12/01/2018 Newsnight

The President of the United States

uses the crudest of language

to dismiss immigrants from Haiti,

El Salvador and parts of Africa

before calling for more immigration

from Norway instead.

Today he went off for his annual

medical exam as his alleged words

quickly wound up in the Wall Street

Journal.

We'll ask the African Union's

ambassador to Washington

if the President is just

a straightforward racist.

Also tonight, guess

who's had an epiphany?

People will see more posts from

people they are connected to and

less content from publishers.

Facebook was built to connect you to

the stories and people that matter

most so we're going to keep

listening to you and working hard to

make sure that's what

you see everyday.

Is Mark Zuckerberg signalling

that his all-powerful creation

was actually doing more

harm than good?

We ask the content creators,

the advertisers and a leading

psychologist whether this will make

Facebook a happier, even more

prosperous place.

And this...

Now is the time to negotiate

in order to obtain the best

conditions possible.

You cannot reason with a tiger

when your head is in its mouth!

We engaged some very special

Newsnight reviewers of the latest

portrayal of Churchill

and his crucial decision in 1940.

My parents were quite distressed

because they had gone

through the First World War.

But I was quite excited,

I thought it was

going to be interesting.

Donald Trump, no stranger

to outbursts and inappropriate

and insulting language,

has taken it to another level,

and has been labelled a racist today

by African politicians and diplomats

after he was reported to have

described some immigrants coming

from Africa and Haiti as coming

from "shithole countries"

during a meeting at the Oval Office

at which US senators were present.

Trump denies using such derogatory

language but the African Union said

it was alarmed by Trump's

"very racist comments".

So just how damaging is this

to a President who has shown himself

unconcerned about making enemies?

A few minutes ago I spoke to our

North America editor, Jon Sopel.

To what extent is this the furore

of a different order

to previous problems with Trump's

language and his insults?

Well, I think, Kirsty, in a way

it is part of a piece, isn't it?

Donald Trump has got himself

in trouble with, kind of,

comments that have a bearing

on race before.

Whether it be the fact that

Barack Obama was not an American,

allegedly, something he withdrew

in the later stages of the campaign.

His comments on Charlottesville.

The way he seemed to equate

antiracism protesters with the,

kind of, far, far right,

Ku Klux Klan, people carrying

swastikas at a demonstration

in Charlottesville.

And now this.

But I suspect what's different

about this is that this has

an international resonance.

It is as though, if you accept

the accounts of the meeting,

and they haven't been strenuously

denied by the White House,

that Donald Trump believes

they are the Nato countries,

the ASEAN countries,

and the shithole countries.

But that has huge applications,

of course, for, as you say,

international relations.

The African Union have come out

tonight, various ambassadors

from other countries mentioned,

and also, of course,

the Haitian ambassador.

To what extent does this do

damage to relations,

or is Trump aside from the ordinary

American politics

as far as this case?

Well, I think it does damage

in the sense of, you know,

American leadership in the world.

But Donald Trump hasn't particularly

sought to have American

leadership in the world,

except when it suits him.

Except when he needs the support

of others to rally around him.

And I think that you saw it on the,

kind of, vote where the condemnation

of the announcement of moving the US

embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

America found itself

very, very isolated,

and angry at that isolation.

And that is the price you pay with,

kind of, making these

unguarded remarks.

And it does seem that it

has damaged America.

America's standing in the world.

What about America's

standing at home?

I mean, among his supporters

I suspect if you ask people

about what the president had said,

you'd say was it presidential?

A pollster would find

that they would say no.

Were people surprised?

I'm sure people would say no.

And does it change your

view of Donald Trump?

Also, probably know,

because this is what a lot

of people voted for,

a president who can say

what they're thinking,

but they're not saying.

John, thanks very much indeed.

We hope to speak to the ambassador

from the African Union very shortly.

It's hard to estimate

the impact Facebook has had

on politics and our lives.

What finally did for Facebook's

rampant domination,

some might say

enslavement of the media?

Was it all the fake stuff,

the political interference

in the American election?

Or an increasing distaste

about the mining and manipulation

of the tiniest details

of our online lives?

Now Zuckerburg wants to take it back

to a simple social network

and slough off all the news feeds,

the political propaganda

and the viral diarrhoea,

and make it good for our wellbeing.

But what brought on Mark

Zuckerburg's decision to make

Facebook a simpler, gentler world?

Here's our technology

editor, David Grossman.

In the history of the world, as any

successful company ever said, we

want you to use our product less? Do

other things with your time?

Because, well, believe it or not,

that's what Facebook are saying.

We also expect overall time spent

on Facebook to go down,

but our goal is that the time people

do spend on Facebook will be better.

This is all about what Facebook

shows us in our news feed.

From now on the company says it's

going to downgrade professionally

creative content from businesses,

brands, and media organisations,

and upgrade personally created

content from people we know,

from real human beings

in our network.

In a post on Facebook last night,

CEO of Mark Zuckerberg said,

it's all about making sure that time

on Facebook is an emotionally

uplifting experience.

We are in a really interesting space

in the tech community right

now, which is to say,

how do we harness this addictive

nature, the technologies that we've

built, but to contribute

to something that's going

to be a net positive

for an individual or for a society.

We don't exactly know how

to measure that yet.

This is all a new

and emerging space.

But what today's announcement

from Facebook symbolises, to me,

is that the senior management team

is getting behind this and is trying

to actually get ahead of a wave,

a current of people,

thinking more carefully about how

they are spending their time online.

It didn't take us long to find

former Facebook users

who've left the platform.

For me, personally, the biggest

thing was how angry it made me.

It's all a bit much.

It's...

Once you have, I suppose,

the ability to broadcast every

single detail of your life

to everybody you know, you do.

If anybody is thinking

of getting rid of Facebook,

I can assure you it's the best

decision I ever made.

It improves your mental health.

It improves your social life.

It improves your productivity.

But there's also a strong

business case from Facebook,

showing us more of the personal

stuff like this...

And less of the corporate

stuff like this...

Because Facebook's value depends

on what it knows about us.

Selling that information

to advertisers.

It's going to learn a lot less

about us if we are just

passively scrolling

through professionally

creative content.

It's going to know a lot more

about us if we're creating

and sharing content of our own.

But this could potentially

have a huge impact

on publishers of content,

like media organisations.

Late last year Facebook

trialled a similar change

to their ranking algorithm in six

countries, including Guatemala.

When the Facebook experiment began,

we saw a huge drop of traffic

from 30 to 60% drop.

We saw, again, a huge drop

since yesterday when they announced

that they will prioritise content

made by family and friends

and reemphasise the content

made by publishers.

These will send a seismic blow

throughout the market.

It will be...

It will affect, tremendously,

particularly young, innovative,

independent news outlets.

In essense, Facebook

is prioritising the future health

of its brand and platform,

and the future health

of the companies and organisations

that have spent the past five years

building their brands on Facebook.

It's a big change for the company,

and a big change, potentially,

for how 2 billion people react

with the online world.

Joining me now is Peter Heneghan,

head of communications

at LADbible Group.

I'm also with Catherine Becker,

chief executive of the advertising

agency VCCP Media.

And Daria Kuss, a psychologist

specialising in internet usage

at Nottingham Trent University.

Good evening. First of all, who has

got most to lose out of this?

I

would say the audience. That is the

big winner in this case. But we see

that as a good thing because

ultimately, the audience is what

makes Facebook and as a publisher,

we have a huge audience so we have

62 million followers across social

on different channels. And they see

us as like being a friend, and as a

result we will do well out of this.

They will find you but you won't be

quite so prominent?

Publishers will

not be so prominent but there will

still be a lot of space for

publishers and publishers that do

social in the right way and we are

very good example of how to do

social in a good way.

And a variety

of campaigns we can talk about. As

far as advertising is concerned, you

heard the contributor in Guatemala

talking about how that traffic was

gone and that was problematic.

There

will be winners and losers and we

have seen these algorithm changes in

the past and it is just about

adapting and being fleet of foot and

making sure we adapt to the new

social engaging environment.

You

want a bloody good spin on this but

the fact is advertising has had a

very good time on Facebook because

you have a much bigger and quicker

audience than you have a television.

That is going to be separated? It is

not going to be alongside the family

and friends?

There will still be

advertising and the important thing

is to have advertising that is

socially engaging and that people

adapt to and reactive.

Do you think

that by doing this, Zuckerberg has

recognised that some of the content

has a pernicious effect?

Yes and it

is a short-term pain for the

long-term gain and it is the

interests of the advertisers that

this is an engaged platform, it is

about adapting to that and having

that, companies like us, being fleet

of foot and making sure we make

changes.

You have looked at the

impact of sustained online usage and

I wonder, do you think Mark

Zuckerberg seriously looked at the

impact on mental health that

Facebook was having?

That was one of

the key drivers. When we considered

the research at Nottingham Trent

University into social media use and

the kind of mental health benefits

or potential problems that excessive

use can cause, we would as soon the

kinds of changes being proposed

appear to potentially lead to really

beneficial results for the user. On

one hand, Mark Zuckerberg is trying

to propose using Facebook in a

different way, to have a news feed

that allows people to have more

content from family and friends

which potentially might indeed

impact on mental health positively.

My research has shown that when we

are using Facebook to connect with

people around us, with our family

and friends, this may indeed impact

on how your feeling about ourselves

and improve our mood mental health

and well-being and in addition, what

I need to add is if we are looking

into excessive use, which has been

in the media a lot and is something

we have researched for a number of

years here at Nottingham Trent, we

know that if people are using

Facebook and other social networking

sites excessively, this might lead

to a detrimental impact, such as

feelings of depression, anxiety,

stress and addiction but we want to

do is try to counter this and

potentially the new movements with

Facebook may lead to providing a way

into how to improve the situation.

And ensure users are happier in

engaging with Facebook.

I wonder if

that idea, interacting as opposed to

passive viewing, is something that

you take on board when thinking

about the content you make for your

website? Do you recognise the

problems that we're talking about?

Absolutely, and the example I can

give is we asked our audience what

was important to them and they told

us that the biggest issue for them

was mental health. We launched a

campaign which allowed us to talk in

a really relatable way to the

millennial audience and that was

helpful because we explained that

one in four people will at some

point suffer from a mental health

problem, not necessarily due to

Facebook but generally in life. For

the first time, people came back to

us and said, you are allowed us to

sit with our friends in the pub and

talk about mental health and

Facebook enabled us to do that.

Although there is negativity within

social media, there is also

positivity and we have experienced

that.

We still have a situation

where people they know their friends

and seeing how much better they are

doing, there will still be that

element of Facebook?

But equally you

have that outside of Facebook,

people will always look at friends,

they have a better car while they

seem to be getting married earlier

and so forth. They will always look

at that in a way and maybe feel

uneasy about themselves. But

ultimately, I don't believe that is

the responsibility of Facebook.

This

idea that David Grossman was talking

about is no use to Facebook if

people are scrolling and not

waiting. Presumably, that is what is

happening in advertising so you will

hope that people stick longer on a

page?

And the more engaged they are

cleaned up -- we know the more

effective advertising can be because

they are participating with that

brand and advertising works harder

at that. That is what we have been

advising clients to do.

Mark

Zuckerberg is not just in this as an

altruist, he wants to make money.

While? You have millennials, and

many of them are on Instagram and

other sites and how do you get them

back?

There are two factors, the

audience of 2 billion, but is a

finite audience and he has saturated

that the other major is engagement

and the length of time they are on

Facebook and that is what he is

encouraging. Encouraging a human

being to be on Facebook longer? What

is positive about this press release

is it is talking about making people

more engaged and happy. We want a

more positive outcome and that is

better.

Mark Zuckerberg was influenced by

the impact on children. What's good

about Facebook if it is interactive

and has children on them for even

longer than they are at the moment,

how is that good for mental health?

When we are looking at children,

their brains are still developing,

they have a considerable way to go

until their brain has reached full

maturity, we need to be careful in

terms of technology use. American

paediatricians are now really

speaking of limiting the use of

technology, including Facebook,

social media, etc, for children.

Especially at the years of two,

three, four. We need to be careful.

Facebook is only allowed to be used

by teenagers from the age of 13.

This is for particular reasons. We

need to be able to curb technology

used to such an extent that the

developing brain went been

negatively affected. It's not really

a problem. As long as we as parents

and teachers are making children

aware that there may be potential

dangers associated with overuse and

that we are very much aware of the

benefits of social networking and

social media use at the same time.

It's always very important to be

able to see two side of the coin.

Otherwise we would have a limited

and one-sided discussion.

Briefly,

Peter, we talk about Mark Zuckerberg

as if he has had a great epiphany,

but the truth of the matter is had

there not been all of the problems

with the fake news on the

interference with the American

elections, do you think this would

have happened?

I think he has looked

at this. He realises the audience is

the key. He's making the decisions

that what is best for the audience

is ultimately better for Facebook.

Thank you all very much indeed.

Everybody's talking about the Oscar

chances of 'Darkest Hour',

the story of how Winston Churchill

shrugged off the doubters

and appeasers to lead

Britain against the Nazis.

The film, released today,

has already earned a Golden Globe

for the veteran British actor

Gary Oldman as the wartime PM.

The critics have been generous

with their praise, but how well

does the film stand up for those

who were actually around

when the film was set, in 1940?

Newsnight took a charabanc

of Chelsea Pensioners -

men in their eighties and nineties

who served in the second world

war - to see the film.

These distinguished old soldiers

shared their memories

with our still-surprisingly callow

and jejune Stephen Smith.

We are looking at the collapse of

Western Europe in the next few days.

How long have they got if we don't

rescue them? Maybe two days, we

would need a miracle to get our men

passed.

Gary Oldman and his

extraordinary prosthetics have been

acclaimed for this story of

Churchill's struggle against the

Nazis and his own party.

We must

renegotiate peace talks.

When will

the lesson be learned, you cannot

reason with a tiger!

reason with a tiger!

But we wondered

how it would go down with Britons

who actually lived through the

film's Darkest Hour, May 19 40.

film's Darkest Hour, May 19 40.

I'm

91. I joined the Scots Guards in

1944.

Hello, I'm Alan, I served in

Burma and India.

My name is James

Little, I'm 87, and I served in the

Corps of Royal Engineers.

My name's

Fred Ruck. I served with the Royal

intellectual and mechanical

engineers during the Second World

War. Having got rid of Hitler, I

came out of the Army in 1947.

Good

afternoon, gentlemen, you must be

the Chelsea Pensioners. Very nice to

see you. Fancy a trip to the

pictures?

That would be very

interesting. Take us with you.

We put our distinguished old

soldiers on short rations of Rosie

Lee and plain biscuits and settled

in for the feature.

Where you are

doing your victory sign. In the

poorer quarters that gesture means

something else.

What does it mean?

I

wouldn't like to say.

I must catch

it.

Up your bum, Sir.

Up your bum?

LAUGHTER

The way you are doing it, yes, sir.

In my memory it was always referred

to a cantankerous so and so. He was

always referred. That's when we

wanted somebody like that, at the

time.

What did you think of Gary

Oldman in the part?

Very good.

Did

he convince you?

Yes, very good.

The

other thing that was good was the

relationship between King George VI

and Churchill. The way that was

portrayed.

I believe we are to speak

regularly.

Once a week, I'm afraid.

How are you for Mondays?

I shall

endeavour to be here on Mondays.

Four o'clock.

I nap at four.

Is that

permissible?

No, but necessary.

He

was the right man, at the right

time, in the right place, and the

public knew that, from what I

recall. But I think, you know, the

battles in Parliament were once that

he had to take on and thank God he

won them, otherwise we wouldn't be

here talking about it now.

Did you

feel fear at the time of joining up?

No.

You are smiling.

Youngsters

don't feel fear, it's all

excitement. I remember when it was

announced we were at war with

Germany. How my parents were quite

distressed because they had gone

through the First World War, but I

was excited, I thought it would be

interesting.

Watch that film did for

me, it conjured up memories of me as

a young lad. A lot of very young

fellows, with no experience, not

knowing what would happen to them,

went off. And a lot of them didn't

survive. And you think about how old

these chaps were, 17, 18, 19 years

old. Incredible.

Two trumpet stories make it to the

front pages. -- two Donald Trump

stories. The Daily

front pages. -- two Donald Trump

stories. The Daily Mail says he

isn't coming to Britain next month,

partly because he doesn't like the

architecture of the new US embassy.

He is going to miss out on the royal

wedding.

We hoped to be joined from Nashville

by Dr Arikana Chihombori-Quao,

the African Union's ambassador

to the United States.

Unfortunately she has been snowed

in.

Today, Trump flew to the Walter Reed

National Miilitary Medical Centre

in Maryland for his first medical

since taking office,

from which he'll receive doctors'

notes indicating whether he is "fit

to serve", which Trump is under no

obligation to publish.

But this is a physical,

whereas the speculation

surrounding his mental health

is swirling constantly,

especially after the publication

of Michael Wolff's book.

President Trump, of course,

has self diagnosed -

calling himself "mentally stable

and, like, really smart."

But such is one Ivy League

psychiatrist's concern

about Trump's mental state,

which she describes as "dangerous",

that Bandy Lee held a private

meeting with members of Congress

to convince them that he is "unfit

to serve" and has been calling

for a mental health evaluation

for more than a year.

I spoke to her earlier.

I've never met him and I'm not

interested in making any comments

that relate to things

I cannot assess.

So basically the Goldwater rule

was implemented after about 10%

of the psychiatrists

who were surveyed returned

with an answer saying that

Mr Goldwater was unfit.

That is not an assessment

we can make from afar.

And all that I am speaking

to are the worrying signs

of possible incapacity and therefore

calling for an evaluation.

If you haven't met him,

if you haven't spoken to him,

if you haven't been in the same room

as him, how can you assert

that he is dangerous?

The information that is important

for dangerousness is mostly not

obtained in an in-person interview.

In fact, a personal interview is not

likely to reveal very

important information.

What you look at are patterns

of behaviour, responses

to situations, how the individual

is evolving over time

and others' reports.

People who work close to him.

As well as written statements

and verbal statements over time.

So it's actually a vast amount

of data that we already have

on Mr Trump, far more

than we generally do with most

of our patients, in fact.

Still, that doesn't allow us to make

a diagnosis but there is certainly

ample objective data to be able

to say that he is a

high risk, a danger.

So tell me, in your evaluations

and in your observations of data

and indeed your observations

of the President, what do

you think are the key things,

the key signs which lead

you to believe that this man

is dangerous and capable

of acting dangerously?

First of all, past violence

is the best predictor

for future violence.

He has shown verbal aggressiveness,

a history of boasting

about sexual assaults,

a history of inciting

violence at his rallies.

A history of endorsing violence

in his public speeches.

And a continual taunting of

a hostile nation with nuclear power.

All of these are signs of danger

and he has also exhibited

characteristics that are highly

associated with violence,

which include impulsivity,

recklessness, paranoid reactions,

showing a loose grip on reality,

having no empathy, rage

reactions and a constant need

to burnish his sense of power.

These are all associated

with dangerousness.

There has been reaction from African

There has been reaction from African

nations, also highlighted, El

Salvador, and the UN to remarks made

by Donald Trump in the oval Office

in front of senators and a

bipartisan meeting where he

apparently talked about African

countries and Haiti being shithole

countries.

We are joined from Nashville

by Dr Arikana Chihombori-Quao,

the African Union's ambassador

to the United States.

I wonder what the African Union's

response has been to the office of

the president. I know you said he

has been racist. But what is the

next step to deal with this?

As the

African Union we were quite

appalled. Infuriated, outraged by

the comments. For a country like the

United States, which is a valued

partner for the Africans, this was

quite a shock.

President Trump

appeared to say today that fewer

immigrants from Africa, more

immigrants from Norway. Do you think

President Trump's statements have

been racist?

His words will speak

for themselves and for himself. What

I can say unequivocally is that our

contributions to the United States,

as Africans who came electively, and

as Africans who came in shackles,

and for the administration to

disregard the contributions of the

Africans, through the continental

Africans, as well as the

African-Americans, I think that is

just really unfortunate. Will the

African Union be seeking an apology?

-- Donald Trump has denied making

derogatory remarks, but the White

House has not been unequivocal in

its denial, and I wonder if you will

be seeking clarification and also if

it is indeed the case that he used

that language you will be seeking an

apology?

Absolutely. We will be

looking to having a conversation

with the State Department. And

requesting for clarification on that

matter. But also it's important that

there is a better understanding of

the Africans by the administration.

That's my role, to make sure that

our relationship with the United

States is a power. And it is my

responsibility to clarify any

mistakes. I definitely will be

reaching out to the State Department

for a conversation.

It's interesting

because you have said and are saying

that there is a vast

misunderstanding of Africa within

Trump's administration. Is that

because there has been a change of

administration? Or do you think it

is an ongoing misunderstanding?

I

think it is an ongoing

misunderstanding of Africa in

general. As Africans we have a

responsibility to step up, speak

out, make our position is known,

make sure not only must we expect

the American agenda. But also make

sure we have an agenda to the United

States. Make clear what we accept

from the US. What areas are up for

discussion. As African nations,

absolutely, we must articulate our

position. We also have to be very

clear as to what areas are

completely no go. What we will not

accept at all. We have a

responsibility to articulate our

policy on the US.

At the beginning

of the programme our North American

editor said many people will be

shocked by the language and the

sentiment expressed by Donald Trump.

Though, as I say come he does deny

it. But for much of his base, they

will think this is OK, they would

expect this kind of language from

the president. Our correspondent

said that what he is saying is

answered by them but they are happy

to hear the president say it. What

do you make of that?

There is always

going to be a segment of the

population that feel otherwise. Even

during slavery. As you know, there

was a percentage of the population

who felt that slavery should have

continued. To those we pray for

them. We are not going to stop

moving the African agenda forward

because of a small group of eight

few people who are in the fringes of

society. -- small group of a few

people.

Thank you very much.

Thank

you, and keep up the good work.

That's it for tonight.