Home » Topics


Innovations in Dementia Care - Making a Difference in People's Lives
Albert Mulley, Veronique Roger, and John Lotherington set the scene on the first day of the session
Innovations in Dementia Care - Making a Difference in People's Lives
Salzburg Global Seminar 

Policymakers, clinicians, carers and service users from around the world have convened at Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, to tackle one of the most serious and growing health challenges for health care.

Around 40 participants from 14 countries met on Tuesday afternoon for the start of the Salzburg Global session, Changing Minds: Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities.
This session is part of Salzburg Global’s multi-year series Health and Health Care Innovation in the 21st Century. It is being held in partnership with The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, and the Mayo Clinic.

For the next few days, participants will discuss the challenges people living with dementia experience and explore ways in which to better support them and their families.

To set the scene, the six-day program began yesterday with a panel discussion involving session co-chairs Albert Mulley and Veronique Roger.

Roger, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, described Salzburg Global as a “unique setting” to reflect on “really important critical health issues.” She suggested global well-being would require more than the input of the health care system. This view was echoed by Mulley, managing director for global health care delivery science at The Dartmouth Institute, when he suggested there were other factors to consider.

Mulley said there was a false assumption that the more money spent and the more done on health care interventions would lead to better health and well-being for all. Mulley said social determinants, behavior and genes provided a far greater contribution.

Taking these views into account, participants began to consider questions they would like answered during this week’s program. This included: What do we mean by a dementia-friendly community?

While the meaning and term continue to be debated among participants, several did agree any chance of making progress in this field was dependent on political will and that people living with dementia also had to be involved in the process.

In many countries, there is still much to be done in building awareness around dementia and helping people understand the seriousness of the issue. Cultural differences have to be taken into account when reviewing what actions might be effective in different regions.

These talking points, and more, will continue to be analyzed in the days ahead as the session continues.

The session, Changing Minds: Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities, is part of Salzburg Global Seminar multi-year series Health and Health Care Innovation in the 21st Century. This year’s session is held in partnership with The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice and The Mayo Clinic. To keep up to date with the conversations taking place during the session, follow #SGShealth on Twitter and Instagram.

Gerhard Feldbacher Returns to Salzburg Global with Mobile Tea House
Feldbacher (right) taking part in a tea ceremony with the fellows of the fourth YCI forum in the flying tea house. Photo by Heinz Holzmann
Gerhard Feldbacher Returns to Salzburg Global with Mobile Tea House
Mirva Villa 

For three years, Gerhard Feldbacher had been playing with the idea of a mobile tea house. The simple, geometric shapes and lightness of traditional Japanese houses had fascinated the Austrian designer and architect for a long time.

The final push to make the project a reality came after Feldbacher offered to finish the tea house to be used at the fourth session of the Salzburg Global Forum for Young Cultural Innovators.
Feldbacher attended the YCI Forum the previous year and had an “intense” experience.

“I thought [the mobile tea house] would be nice as a communication place,” Feldbacher says. “By offering it to Salzburg Global, I wanted also to oblige myself to finally do it.”

The tea house consists of white paper walls, woven tatami mats and a fireplace. The sunken hearth is the focal point of the house. Above the fire, the teapot is hung from a jizaikagi - a small hook adorned with a fish sculpture.

Feldbacher ordered the jizaikagi from an antique shop in Tokyo. It’s thought to be more than a century old. The fish and blue fireplace tiles symbolize water and are meant to protect the paper house from catching fire.

The flying tea house can be put together in a matter of hours, and it is light for a house, weighing less than 300 kilograms. The lightness was another aspect that interested the architect. “I made another mobile house some years ago which is 10,000 kilograms,” Feldbacher says. “Three hundred kilograms is nothing compared to that.”
Once Feldbacher had his mind set on making the tea house, it took three months to complete. The architect had expected the delicate paper walls to require the most work, but the roof ended up being the most difficult part to build. He says, “It had to be stable, but also very light because the whole thing sits on a trailer.”

During the fourth session of the Salzburg Global Forum for Young Cultural Innovators, several participants used the tea house as a meeting place to work on their projects. One group stayed so long, Feldbacher had to politely ask them to leave at the end of the day.

“I had to actually kick them out of the tea house because I had to cover it for the night, so that was a nice compliment,” Feldbacher laughs.

One of the participants from Japan held a traditional tea ceremony in the tea house, which other YCI participants attended.

In addition to Schloss Leopoldskron, the flying tea house has also appeared at the Hallein-based arts festival Schmiede.

Feldbacher is looking forward to seeing what else the tea house will be used for in the future, whether that’s as a stage for performances or a place to stay for travelers.

In the immediate future, the tea house will travel the Salzkammergut region in the spring and feature at street art festivals in the summer.

To improve the tea ceremony experience, Feldbacher plans to make binchō-tan, a type of hardwood charcoal. He says, “It’s visually very nice and difficult to get here in Europe. I want to do that coal by myself as a part of the ceremony.”

The Salzburg Global Forum for Young Cultural Innovators IV is part of a ten-year multi-year series. This year's program is supported by the Albanian-American Development Foundation, American Express, Arts Council Malta, Cambodian Living Arts, Canada Council for the Arts, Edward T. Cone Foundation, Fulbright Greece, Japan Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Lloyd A. Fry Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, Adena and David Testa, and the U.S. Embassy Valetta, Malta. More information on the session can be found here. More information on the series can be found here. You can follow all the discussions on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram by using the hashtag #SGSyci.

Changing Minds – Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities
Changing Minds – Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities
Tomas De La Rosa 

Dementia, according to the US-based Mayo Clinic, is not a specific disease but rather “a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with daily functioning.” Due to the variety of health issues that involve memory loss, ensuring people with dementia receive the correct support is often a challenge, as each case possesses a different cause. Additionally, traditional health care models often fall short for people and families affected by dementia, due to the co-morbidities experienced in later life and because these models focus primarily on the physical health process and not on the full lived experience.

Dementia is considered to be as one of the most serious and growing health challenges for health care services, social care, and communities and families, especially in countries with aging populations. The high costs that come with the care required by people with dementia also represent a significant challenge, as according to the 2015 World Alzheimer Report, worldwide costs of dementia in 2015 represented nearly 1.1% of global GDP.

From Tuesday, and for the next five days, approximately 40 participants from 14 different countries, will convene at Schloss Leopoldskron, in Salzburg, Austria. The Salzburg Global Seminar session, Changing Minds: Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities, will see policymakers, clinicians, carers and service users discuss the challenges and stigmas people with dementia go through, ways of offering better support for them and their families, as well as how the concept of dementia-friendly communities and their innovations can vary from a country to another, and the importance and potential advantages, or harms, of early diagnosis.

Part of the multi-year series Health and Health Care Innovation in the 21st Century, it is expected the session will build on the discussions of past sessions, as well as yield new cross-border collaborations between participants to share their best innovation practices in dementia care and dementia-friendly community, create action plans devised for specific country or thematic contexts, and work on a Salzburg Statement on principles that should guide innovation in dementia care.

Previous sessions have resulted in successful campaigns such as the Salzburg Statement On Shared Decision Making from the 2010 session, The Greatest Untapped Resource in Health Care? Informing and Involving Patients in Decisions about Their Medical Care and the nine “Salzburg Questions” that came as a result of last December’s session, Rethinking Care: Toward the End of Life. Using the hashtag #allmylifeQs, participants, peers and interested members of the general public joined together on Twitter on a monthly basis to answer challenging questions about how we wish for ourselves, patients and loved ones to be treated in our dying days. It is expected that this year’s session will provoke similar difficult yet productive debate.

On the importance of this year’s session and its discussions, Salzburg Global Program Director John Lotherington said, “As populations age, more and more of us will live with dementia, with the still very limited prospects of health care interventions even just slowing its progress. But initiatives around the world to create dementia-friendly communities have sprung up to support people with dementia to continue living their lives to their full potential.

“This session will bring together people from around the world to exchange ideas, debate what works best in responding to dementia in diverse contexts, and clarify how to extend and deepen dementia friendly communities.  And a hypothesis is that such efforts in relation to dementia are also enhancing the humane values at the heart of communities in general.”

The session, Changing Minds: Innovations in Dementia Care and Dementia-Friendly Communities, is part of Salzburg Global Seminar multi-year series Health and Health Care Innovation in the 21st Century. This year’s session is held in partnership with The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice and The Mayo Clinic. To keep up to date with the conversations taking place during the session, follow #SGShealth on Twitter and Instagram.

Kimberly Mann – “It’s key to present information to people in a way that allows them to understand the lessons that are to be learned from this tragedy”
Kimberly Mann – “It’s key to present information to people in a way that allows them to understand the lessons that are to be learned from this tragedy”
Louise Hallman and Tomas De La Rosa 

It happened in Europe over 70 years ago, but teaching about and learning from the Holocaust is still vital across the world today, says Kimberly Mann, Salzburg Global Fellow and chief of the Education Outreach Section in the United Nations’ Department of Public Information.

Speaking at the session, Learning from the Past: Sharing Experiences across Borders to Combat Extremism, Mann discussed the importance of Holocaust Education: “I think that when we look at Holocaust Education, we have to focus on two things: education and remembrance. It’s key to present this history to young people in a way that they can understand the lessons that are to be learned from this tragedy,” Mann says.

In her role with the UN, Mann devised the strategy and outreach program to be used by all 63 field offices of the UN around the world, which each has a mandate to observe the International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27 (the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp). In 2005, the first year of the outreach program, 10 Holocaust education and remembrance activities were held in 10 countries. By 2017, this had grown to 150 events and activities in 50 countries.

“To me [that growth] says a lot,” says Mann. “To me it says that the United Nations has taken this subject very seriously and we have been very determined to encourage Holocaust education in countries around the world, in countries that are at risk and in countries that have had absolutely or very little connection to the Holocaust as it occurred at the time.”

In April 2017, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) published Education about the Holocaust and preventing genocide: A policy guide. As Mann explains, the guide “defines what it is about the Holocaust that is universal; why it’s important for educators around the world to introduce education about the Holocaust in their classrooms; the relationship that it has not only with the preventing of genocide but [also] international law; and the role of the international community has in helping to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.”

The document, which was contributed to by 10 Salzburg Global Fellows, makes the link between Holocaust education and global citizenship education and the role that all individuals have to help promote peace and sustainable development. The Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Programme contributed to the document's guidelines.

There are challenges in this approach. Mann attended an earlier session in the Salzburg Global Holocaust Education and Genocide Prevention Program where she says there were many intellectual debates: “Do we teach about the Holocaust in order to protect human rights? Or do we look at human rights and then consider the Holocaust? There are some great sensitivities.”

Mann believes that “the Holocaust is a very important subject in and of itself.”

“You don’t teach about the Holocaust to learn about other genocides; you teach about the Holocaust to understand how the Holocaust came about – the specific history, the impact that it had on the Jewish people, and what that meant to the rest of the world.”

“Comparative genocide [studies are] important but you can’t compare the suffering of the victims. There is no hierarchy of suffering,” Mann explains. “But you can look at certain warning signs. You can be more aware and take action to prevent these things from happening by looking at case histories like the Holocaust, and what happened in Rwanda or other countries.”

For Mann, Holocaust education has an important role in teaching societies about what happens when there is discrimination, hatred and bigotry, and a lack of respect for minorities and diversity, as well as how communities – local, national and international – respond to such atrocities. She highlights the importance of learning how the Holocaust was perpetrated and by whom: “It wasn’t just the Nazis, it was the German people and their collaborators.”

Sharing personal experiences such as The Diary of Anne Frank has great value, says Mann, as they can help to make the atrocities feel more “real”: “It’s so important that we continue to listen to the stories of survivors, that this history has been documented.”

At a UN event in New York to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the publication of The Diary of Anne Frank, at which the accounts of Anne Frank and other young victims of genocidal violence were presented to an audience of than 500 13 to 18 year olds, Mann remarks that she was “very inspired by [their] reaction.”

“The reaction from the young people was to ask: ‘Why? Why do we see people who are different to us as being less than us? Why do we think that people who are different than us don’t deserve to have same treatment, the same quality of life, the same standards of living and protections under the law as we do? Why?!’ …I really think that what I see [now] versus when I was younger in school is that there is a lot of critical thinking that is happening now.”

“There is a lot of work to be done but I think the first step is for young people to analyze the information that is being presented to them and then question the assumptions that they have already made themselves or the so-called ‘truths’ that have been presented to them.”   

Ultimately, Holocaust education is not only about learning about and from the past. Mann hopes that programs like as hers will “motivate [young people] to take some sort of positive action to defend human rights.”

The session, Learning from the Past: Sharing Experiences across Borders to Combat Extremism is part of the multi-year series Holocaust Education and Genocide Prevention (HEGP) Program, which is held partnership with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and this year is funded by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Zukunftsfonds der Republik Österreich. Additional support comes from Mr. Ronald Abramson; the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Economy; the Robert Bosch Stiftung; the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation; the HDH Wills 1965 Charitable Trust; the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung; and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

More information can be found on the session here, and you can follow along via the hashtag #SGShol on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

“Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy” warns former newspaper executive in Cutler Lecture
Alberto Ibargüen, President, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, delivers the seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law
“Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy” warns former newspaper executive in Cutler Lecture
Sarah Sexton 

Two weeks after Facebook, Google, and Twitter executives testified before US Congress on how Russia used social media to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, Alberto Ibargüen called on the tech titans to acknowledge their role as “publishers” and take responsibility for the authenticity of the content they disseminate.  

Speaking on November 14 at the Newseum in Washington, DC, the former newspaper executive and current president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation said, “With the disaggregation of news sources and the rise of technology companies as leading publishers, Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy, which is a shared baseline of facts.” 

Ibargüen was joined by Charlie Savage of The New York Times for the Seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law: “Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age” (full text). The lecture series was established by Salzburg Global Seminar in 2009 to honor the life and work of Lloyd N. Cutler, former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton and long-time Chairman of Salzburg Global’s Board of Directors.

Ibargüen is a former publisher of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald. During his tenure, The Miami Herald won three Pulitzer Prizes and El Nuevo Herald won Spain’s Ortega y Gasset Prize for excellence in Spanish language journalism.

While technology companies never intended to shoulder responsibility for reporting news, Ibargüen said, Pew Research Center found that in 2017 two-thirds of adults in the US get their news from social media. Many of these tech companies shirk classification as media companies and disavow responsibility for authenticity. But Ibargüen warned that misinformation and “fake news” would prove bad for business if the public loses trust in what they read on Facebook and other social media platforms.

Ibargüen and Savage discussed several possible solutions for determining the truth of online content, from Facebook’s efforts to curb “fake news” using a network of fact-checking partners to The Trust Project’s work with newsrooms and technology companies to help algorithms differentiate between news content and fakery.  

Ibargüen recounted that 10 years earlier, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, approached the Knight Foundation for funds to work on technology that would determine the truth or falsity of online content. “It didn’t work. The technology wasn’t there,” Ibargüen said of those early efforts, “but I think that’s the future.” 

Savage said that while technological advancements and artificial intelligence may contribute to the solution, these solutions would raise critical questions around ethics and governance. The public would need to know who programmed the algorithms – and who financed them, Savage said. 

Ibargüen and Savage also shared observations about the changing understanding of what free speech and press mean to Americans. A substantial majority of college students believe “free speech” means censoring speech that would cause psychological harm or exclusion of people or groups, Ibargüen said. 

“The increased value of inclusion and protection from this sort of harm is intensified by the common use of social media, with its reinforcement of filter bubbles, of like-minded thinkers, and the ability to block anyone with whom you disagree,” Ibargüen said. “And anonymity, hate speech, and bullying all promote the sort of thinking that values protection over exposure.”

Ibargüen noted that the present upheaval around communication technology is only the beginning. “We’re very much in the early days of a new world,” Ibargüen said. “After Gutenberg, society adapted to embrace his disruption and thrived as never before.  Here's hoping history repeats itself.”

View full set on Flickr

All photos can be republished with the inclusion of the credit: Salzburg Global Seminar/Stephanie Natoli

This lecture was delivered under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. To learn more about Lloyd N. Cutler and the center, please visit: cutler.salzburgglobal.org

Press inquiries can be directed to Thomas Biebl, Director of Marketing & Communications: tbiebl@salzburgglobal.org

The full text of the lecture can be read here

Download the transcript as a PDF

Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age
Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age
Salzburg Global Seminar 

This text is the full transcript of the Seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law, delivered on November 14 by Alberto Ibargüen, President, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, at the Newseum in Washington, DC, USA.

MR. IBARGÜEN: I want to thank, first of all, Salzburg Global Seminar for inviting me to speak. In a world of new rules and lightning fast communication, the Seminar’s role as a haven for thoughtful exploration of complex issues has never, never been more important. And thanks, Stephen, for the privilege of offering the 7th Lloyd Cutler Lecture. My interpretation of the legal aspects of this is going to be very, very broad, but you know that, and you said it was okay.

It is an extraordinary honor to be associated even in a – in a small way with such a formidable mind, consummate connector, and public intellectual. I didn’t know Lloyd Cutler, as a number of you did, so I called a friend of mine, Jonathan Fanton, who did know him. Jonathan taught at Yale. He was president of the MacArthur Foundation. He’s now the head of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So, he knows a good man when he sees one, and he saw one in Cutler. Jonathan remembered him with affection, as a man of great intelligence, good judgment, and meticulous in thought and action. And he said, unlike some leaders, Lloyd kept his own judgment until he had the necessary information. I’m sure that was not a commentary on current events.


MR. IBARGÜEN: I couldn’t be more pleased, too, that we’re here in the Newseum. I was proud to be chairman of the board of the Newseum when we inaugurated this building. I led Knight Foundation to become one of the Newseum’s founding partners and its biggest outside donor. This wonderful place was actually designed to be open and immutable.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we were nearing the end of the design phase of the building, and somebody suggested we really ought to change the design and make it something much more secure. We chose instead to keep the façade you see today, which is two-thirds glass and one-third stone, symbolizing both journalism’s quest for openness and transparency and our immutable adherence to free expression. I love the wall with the First Amendment carved on great slabs of Tennessee marble located more or less equidistant between the White House and the Capitol, reminding everybody that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights to speech, press, religion, assembly, and freedom to petition the government.

The Newseum promotes the values that we live and breathe at Knight Foundation with an endowment of now about $2.3, $2.4 billion. We made more than $140 million in grants last year to programs, projects, and people committed to informed and engaged communities honoring Jack Knight’s belief that an informed citizenry, determining its true interest in a democratic republic, is the highest, best form of government.

In that spirit, tonight I’d like to talk some about trust, about democracy and media, and the evolving role – critical role – of digital platforms, and the First – and the evolving understanding of First Amendment values. I’ll be very, very glad later also to talk with Charlie and take some questions. I think it – I think it is pretty fitting that Charlie is the – is the moderator tonight since – given his connection to Yale and to Knight, and it’s always wonderful to be back with friends.

So, let me begin by focusing a little bit on the technology companies that play such an incredibly dominant role in our current media landscape. A few weeks ago, representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter came to town to testify before Congress. They were sober hearings. Our representatives peppered them with questions largely aimed at understanding Russian social media activities in the 2016 elections.

That inquiry is important, I believe, but let’s look beyond the scope of those hearings and explore a broader conceptual issue that I think is massive and thorny, which is the role and responsibility of technology companies that began as platforms and transformed, I believe, into publishers. These are two very different things with different roles in society.

Are they merely platforms and tech companies, or are they publishers with social and legal responsibility for what they publish? That is a central question at the heart of how to use the internet for democracy, and it involves technology, evolving attitudes toward First Amendment values, and key questions challenging the big tech’s business models.

Throughout history, humans have grappled with how to identify truth, how to control information, how to empower people with knowledge. The Greeks struggled to balance common identity and purpose with free and democratic expression. We can each point to different periods in history when technology has complicated and charged that quest, sometimes using information for good, sometimes for evil.

As we think about this, and it isn’t the problem we’re going to solve tonight, but take some heart from Guttenberg. Before Johannes Guttenberg mechanized the Chinese invention of the printing press, there was order. Books were rare. They were distributed from the few to the few, and usually came with a cardinal’s imprimatur asserting truth. After Guttenberg, any Tom, Dick, or Martin Luther could print and distribute whatever he wanted. Information flowed from the few to the many, and soon from the many to the many, so many, in fact, that information and opinion became hard to control, unreliable, unruly. It took a hundred years or so, an evolving experience with technology and its governance for people to re-learn to trust information.

In a room full of people who know Bob Schieffer, and I’m sure you do, I should note that he makes this case in his new book, Overload. And if you really want to go deeper, check out Elizabeth Eisenstein, the brilliant professor at the University of Michigan, and her book, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. It sounds like a – it sounds dense, but it is a wonderfully exciting and, I think, really uplifting scholarship.

But trust they did eventually. People did trust finally information, and we, I think, are at a similar place. At the beginning of our republic, the reach of media was local and largely verifiable. The public learned to trust information because they could see for themselves when the information was true, was, in fact, true. The circulation of leaflets and newspapers extended to roughly the area of electoral districts. The Founding Fathers publicly debated the core ideals of our republic through accessible argument. It wasn’t debate so much as argument. In doing so, they formalized the role of the press as staging ground – the staging ground for the middle, an area of words where common ground is the common prize, where left and right can come together in compromise.

And it remained that way with newspapers, pamphlets, and later radio, and even television. The signal of a radio station until relatively late in the 20th century or television local news was really about the same as a couple of congressional districts or a mayoral district. And none of this am I pretending that this did not come with major speed bumps of sometimes partisans, sometimes warmongering, sometimes bigoted press reflecting their owners and the times. But by and large, the United States grew up with local papers that established a direct relationship between themselves and their communities. That relationship held through most of the 20th century until the phenomenal rise of internet.

This discussion would’ve been difficult to imagine a few decades ago before the first electronic message traveled between two computers, or 15 years ago before Facebook, or just a dozen years ago before the first tweet. But conceptually, the issue is not new. Technology has upended society many times before, and internet represent the most fundamental change to media and society since Guttenberg. It is both, I think, the great democratizing tool in history and democracy’s greatest challenge. It gives us all voice and potential influence beyond previous imagining.

And at the same time, with the country – with our country dividing itself in real-life and online, into more and more homogenous communities described in The Big Sort, which I would highly recommend to you, internet has facilitated the creation not just of the filter bubbles, but the protective shields that allow us to block out dissenting or differing views. The success of any traditional news operation used to be measured by its ability to effectively and reliably inform society, but the business model that’s sustained newspapers for more than a century is now broken. Gathering and disseminating accurate information is expensive and revenue is short. We now have simultaneously a torrent of individual and small information efforts and have a potentially socially dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a handful of private companies with seemingly boundless potential for reach.

Media means digital and cable, cool mediums that require hot performance, and trust in all media, especially traditional media, is at an all-time low. Americans’ trust in institutions generally and in each other is at a historic low. According to Pew Research, only 20 percent of Americans trust their government. The same low percentage has a lot of trust in the national news media.

I agree with Nina Jankowicz, who – of the Woodrow Wilson Center, who recently wrote in the New York Times that, "It’s impossible to say definitively what causes this mistrust, but its growth has coincided with the rise of both the adrenaline-driven internet news cycle and the dying of local journalism over the past two decades. Without news that connects people to their town councils or county fairs, stories that analyze how Federal policies affect local business, people are left with news about big banks in New York and dirty politics in Washington." Said another way, there simply are fewer and fewer institutions unifying community by feeding news to the middle and setting the agenda for civil discourse for both left and right.

Social media has catalyzed the fragmentation of what was once a somewhat united public sphere. It has fractured and privatized the town square. The shattering of communal baselines has become a problem before the social media boom, of course, but the divides among us have only grown starker as we find less and less common ground and rely more and more on opinion presented as news.

Earlier this year, Knight Foundation partnered with Aspen Institute to form a Commission on Trust, Media, and Democracy to consider these questions. It’s led by New York Public Library president, Tony Marx, and former Tennessee state legislator, Jamie Woodson. The Commission will consider these fundamental issues of trust and recommend solutions to restore it. This is one of, I think, many such efforts, and I think this is something that the Salzburg Seminar would have a major role to play in.

What we know today, what we know or think we know, which leads to what and who we trust and who we deem trustworthy, is increasingly determined by five behemoths: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. As examples of their dominance, consider that Facebook and Google capture more than 75 percent of digital ad revenue and make up 40 percent of America’s digital content consumption. In another time we might’ve looked at such dominance with the same jaundiced eye that Presidents McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt used to gaze on Rockefeller Standard Oil or Carnegie’s U.S. Steel. So far, we haven’t, but I think that could change.

Facebook and Google have become more influential purveyors of information than any New York Times or any Washington Post. Yet the Silicon Valley giants and others like them have shied away from accepting a publisher’s basic responsibility for the authenticity of their content. They have virtually limitless opportunity to define and form community beyond geographic boundaries, but they disavow responsibility for authenticity, for the truth or falsity of the material as a basic tenet of business.

As I see it, a publisher’s success is premised on consistently delivering reliable news and information. Today’s platform premise success on basic access tailored to personal preferences for any proposition, person, or group. Those are new rules indeed, and I think maybe unsustainable.

Jack Knight’s notion of a well-informed citizenry, eager to tackle questions with a common factual framework, is very challenged today. With the disaggregation of news sources and the rise of technology companies as leading publishers, Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy, which is a shared baseline of facts.

Today, people already view tech companies as media companies. Pew Research shows that a majority of American adults get their news on social media. Facebook is the top source of political news for the Millennial generation. In all age groups, the percentage of social media users who rely on those platforms for news is increasing. This dominance is no accident. The amount of information about ourselves, our habits, our preferences that we share with tech companies in exchange for their – for the convenience of their service is stunning.

In addition, tech companies already produce and will produce more content. Think of YouTube News. Think of Facebook paying to create video content to share on live platforms, or Amazon Studios for movies. These companies may shun the media label, but they proactively pursue media revenue streams. And like the trusts of decades past, the tech giants are horizontally integrated, saturating and dominating the market for information, and sometimes vertically integrated, exerting influence and control over content at every stage from generation, to production, to distribution.

They’ve been as successful as you know they have. You can’t blame them for not wanting to change. They never intended to shoulder responsibility for reporting news, but sometimes life is unfair and takes an unexpected turn. But why would they change? I think they would change because their role has – society has changed, and their role in society has changed, and they have to step up to the new responsibility, I think, if they’re going to be allowed to continue acting – functioning in the way they have. I think they’ll change because they have to. I think they’ll do that – they’ll change because it’s bad for business.

Think about the people talk about reading something on Facebook or even Google. They don’t say – people don’t say I read that Charlie Savage story in the – that was published in Thursday’s New York Times. They say I read it on Facebook. I read it on Facebook. If it turns out that the stuff you read on Facebook is not reliable, if it turns out that you – that you are proven consistently wrong, that is bad for business.

And I think there’s real hope in that for me, from my perspective. I think there’s – I believe in that kind of self-interested motivation that would drive a company like Facebook, and I think is driving a company like Facebook, to consider what they need to do in order to ensure authenticity. I don’t think – I’ve talked with many friends who say, well, but it’s so convenient, you’ll never get people to rebel, you’ll never get people to walk away from it. I don’t know what never is. Fifteen years ago, Facebook didn’t exist. How long ago was it that we thought IBM would always be, given the age group of us – most of us –


MR. IBARGÜEN: – with due respect to anyone not – who doesn’t remember when IBM was the great behemoth before Microsoft took them down, and then came Google. So, I don’t know when never is.

I can imagine, to borrow from Malcolm Gladwell, I can imagine a tipping point when our society says enough. Enough, when consumers change the game. These things happen. World wars are started. We don’t need to go that far. Think about – think about what’s happening now. I think we’re living in a moment now in the U.S. around sexual abuse and harassment after decades of silence and looking the other way. Those stories are the kindling, and the Harvey Weinstein disclosures were merely the spark that set the fire of change. I believe we’re witnessing a fundamental change in attitudes and practice.

In the market, if consumers feel they’re not well served by existing services, they’ll find other services. And remember that Yogi Berra is always right: if the fans don’t want to come to the ballpark, nobody can stop them.


MR. IBARGÜEN: So, if I were – if I were running a company and I was producing stuff that wasn’t believed, I’d be worried.

I also think platform companies may be forced to change by government, which, challenged by their power and supported by a potentially mistrustful public, might ultimately trust bust if only out of self-preservation. I think they’ll change because technology, and this is really important. I think they will change because technology will enable them to assume more effective control of their content, which presents all sorts of other questions about machine learning and decision making.

Meanwhile there are efforts that people are making to address some of these things, some within the companies themselves. I give credit where it’s due with Facebook, Google, and other places. I also know that organizations like the Trust Project, which is meeting here at the Newseum later this week, which is funded by Craig Newmark of Craig’s List, Google, and, full disclosure, Knight Foundation, at Santa Clara University, working with news rooms and technology companies to help the public and algorithms differentiate between news content and fakery.

A proposed new project, News Guard. It hasn’t gone anywhere yet. It might. It’s spearheaded by Gordon Crovitz who used to be at the Wall Street Journal, and Steve Brill. They seek to make the effort even simpler. They want to have – they want to have a marker that shows red, yellow, and green based on the authenticity track record of whatever the source is. Will that be perfect? Of course not. None of these things are. None of these things probably ever will be because it’s about judgment. But these are efforts dealing with the problem.

At Knight, we believe artificial intelligence will play a huge and increasingly important – increasingly central role. And so, with Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay, and Reid Hoffman, who co-founded LinkedIn, we started a fund to work with MIT’s Media Lab and Harvard’s – Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center to explore ethics in government – governance of artificial intelligence.

When those tech solutions I just suggested are developed, how fast can they become dark implements in the hands of Big Brother? In a New York heartbeat. How obscure can tech companies be? Darker than Darth Vader, and they speak a language most of us, including members of Congress, don’t fully understand. So, it’s critical that organizations like ours, like Hasting Center’s, which works on these issues with regard to health, MacArthur Foundation, Democracy Fund, continue to do so, as well as Washington think tanks, our great research universities, because leaving the ethics in governance of how we know what we know to corporations whose primary purpose is commercial gain, or, with all due respect to whoever is in political power, it is not just bad policy for the short term. It’s bad for democratic society in the long term.

In the meanwhile, are there traditional media companies that are doing things? Yes, I think there are. I think right here, maybe the best – the best adapting big paper in the country is the Washington Post. I’d also look at what the Texas Tribune does in – out of Austin or ProPublica out of New York. These organizations have very different business models, and, again, I should tell you that we have funded projects with all three of those, with the Washington Post, with Texas Tribune, with ProPublica. They have different business models. Some are nonprofit, some are for, but they share a common commitment to verification journalism, and to the use of technology to find and reach their audience.

They believe, as my friend, Marty Baron, likes to say, that we have to focus on doing the work of getting the story right because that’s where the credibility will be proven and earned, but the technology has to be one-click advertising, one-click. Did you – did you see? Using the – using the techniques, the marketing techniques of selling on online to sell news.

Since we’re in the Newseum, I’d like to end my part of the remarks with some observations about the changing understanding of what free speech and free press mean to young Americans. Although the ferocity, reach, and frequency of today’s political attacks have ratcheted up the level of intensity, I’ve talked with too many people in politics to believe that their view of media is fundamentally new. What I think is new is a changing generational view of what "free speech" means.

In early 2016, Knight Foundation commissioned Gallup – the Gallup organization to survey attitudes among college students on First Amendment freedoms. The results suggest that there is a fundamental generational shift in our understanding of these basic rights among a broad and deep sample of young people training to become our nation’s leaders.

The Gallup survey showed that about three-fourths of college students believe in free speech. That’s good. They consider 25 percent maybe don’t. That’s maybe not so good, but three-quarters is good on any kind of a poll. And the thing that then really makes you scratch your head is that about two-thirds believe in safe spaces. This is really a major, major shift. So, three-quarters free speech, two-thirds safe spaces. Do the math and scratch your head. And among a representative sample of African-American students, some 60 percent did not believe that their right of assembly was secure. That is very significant when you think about the whole.

My own reading of this is that the younger generation values inclusion and freedom from psychological harm in the same way that previous generations valued freedom from physical harm. In the tradition of free speech, you weren’t allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because you could cause harm. Now a substantial majority of college students believe "free speech" means stopping speech, censoring speech that would cause other types of harm, or cause exclusion or people – of people or groups.

The increased value of inclusion and protection from this sort of harm is intensified by the common use of social media, with its reinforcement of filter bubbles, of like-minded thinkers, and the ability to block anyone with whom you disagree. And anonymity, hate speech, and bullying all promote the sort of thinking that values protection over exposure.

We’re in the field with Gallup now, and we’ll have a 2018 version of that study ready pretty soon. It remains to be seen whether we have a trend or just a reflection of current events at that moment in time two years ago. If we’re right and this is a trend, it will be one of the many in the ever-evolving history of the First Amendment. As these new understandings of the debates occur, we at Knight felt that it was very important to ensure that the presence of a – of a disinterested advocate was assured, a disinterested advocate that argues for free speech.

Three years ago, we partnered with Columbia University to establish the Knight First Amendment Institute for that purpose. With an initial endowment of $50 million, it will be an independent affiliated – an independent affiliate of the university led by Jameel Jaffer and a team of outstanding attorneys, and guided by a board that includes Ted Olson, who I’m sure many of you know, from Gibson Dunn, and Eve Burton of the Hearst Corporation, with the very active support of Lee Bollinger, who is the president of Columbia and a leading First Amendment scholar. I’m also very pleased to note tonight the presence here of representatives from Omidyar Networks Democracy Fund, who have also generously contributed to creating that institute.

The First Amendment we enjoy today, the world’s gold standard, was significantly forged in battles over the last half century, largely paid for by newspaper companies. Those companies either no longer exist or they’re financially strained, but they left – but they have left a reasonably well-settled body of law affirming the rights of people and press articulated in the Constitution, carved into the marble at the Newseum, and the extension of those rights to broadcast licensees.

What is not settled are the free speech rights on internet. Will courts ultimately choose freedom of [speech] – as a right or the potential restrictions of a license? The consequences, I think, are enormous. The legal questions are wide open, and Knight Institute will engage in the courts through research, scholarship, and conferences always with a bias toward free speech and free press.

In summary, and we need to get on with the – with the discussion, I’d just remind you of some of the ground rules going forward. First, we must be in line with the First Amendment. Second, we must recognize the problem is not monolithic, and any response must be nimble and iterative. And third, we should remember that this challenge exists within a larger context. The massive questions regarding the decline of trust in all institutions makes this a civic emergency.

Not long ago, I spoke with a professor at MIT about the upheaval that communication technology was causing in society, and I asked him where he thought we were in that revolution on a scale of one to 10, with one being a brand-new technology, and 10 being a mature technology with understood impact. And he said without hesitation two, maybe three. You ain’t seen nothing yet. We’re very much in the early days of the new world. After Guttenberg, society adapted to embrace his disruption and thrived as never before. Here’s hoping history repeats itself. Thank you.


View full set on Flickr

All photos can be republished with the inclusion of the credit: Salzburg Global Seminar/Stephanie Natoli

This lecture was delivered under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. To learn more about Lloyd N. Cutler and the center, please visit: cutler.salzburgglobal.org

Media requests can be directed to Thomas Biebl, Director of Marketing and Communications: tbiebl@salzburgglobal.org

Download the transcript as a PDF

Leadership for Inclusive Futures in Hong Kong
The HKFYG Jockey Club School of Global Leadership launches with the goal of supporting the emerging leadership in Hong Kong. Photo: HKFYG
Leadership for Inclusive Futures in Hong Kong
Mirva Villa 

Hong Kong’s unstoppable surge from being a fishing village to colonial port city to now becoming one of the world’s foremost financial centers is an outstanding success story.

However, this climb has not been without its difficulties: social divides between different generations and socio-economic communities deepen, housing prices continue to soar, and the tensions are running high both in the regional and global politics.

Now, local young innovators are starting to reject the model of “economic development at all costs,” and instead are embracing the idea of greater social, economic, and political inclusion in Hong Kong.

To support young leaders on their journey to become positive local change-makers with global perspectives, Salzburg Global Seminar, together with the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, will hold the session “Leadership for Inclusive Futures in Hong Kong” in Hong Kong, November 17-19.

The session marks the launch of the HKFYG Jockey Club School of Global Leadership, a joint initiative between HKFYG and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, with a new leadership centre to open Spring 2018 in Fanling, as the “the pioneer in leadership education and training for Hong Kong”. The intensive two-day program starts with a high-level launch event, including a keynote speech and a panel discussion on Visions for an Inclusive Hong Kong by 2030.

Funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, the program will bring together a select group of young Hong Kongers who are innovators from the public, private, and civil society sectors – providing the rising generation with a chance for cross-sector networking, collaboration, and opportunities for honest discussions about shaping the future of Hong Kong.

The mixed-method approach will see the participants take part in plenaries presentations, small working group discussions, and skill-building workshops facilitated by the expert faculty, including from Hong Kong government and corporations, U.S.-based experts, and Salzburg Global staff. The program will delve deep into the areas of interest for innovators in 21st century Hong Kong. In addition to hearing from experts in economic, social and environmental issues, the participants will learn about peaceful conflict resolution, civic engagement and multi-lateral cooperation and negotiation.

During the session, participants will aim to identify underlying factors behind the most pressing issues affecting Hong Kong’s society. They will reflect on ways to achieve a cohesive and inclusive community, focusing on the methods with which civil society organizations can work together to address the concerns among Hong Kong’s citizens.

The ultimate goal of this new initiative is to build a new leadership cohort in Hong Kong that are ready to respond to these challenges and give them concrete tools with which to drive change in their community. This inaugural meeting will pave way to the creation of a network of young leaders from Hong Kong, and mainland China, that will together creating a more inclusive Hong Kong.

The session, “Leadership for Inclusive Futures in Hong Kong”, is organized by Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) and funded by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. To learn more see: www.salzburgglobal.org/go/588

Displaying results 29 to 35 out of 1080