some of those environments. Amazon could support that today. So we knew when this started, this was Amazon's business and that there was the executive office going in and basically making sure that Amazon did not win it. So we said, there's a lot of business out there. We know Amazon's doing well in the government deals. Pat Gelsinger was on record from VMware talking about lots of government deals. Here's the thing. I also talked to someone inside the CIA community who told me that the spending in the CIA is flat. And the flatness of the spending is flat, but the demand for mission support is going exponential. So the cloud fits that bill. On the Jedi side, what we're hearing is the DOD folks love this architecture. It was not jury rig for Amazon, it was jury rig for the workload so that they're all worried that it's going to get scuttled and they don't want that project to fail. There's huge support and I think the Jedi supports the workload transformational thinking because it's completely different and that's why everyone was running scared because the old guard was getting crushed by it. But no one wants that deal to fail. They want it to go forward. So it's going to be very interesting dynamics do. If Microsoft can't deliver the goods, Amazon's back in the driver seat on that deal. And John, I guess my final takeaway, we talked a bunch about outposts, but that is a building block. AWS local zones starting first in LA for the telco media group. AWS wavelength working with the 5G providers. We had Verizon on the program here. Amazon is becoming the everywhere cloud and they really, as Dave said in your opening keynote there, shock and awe, Amazon delivers year after year. Maybe the slogan should be everything everywhere because they got a lot of capabilities. You said that everything cloud, they got everything in the store. Stu, great stuff, great analysis on the keynote from Werner Vogels. Again, more technology. I'm super excited around the momentum around Kubernetes. You know we love that. The thing cloud native is going to be absolutely legit and continue to be on a tear in 2020 and beyond. I think the 5G wavelength is going to change the network constructs because that's going to introduce new levels of kinds of policy. Managing data and compute at the edge will create new opportunities at the networking layer, which for us, you know, we love that. So I think the IoT edge is going to be a super, super valuable. We even had BlackBerry on their car group talking about the software inside the car. I mean, that's a moving mobile device of industrial strength. It's industrial IoT. So industrial IoT, IoT edge, outpost hybrid. Dude, we called this, what year? We called it 2013. And John, it's great to help our audience get a little bit more cloud native on their education and make sure that we're not as naive anymore. Stu, you're not naive. You're certainly cloud native. Born in the clouds, Stu. It's us born here, our seventh year here at Amazon Web Services. I want to thank Intel for being our headline sponsor. Without Intel support, we would not have the two stages and bringing all the wall to wall coverage. Thanks for supporting our mission, Intel. We really appreciate it. Give them a shout out. We got Andy Jassy coming on for exclusive at three o'clock, day three. Stay with us for more coverage live in Vegas for Reinvent 2019. Be right back.


We started work from office but a lot of our work these days is done online using Microsoft Teams or other online platforms. This device, the Logitech Zone Wireless is a perfect companion for such work. Let me explain why. The Logitech Zone Wireless is marketed as a system for a noisy workplace and it does a pretty good job of cutting out the background noise. However, the features that I really love about this device has nothing to do with its ability to cut out the background noise but the way it integrates with the whole work environment. The first feature that I really love about this device is its ability to connect to two devices simultaneously. It connects to your laptop using the provided wireless toggle and it connects to your mobile using Bluetooth and it seamlessly transitions between the two. If you are in the middle of a Microsoft Teams meeting and you receive a phone call, it will automatically place you on hold in Microsoft Teams until you complete the call. Once you hang up, you are automatically brought back into the Teams meeting. The Zone Wireless incorporates active noise cancellation. When you are listening to music or other media, it cuts out surrounding noise so you can stay focused. The noise cancellation feature is not on par with top-end headphones like the Bose QuietComfort series. I would rate it 5 out of 10. The other cool feature available on this device is audio monitoring. When you use active noise cancellation headphones, one big problem is that your own voice tends to sound muffled so you end up speaking louder. But not with this device. When it detects that your microphone is on, it will enable real-time audio monitoring. You can hear yourself on the headphones. Really cool. Next, let's talk about the key feature of this device. Its ability to cut out background noise when you are on a call, so the other party hears only your voice and not the background noise. Here is a sample of what I recorded when I was in office. This is an example of how audio in a normal office would sound like, especially if I am using the keyboard. Now I am in the same environment but I am using the Logitech wireless set. And this is me using the keyboard. It struggled a bit to cancel out my loud keyboard but it did a good job in eliminating the background noise. Additional features of this device? Wireless charging. Just place it on any wireless charging pad and it will start charging automatically. It has a dedicated mute on and off switch here. Alternatively, you can mute your microphone by placing it like this. The device has touch-based volume controls for increasing the volume or decreasing it. And finally, the comfort level. The fit is nice and loose, which means I can wear it the whole day without feeling any discomfort. That's my quick review of the Logitech Zone Wireless, an excellent tool for office use.


And now we come to our three fantastic contests. The first one is all about sharing your best pronials moments. What moments did you ever experience which is so memorable you'll never forget? And what compliment did you ever get from a client who was very happy?  How can you participate? Share your story and your pictures on your social media channels. And don't forget to tag us with pronials moments and pronials HQ. And of course, tag your colleagues too. Also send us an email to 40yearsatpronials.com including that story and your images. And who knows, you will win a festive but very delicious prize. Every month we will select a winner until September 2021. The second contest is all about your talent because we know that you have a lot of talent. Show us your creations on social media and tag us with pronials talents. Also tag pronials HQ and your colleagues. Also send an email to 40yearsatpronials.com and who knows, you will win a very exclusive prize. Maybe your creations will be published in our next nearly news magazine. And the last contest is about your salon. Make your salon a social media hit. Dress up in 40 years style and dress your salon up with our salon marketing tools. There will be 5 winners and for each salon, every team member will get a 40 years t-shirt. Also on our website, you will find all everything about these contests. So you can navigate to aboutpronials and find everything on our celebratewithus page. Good luck everybody, bye bye.


I'm the newest FTO so if y'all see any cadets, I don't care what shift, what time, whatever. If you see a cadet walking around, they're looking for help and I'll see them. Just let me know and I'll pick them up.  All right, if nobody else has anything else, let's get out there. If you need information on the evidence system, we need to take that time. Make sure you're trained up before you get out there. Someone's already been stabbed at senior buns. Nicoto. Dispatch 110-41. He's not FTO? No, I'm an FTO. They made Cornwood FTO last night. Hey, officer Sheriff Cornwood. I had a broker. I'm going to get some food. Get situated. We got to get out of here. Okay, James. How you doing? Good. Cornwood, how are you? Good. So this is your second session, right? Yeah, correct. How'd you do yesterday with Ruby? Was it right? So I did two traffic stops and then we had that whole shooting situation with Bobby. Pretty eventful. Yeah, there's a lot of people. I don't feel like getting jumped. Can we put a 3-1 on the scene if anybody can help with the block party? You guys here for the party or are you looking for somebody? Well, we're just trying to give some presents to make sure people know what to say for whatever. But we have two other activities, I think, going on right now that I might have to leave for. Okay. Well, just be aware that there are four gentlemen in colored clothing who went to senior buns approximately 20 minutes ago with wrenches trying to find me. And I just found out that they just went into the sewers trying to find me and they robbed a gentleman down there asking where Sonny is. Okay. Well, that's not good. So just be a lookout with people in colored clothing. Okay. Well, it sounds like they're not very intelligent individuals. Yeah. How do they not know I'm here? Hey!  No, he attacked the people. The locals. He's attacking people.   So what? Oh, can you? It's gateway crime. Wait, they held too many, too many things going on at times sometimes, but it's okay.  I can already tell. Hey, if you ever want to do a weed, I can set one up in five minutes. Really? If you want to do it right now, it can happen right now here at this party. No, I don't think I want to do it now, but maybe someday. Okay, done. Do you remember? See this? I don't believe you, bro. If you got a gun, do it, bro. Do it. You know where I'm at. You know where I stay, bro. Pull up.  I got a whole party going on right now, bro. Yeah, pull up. Pull up. Whole block party, bro. We all ready for you, bro. Pull up. Yeah, I'm jaywalking again. What are you going to do about it, copper? Hey, jaywalking kills, bro. I'm jaywalking at it.  Where you at, bro? Where you at? Roll up on me, bro. I'm on the homies.  No, we don't got those. I mean, we do inside the car, but I can't use it.  Can we get a .52 under Del Paro on popular? Got a .47. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, Jesus. Why are you crying? Why?  Did someone hand you something, Cornwood? Did they? I saw a damn put something back on. I better leave soon.   Sorry about that. I haven't showered in a couple of days. It's been stressful. Well, who did that? Oh, yeah. They come in. Yeah, stay safe, hey. The elf, the elf mask. James is saying that someone with an elf mask just came and put something in my pocket and there's a brick of weed in my back pocket.  Yeah, a whole kilogram. Yeah. Phelonious short. How much does it go for?  I don't know. Maybe $1,000 or whatever. Damn, you're rich. Here, I'm going to chase this guy. They just got in that car. That Seminole pulling away. I don't know if you got anything illegal on you, but they went in that car. Yeah, right to our right. In the front passenger seat. Is that Amber? 40 also cleared shop. Yeah. Wait, am I? So I'm okay here? You're fine. I am. Okay, so you just want Amber, so I'm free to go. After Amber gets out of the vehicle, you'll be free to go. What the? Amber. Amber, you get... Amber, what did you do? I don't know why, tits. Amber, get out of the vehicle. All right, Amber. It's time to get out the Yucca vehicle. Got a runner. I can tell you with that Seminole. Passing underneath the limb peg. Oh, I'm getting some headaches. You doubled up for her? Same. Passes straight past the direct garage. Continue westbound with switching. Okay. He put a brick of marijuana, one kilogram. Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. This is for a felony possession charge on Amber Quinn. Hey, for the driver to Seminole. Passengers. Oh, they're doing a swap. They're just going in the right garage. Go in the right garage. Oh, is... Actually, I think she's the driver now. Oh, we need a driver. Left. Westbound jumping onto the freeway. Correct lane to traffic. Westbound Alpero. I want to catch this person. The lanes of travel going up the off-ramp. Passing red garage. This is exactly where Chatterbox was. And there he is. He's on the side of the road. Continuing southbound. I'm telling you, Mr. Quinn, anywhere between 70 and 100.  Let me tell you. Left opposing lanes. Yeah, these clowns are something else. That's for sure. Exiting LGNF. Standby. Left northbound. Oh, big 50 with the red challenger. Yeah. Who might be out? She stopped. Hands are up. Hands are up. Hands are up. Oh, she ejected. She's getting back into the car. She's bandaging. She used logging. Knocking ourselves up, with the name of the law. Under taken primary. We got to a vehicle left. Last bound hall. Now the left. Southbound below another 1050. I'll check on this person, you guys. Passing Levine square bank left, southbound, followed by immediate right into a parking lot. Or excuse me. Another way. Take it. Take comrades. We're going around. Shopping onto Leporto. You get up here. Come on. Just in. We'll stay mobile, I'm guessing. Oh my God. Stop. I'm out of comp. You will be. You will be beat down. She just tackled me. Go after her. Give it up. If you keep resisting, you will be beat down. Okay, here's what I need you to do.   Yeah, we're behind her. She's going down on West El Pera freeway and opposing lanes of travel on the bike, jumping back and forth. I think she's on the phone. She's probably looking for a pickup of the seminal, actually. That's what I'm assuming. Y'all wanna come find me, because it looks like she's on the phone. I'm getting in front of her. All right, eastbound door set down. The car. Oh my. She is. Eastbound door set almost. Oh my God. 15. Oh my God. We're ready. We're ready. All right, southbound Palomino. Doing it. Doing it. It is south Palomino. They're trying to take a squeeze. Eastbound. Dammit.  We should be, for now, last thing, going down to the Delfar for it. You take the car. I'll go. They're going east, or excuse me. Take the car. East on the freeway. Okay. James is going to take the car. He's going to drive. Oh, she's going to cry. I believe she's going to cry. All right. James coming back. That's your 20? Yeah, she's going to cry. It's group six. Group six here. Group six fan here. I got eyes again. Eastbound hero. Oh.  Damn. She resisted. Hey, don't get back on that bike. That bike.  How many times resisted? Twice. I told her she'll be down. She doesn't begin. Okay. She's down. She's down. Third time resisting.  He resets again. We need 147. Oh, hey, can we get 50 twos in my location? We got 195. All right. Good shit, James. All right. So, James, what we want to do here is we want to. We want to basically stage the area so that vehicles don't come cause any more damage or whatever.  Right. Make sure she's just taken care of. She's watched over. Talk to her. See if she's conscious. And then now that we have the area staged, everybody else is back. Correct. Yeah. So I went in. We called the MS. You say you got a 47 at the location. You can nine one one it in as well. It probably helps them out quite a bit. Oh my God. Okay. So if something happens and they're in critical condition, usually what I do is I tell them that dying is legal. And if they die, that you're going to put them in jail forever. So that usually, that usually wakes them up cause they get scared. Listen, dying is very, very legal. It's actually probably worse than terrorism.  So can you do me a favor to stay alive for like three more seconds? We got somebody coming right now. Hey, how you doing? We got to stop saying my 20 and say actual location. Take photos of everything. Take, you know, look at it on the ground. Take a photo of it on the ground as well. Dude, is he going to perma? Let's just say hypothetically this person dies unfortunately. Have you ever known an officer to arrest somebody for the first time at least when you need to personally die on them? I don't think so. Well, this is going to be really shitty if I'm the first one. She's alive again. We got her breathing. She's talking. But I think she came in and handcuffed her. She's going to need to be cuffed again. Oh really? Take a nap. Amber. Amber. Amber. Hi, officer. Howdy. Hello. So, you know me, Cleetus Cornwood. How are you? This is Officer James Rooker. Here is my partner today. James is going to go ahead and cuff you again, okay? Because apparently you took a nap and then cuffed yourself. All right, Sheriff. I'm going to be honest with you. This is the part I don't really know yet. Okay. That's fine. We can walk through it. I've been just kind of letting you do your thing, you know? All right. So you were at the block party, obviously. Sheriff Cornwood here was taking some pictures for documentation with his big news camera. As he was doing that, I saw you run up to him and play something in his back left pocket and then run away back into the crowd with some other clowns next to that seminal. And he said there was a brick feet in your pocket. One kilogram brick of marijuana that you put in my pocket. Okay. So I want you to read to me what you think her charges are. So what I want to do personally is I want to give her... Because that'd be great. Invading instead of reckless evading. Because the big charge is going to be the marijuana. And I don't feel like throwing the book at her.  I would say this is pretty hard reckless evading.  She's hitting cars. I mean, hard 50 with multiple vehicles.  I want to see you give her everything you can. And articulate exactly why you want to give her those things. So I would call that a reckless evading. What else? How much marijuana did... Was the brick of weed equate to? It was one kilogram. One thousand grams? Yeah, a thousand grams. Now, do we be really stingy and give her a failure, or what is it, no ID on her?  Now, not stacking, but I want everything that's in a different category. I want to see you do everything that she did. Go ahead and save it. So you would have operating motor vehicle without proper evasion, felony possession, and rebel striving. I feel like that's pretty much it. So also, resist and arrest, because she broke cuffs and ran away. So that's the only other thing. Okay, stand up. Resist and arrest. So then that total time and fine would be 48 months and $2,640 fine and five points on her license. Yep. So this is what I do. I give them the whole menu to start off, and then I give them a guilty plea option. So...  Yeah, now I'll be honest. I wouldn't...  Oh, okay. Yeah, this is... I thought she was pretty nice. This one's a repeat offender. Operation motor vehicle without proper identification and your resisting arrest. I will drop those and I will also drop your reckless invading and just too evading. Should I just work on my statement right now then so we can try to kill two birds with one stone then? Yeah, go ahead. All right. Pretty good first FTO session. I think he did good. How do you guys think I did?