Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with University of Oxford Brazilian Studies Programme Coordinator Felipe Krause; Interview with Student and Investigative Journalist Bozidar Milovac; Interview with "The Fight Back" Author Maria Ressa; Interview with The Christian Science Monitor Staff Writer Sophie Hills; Interview with The Christian Science Monitor A.I. Bureau Chief Aaron Glantz. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired October 26, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and a warm welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

Two historic elections, two defeats for the far-right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I want to thank Brazil's young people for their generosity and taking to the

streets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Surprise victory for President Lula, giving a major blow to Trump- backed rival Flavio Bolsonaro. What this history-making result means for democracy in Latin America.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an amazing feeling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: -- a student movement ousts Serbia's strongman leader. To get the details on how a campaign born from tragedy toppled the country's political

order.

Also, ahead, "The Fight Back: A Citizen's Guide to Standing Up to Dictators." Nobel laureate Maria Ressa on her new guidebook, teaching

ordinary citizens to defend democracy in an age of artificial intelligence and authoritarianism.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AARON GLANTZ, A.I. BUREAU CHIEF, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: OpenAI and Anthropic want to make sure that whoever wins, they are in the room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: -- as calls for regulation grow, A.I. groups are spending millions to influence the midterms. Journalists from the Christian Science Monitor

join Hari Sreenivasan.

And welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Is the tide beginning to turn against authoritarianism? Elections in Brazil and Serbia put that question to the test, with voters ultimately making a

stand for democracy. And the stakes are high. The democratic freedoms enjoyed by the average global citizen are at their lowest in nearly half a

century. That's according to the V-Dem Institute.

So, we begin in Brazil, where Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has again made history. After trailing in the first round, a surge of grassroots

mobilization helped Lula turn the race around, defeating Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of his jailed predecessor, Jair. We take a listen now to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Thank the people who coordinated our campaign and the parties that joined us. But

I wanted to thank the Brazilian people for the generosity they have shown me for so long. And in the second round, I want to thank Brazil's young

people for their generosity and taking to the streets they took to the streets to defend democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: So, he becomes the first president in Latin America to win a fourth term, slamming the brakes on a right-wing wave sweeping the region

and dealing a setback as well to the Trump administration, which, as you remember, has close ties to the Bolsonaro family. Big challenges, yes, they

are ahead for Lula.

Now, echoing his father's response to the defeat four years ago, Bolsonaro is refusing to recognize the results. Now, it's important to remember here

Lula faces a hostile Congress where his rivals won majorities in both houses.

Felipe Krause is a political scientist and former diplomat in the Brazilian Foreign Service. And he joins us now. Really good to have you on the

program. I'm sure you were riveted, as I was. I don't even understand Portuguese and I watched the broadcast live.

We want to know about your impressions. How did Lula's win surprise everyone? I mean, 4.4 million votes, not nothing, 51 percent. In fact, a

bit more of that. What do you attribute to this stunning comeback? And I'm wondering, you know, what changed from the first round to the second?

Because the first round, the polls were also not correct.

FELIPE KRAUSE, BRAZILIAN STUDIES PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: Yes. Hello, and thanks for having me. So, this was really the

upset to the upset, wasn't it? So, Lula was expected to win that first round, then he lost, then he was expected to lose the second round, and

then he won.

The first round was really surprising. Polls had Lula ahead by five points. I think a big part of the story in that first round is probably the very

high abstention rates of 21 percent, a historic high. So, many Lula supporters who the polls had initially detected ended up not showing up to

vote in that first round.

[13:05:00]

Then in the second round, polls did initially show a slight Flavio lead. And as you said, mobilization had a big impact here, especially online.

There was something called the Lula's Army WhatsApp group, which was 10 million strong. This really got people out to vote.

Then there were some very significant economic packages. So, for example, increasing the Bolsa Familia program by 50 percent, all of a sudden, the

cash transfer program. And then a package specifically geared at the lower middle classes, those small entrepreneurs where Lula suffered the most

losses in the first round. And these handouts and these packages were very last minute, and perhaps the polls weren't able to quite keep up.

But I think there's one key point to make here. This narrow Lula victory shouldn't really obscure, I think, the structural strength of the rights. I

think in the long run, the right still has the upper hand.

NEWTON: That is so interesting. And we will get into that. You talk about the digital army. I mean, digital was something the Bolsonaro campaign,

father and son, had done so well. And yet, we had everyone from Bad Bunny to Mayor Mamdani here in New York endorsing Lula.

I'm wondering, though, about the coarseness of this campaign and if that backfired on Bolsonaro, if indeed, as you say, it's not that the right-wing

is not going to be certainly resurgent again in Brazil.

KRAUSE: Yes. Look, there was a high rejection rate on both sides. There is what many economists are calling a vibe session. So, a lot of the headline

numbers are quite strong in the economy. Most notably, unemployment is historically low. But there's a big cost of living crisis, as in most of

the world. And these are external factors. The incumbents pay a high price for this.

So, the vibe, if you will, was never very positive, despite those strong numbers in the economy. And I think there's a crucial point here, which is

about the economic aspirations of younger Brazilians. These have changed. The PT has not kept up. Young Brazilians want autonomy. They want

entrepreneurship. They want upward mobility. And that traditional PT Workers' Party emphasis on formal employment, social protection, that no

longer speaks to everyone.

So, you've got platform workers, small entrepreneurs. They want less bureaucracy, accessible credit, higher earning potential. The PT finally

got round to speaking to those concerns in the second round.

NEWTON: And I do want to get to what the young generation is going to expect from Lula, because he thanked them specifically. But first to this

election itself, because Flavio Bolsonaro, he is vowing to fight these results. I want you to listen to him now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FLAVIO BOLSONARO, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): We will take legal action. We will ask for this election to be annulled. This had

never happened in Brazil's history. What happened today was non-normal. In fact, it was unacceptable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Listen, there were irregularities in some polls. It seemed to me both sides were asking for the polls to be opened longer. They were indeed,

but not everywhere. His claims, do you think they have any merit?

KRAUSE: This is a very sensitive point, Paula. I think Flavio Bolsonaro's challenge here is not entirely without merit. Brazilian electoral law

doesn't stipulate any conditions for an extension of the voting hours. The Supreme Court decision was very last minute. It was surprising. It was

unusual. I think it should be scrutinized.

On the other hand, I don't think it's likely to lead to any kind of reversal. As you mentioned, Lula won by a solid margin of 4.4 million

votes. It also doesn't help that the Flavio camp also put in requests for extending the voting hours. There were serious issues with potential voter

suppression. These do need to be looked at as well.

But still, given Flavio's father's previous attacks on democracy, unfortunately, I wouldn't put anything past Flavio Bolsonaro at this point,

specifically. I think he'll continue to work behind the scenes, undermining trust in elections and democratic institutions.

NEWTON: And certainly, it is something still that the electorate itself worries about at this hour, as we wait to see, I mean, how all this plays

out. I do want to go back to Christiane's interview with Lula in September. He was quite confident. And, in fact, a lot of what he said went viral

before the election. Listen.

[13:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DA SILVA (through translator): Every election, I am concerned, Christiane, because we only know the results after the ballot box are open. But the

fact of the matter is that what is at stake today in Brazil is not a choice of people or parties against others. What is at stake today is a choice

that either we have democracy or we have barbarism, or we have policy to conserve nature or deforestation, a policy of social inclusion or leave the

poor abandoned, or the strengthening of culture or the end of culture. This is what is at stake now. And I have the awareness that I will win the

elections. I'm sure that I'm going to win the elections, because Brazil needs democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: He might have been right at the time about those binary choices. But as you so rightly point out, I mean, I was in Brazil for the last

election. There are a lot of challenges, and Brazilians are looking for change. Does it come, though, from Lula? He turns 81 this week. This is

going to be a tall order, especially, as we mentioned off the top, that the opposition is very strong in the Houses of Parliament.

KRAUSE: Yes. I think, again, as I mentioned before, this issue of the middle class is really quite central. The left needs to be able to, on the

one hand, address exploitation of platform workers, of app-based workers. But it can't dismiss real workers' preferences.

Some people just don't want to have a boss. They want flexible working hours. They want to be able to take their kid to the doctor. They value

that kind of independence. And I think that it's taken a very, very long time for the left to understand this, while this new right led by the

Bolsonaro family has understood this a long time ago.

The other thing to mention is that the PT needs generational renewal. Lula turns 81 years old tomorrow. I don't want to seem ageist, but this has some

implications, not least whether he's out of touch, simply.

NEWTON: Yes, and he --

KRAUSE: There is no currently -- yes?

NEWTON: No, no, and he did take the time to thank the youth vote. So, perhaps that tells us something about what his plans will be going forward.

I do want to ask you about the Trump factor here. It's no secret that Trump is a huge fan of the Bolsonaros and vice versa.

Far-right has been winning big in Latin America. Does this upend the trend? And I do want to note not just the trend in the region, but also Lula

himself at times being quite pragmatic about what the Trump administration can offer and what it can't offer.

KRAUSE: Yes. Well, first of all, internally, this issue of the rise of the right, I mean, Lula's going to spend a lot of precious political capital

merely keeping his agenda from eroding. On the wider kind of international front, it was interesting to see a number of presidents from the region,

both from the left and the right, immediately congratulating Lula. That was a good sign.

Last time I checked, President Milei of Argentina hadn't spoken to Lula yet. That was an exception. And then on the U.S.-Brazil side, you know, of

course, this was definitely a setback for the MAGA movement's intentions for the region. I do believe that there is pragmatism, at least in the

medium- to long-term on both sides.

Lula is a consummate deal maker. He is going to be very pragmatic on this. So, there may be some short-term sort of rhetorical, you know, clash of

words. But I think business interests in both sides, both in the U.S. and in Brazil, will ultimately bring people to the table and to find a

pragmatic solution. It's the only way forward for the region. Also, Brazil is an enormous country with a very complex economy. It's difficult to

interfere. Yes.

NEWTON: Understood. And perhaps our first opportunity to see this at work will be the G20, which happens to be in China. And again, Lula and Donald

Trump. Let's see if they actually get a bilateral going there.

I want to really thank you for your insight into this as we continue to parse this extraordinary election. Thanks so much for your time.

KRAUSE: Thank you very much.

NEWTON: Now, elation on the streets of Serbia, where citizens are celebrating the start of a new era, all thanks to a student-led movement

that has defeated long-time leader Aleksandar Vucic. Take a listen.

[13:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEJLA KIPIC, BELGRADE RESIDENT: The feeling is surreal. I laughed, I cried, I screamed. I jumped. It's just unbelievable. After so many years of

this tyranny and dictatorship, we are finally free. And that's, you cannot put it in words.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Now, the movement began two years ago when a railway station disaster sparked national outrage over fraud and corruption. Protesters

blamed government negligence and started a campaign to challenge Vucic. And on Sunday, they brought an end to his 14-year hold on power. Now, it robs

Russia of another important ally just months after the electoral defeat of Viktor Orban in Hungary.

Now, attention rightly turns to the youth-backed Students' List Party. It has no definitive leader and little experience in politics. And yet, yes,

it is now tasked to govern this country.

For more on all of this, Serbian journalist Bozidar Milovac joins us now from Novi Sad. And it's good to have you on the program.

BOZIDAR MILOVAC, STUDENT AND INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Thank you for having me. It's great to be here.

NEWTON: So, we just heard from Serbians celebrating the victory by the Students' List and the defeat of Vucic. I mean, how would you describe the

mood in Serbia leading up to the election and the elation that we could certainly see on the part of the youth movement there?

MILOVAC: The jubilation is clear now. The last two days now have been filled with happiness on the street. Even today, I went to Belgrade today,

and it's still as if it just happened moments ago. I thought it was calm this morning, but it hasn't stopped. The party has been ongoing constantly.

All the period before the election was very tense. The ruling party, the previous -- the outgoing ruling party, it's still kind of weird to say it,

has been known to cause many disruptions during elections. And these elections that were framed to be the most important ones, at least in

Serbia's recent young democratic history, were thought to be ones that were most likely to cause a lot of accidents. None of that happened, actually.

It was a surprisingly calm day. And yes, the feeling was tense before the election, but jubilant ever since. And it doesn't seem to be stopping

anytime soon, since the students have called people to the streets again this night to celebrate the victory that they announced yesterday.

NEWTON: Yes, there was certainly, in the youth movement that I saw, there was almost a sense of disbelief. And I'm wondering if you believe it will

inspire the youth movement in Europe and beyond. We were just talking about how the youth was so consequential in the Brazilian election.

MILOVAC: I'll be honest, I have no doubt it will. I think a lot of the problems are similar, maybe not directly. Serbia's government is, was,

again, very weird to say, was one of the worst ones in Europe. It had proven connections to crime groups, to drug dealings. They have been known

to be loving users of corruption, let's put it that way.

And yes, while they have been one of the worst ones, they also are a symptom of something that's, I think, happening around the world. A

generation that came after, the generation that I belong to, doesn't really feel understood or heard around the world. And they don't feel that the old

electoral system or the old political parties with history represent them the best. And they have been taking to the streets around the world, but

most notably Europe currently. And I don't think it's something that's going to stop anytime soon.

And I think Serbia could be, for the first time in a while, used as a very positive example of a country that's movement formed a political entity

and, in the end, ended up challenging and winning against authoritarian government that had control of power of all state institutions and way

more.

NEWTON: Well, they certainly will be heard. I'm understanding it is a little bit more difficult, especially, it seems, for the older generations.

You are in Novi Sad, which is where this opposition movement was launched. But that was after tragic events.

In November 2024, we'll remind our audience, there was the collapse of a train station canopy. And that fueled a lot of this protest movement, a lot

of the anger. How is the victory resonating there? And again, the tragedy must still be felt so viscerally by so many.

MILOVAC: Yes. The tragedy was one of the worst things that's happened to my city. It's been a wounded city ever since. And I don't think it can ever

truly recover from something like this. This is 16 people who lost their lives at a place we all knew so much. The train station wasn't only a place

of travel. It was a place of many memories. It's like sort of in the center of the city. It's an architectural masterpiece from Yugoslav times. And it

was beloved by all people.

Novi Sad is also a city of a lot of immigrants. And most of them would go home often at that train station. It's also a bus station as well. So, it

carries a lot of memories. And the city can never truly recover from what happened there. And the station of the train station itself is not in use,

but the bus station still is. But I find it difficult to go there, as many of my friends, colleagues and family members do.

[13:20:00]

It's not a place of gathering anymore. It's not a place of where you create memories anymore, at least in my eyes and in the eyes of many other people.

So, that's something that can never truly heal. There can be monuments built, but for our lifetimes, it will always be the place where a huge

tragedy happens. Not only a tragedy, but a clear sign of systemic corruption.

NEWTON: Yes.

MILOVAC: But -- yes. The city also itself had to celebrate more than others, right? Novi Sad, while wounded, it had to fight for justice it

believed and it hasn't stopped fighting for the last two years. So, the celebration, which I saw last night and tried to capture as a journalist,

was perhaps a more jubilant celebration, which was larger in the city's capital, in the country's capital, in Belgrade, sorry.

NEWTON: It certainly has channeled a lot of purpose. We were looking at video just from the anniversary, and you can really see the outpouring of

grief there. But what now, right? The students list has made a point of putting forward a ticket with no high-profile leaders. There's no real

figurehead.

So, how do you run the country now? What is the platform? What will happen? Has this been figured out? Did people really expect that, yes, we will win,

and this is how we move forward?

MILOVAC: I think people have trusted the students because they have proven that they deserve trust. 2.2 million voters in Serbia gave their votes to

the student list without any figurehead, without a clear defined leader. And I think that the biggest proof ever that you don't need a leader if you

present yourself as somebody who can be trusted, right?

We have chosen a list of 250 people, out of which more than 170 are PhD owners, I don't know how to put it, are PhD, most of them are professors,

experts in their industries, people who have no political background and have never shown any ambition to be politicians. They are, more than

anything, people who were stepped up by the students, chosen by the students to represent experts in their respective fields. I'm assuming the

students have a plan.

I am a student myself, but I haven't been active in the movement in that way, but a lot of my friends have been. And they have had a plan for

everything the government tried to throw at them in the last two years. And I'm assuming they also have a plan for this, right? I'm assuming they

already chose who the prime minister would be and should be if they win. I assume they chose all of the MPs and stuff like that. The list is as is,

but they can make changes to it. The PM doesn't have to be somebody who was at the list, and they have a plan for that as well.

So, yes, they haven't offered anything in terms of who's going to be the prime minister or anything like that, but they have offered a clear plan of

what they want to do with Serbia. And that plan seems to have influenced a lot of the voters to believe in me even more, so the results are here as

they are.

NEWTON: Yes. You've also articulated certainly how credentialed they are, and we will wait to hear their plans. I want to ask you about the

generational rift here, if there is one. Can you take us to the kitchen table discussion here about perhaps the older generation being influenced

by their children, because the older generation is used to a pro-Russia government, correct?

It is also used to institutions that now for almost two decades have really taken some hits. So, take us to that kitchen table, that living room. What

were the discussions like?

MILOVAC: I think that's perhaps the biggest power of the student movement, right? They could influence those older voters, which a lot of the

traditional opposition parties couldn't even reach. Students have walked all across the country. They have visited villages that I assume no other

politician has ever visited, and those people took that to heart and appreciated it, and they perhaps felt seen more than they have ever felt

seen before in the country.

The kitchen table discussions would most often lead about the things that the government tried to frame the movement as. They would frame it as state

traitors, as somebody funded from foreign adversaries and stuff like that.

But having a student of your own in the household, which most people in Serbia do, or at least they know somebody, a neighbor, a friend, a family

relative, helps a lot with this, because you know those people, you know how they are, you know that they were wonderful high school students, they

studied hard and they went to university because they wanted to improve themselves to be experts in their own respective fields.

So, knowing somebody like that helps you a lot, because the movement, while it's faceless in the larger scheme of things, it's not faceless for anybody

who supports the movement. They all know somebody who they directly support in that way, right? So, yes. I wouldn't -- sorry. Go on.

NEWTON: Just before we let you go, you're an investigative journalist, and I'm sure at times against many odds you are trying to get to the facts and

the truth. How supportive do you believe this group will be, and do you think it is a new dawn for the kind of journalism that perhaps some had to

practice with fear in years past?

[13:25:00]

MILOVAC: Absolutely. Serbia has three great investigative media outlets, which is a lot more than many larger countries do have, and that's because

we have a lot of stories to cover. I'm very proud of the work my media outlet does and all the other media outlets do. KRIK is one of the most

awarded investigative media outlets in Europe.

But yes, the access to those stories was very difficult to get through. We had to work way harder than most of our colleagues did in functioning

democratic countries. So, while we have to wait and see what the student government will be like, it doesn't seem like it could be much worse than

the current one, at least for investigative journalists. We will continue to do our jobs as we did previously.

The first step is to get through the files and documents that we didn't have access to for the last 14 years and see what all happened there that

we had some or no idea about it.

NEWTON: Well, hopefully the student list can also understand that free and independent media helps hold them to account at the end of the day. I

really want to thank you. You really gave us a lot to think about in terms of Serbia's future. Appreciate your time.

MILOVAC: Appreciate your time as well, and thank you for inviting me. Have a great day.

NEWTON: Still to come for us, what does it take to stand up to a dictator? Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa. She has done just that. Now, she has

a warning for the rest of us. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: So, Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa knows firsthand what it means to stand up to authoritarianism. The journalist and her news

organization, Rappler, faced years of persecution for their fearless reporting on the Philippines' brutal drug war under former President

Rodrigo Duterte.

But as democracy faces new threats, from disinformation to artificial intelligence, Ressa is calling on citizens to, in her words, fight back.

And that's the title of her new book, "The Fight Back, A Citizen's Guide to Standing Up to Dictators." And she joins us now from New York. It is so

great to see you, Maria. Thanks so much for being on the program.

MARIA RESSA, AUTHOR. "THE FIGHT BACK": Thanks for having me, Paula.

NEWTON: You know, you've come at this book, and it is a sequel of your previous work. And I like so much that it gets to the point of solutions,

right? What can we do moving forward? So, walk us through the steps of what it means to fight back.

RESSA: I mean, first of all, let's just -- I've been watching what you've been talking about, Brazil and Serbia, right? They did the exact same

things we did in the Philippines to fight back, which is to move away from the virtual world and move into the real world, right?

Part of that is because in "The Fight Back," I literally talk about our two dictators, which is state and tech. Brazil had state and tech working

against it. My friend Patricia Campos Mello talked to a whistleblower inside Meta. You had, in Brazil, Meta and President Trump working on those

elections. What did they do? Lula's campaign mobilized and moved into the physical world, and that's why you saw this surge.

[13:30:00]

But I think also interesting to look at that is that Brazil was one of the first times where you saw the recommendation algorithm of YouTube. Take

Bolsonaro. So, this is all the way back, Father Bolsonaro, and take and cluster him with every single -- what's the right word? It's not just far-

right, because he was far-right fringe, but every conspiracy theories, so that they brought them into center. He won elections, and you can see what

happened after that.

So, this -- Lula continues that fight. He leads the battle for information integrity in a coalition called Democracia Siempre, right? So, that's

important.

But in Serbia, what you also saw was a move by the students outside of social media, because Serbia had actually used that for information

operations. They went into the physical world, and they showed what they can do. There are precedents for that, right? All we have to do is to look

at Bangladesh and what the students did, and to see Professor Yunus, whose -- Yunus is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He helped the students form a

government.

But I guess the last thing on the book, please be aware of the two dictators as we move into elections in other parts of the world. You've got

Israel. You've got the United States coming up, right? The dictators are state and tech, each benefits from the other in information chaos. The

state benefits from the tech oligarchs, and the tech oligarchs are protected by the authoritarian leaders.

It's not a coincidence that this is V-Dem. You quoted them earlier. Seventy-four percent of the world today is under authoritarian rule.

Through the technology that's corrupted our public information ecosystem, we are literally electing illiberal leaders democratically.

So, we need to demand regulations that protect us and to actually take the small steps in the fight back. What are those small steps that can give us

back -- that allow us to reclaim our rights?

NEWTON: It is one of the most discouraging things that you say, though, right? It is democracy that at times is electing these illiberal

governments. We want to talk about that tech stack, right? Now, you identify A.I. as a key culprit here, the so-called authoritarian stack.

What is actually happening here? Because you're saying that tech and state are formally merging. You write that the technology that mediates our

thinking has become a weapon in the hands of the state that was supposed to regulate it.

RESSA: That's correct.

NEWTON: How has that affected the democratic institutions that we need and also, of course, journalism?

RESSA: Well, the first is that -- please, let's understand that artificial intelligence has been around for more than 70 years, right? And the way the

Internet, the way the technology has been rolled out literally hacks our biology, right? And they were allowed to do that by the state that didn't

actually protect the citizens, right? And so, when citizens are targeted, the cellular level of a democracy, those citizens get power.

But let's just look at this, right? We've talked about the attention economy. Social media took over as gatekeepers from traditional journalists

as early as 2014. And that's when we saw the annexation of Crimea, seeding of a metanarrative that was used eight years later by Putin himself to

invade Ukraine itself, right? Because seeding a metanarrative, then pumping it every single time so a lie becomes a fact.

The sentences I've said over and over, without facts, you can't have truth. Without truth, you can't have trust. Without these three, we don't have a

shared reality. We can't have journalism. We can't have democracy. But here's the part where it gets worse, and it could get worse if we don't

move into the physical world. We've now in 2022 come out with chatbots, the large language models.

Those chatbots, they hack intimacy, right, our own humanity. And those chatbots lead to agentic and multi-agentic A.I. I co-chair the U.N.'s

Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, and we literally have come out with a report that lays out the facts that show

you that we have outsourced our agency, starting from social media, attention, intimacy, and our own agency itself.

NEWTON: I do want to ask you about what is uniquely dangerous about A.I. The definition is artificial, right? It is a substitute, an imitation. What

are we surrendering? And you argue A.I. was supposed to be journalism's savior in a way. Instead, you argue that it's the arsonist that will not

save the village, in your words.

[13:35:00]

RESSA: Yes. Thank you so much. Yes. If you look at the data and we look at the patterns and trends, journalism, the business model is dead, has been

choked by big tech right now. I mean, you know, in the Philippines, Rappler survived six years of Rodrigo Duterte, our dictator. And here's the thing.

By working together with our community, we did a whole-of-society approach where he is now facing, on November 30th, a trial where he faces charges of

crimes against humanity, right?

So, impunity can end for the state, but for tech, we don't have systems in place that holds tech accountable. I argue in the book that the impunity of

technology, that the vision that is predatory and extractive of artificial intelligence from social media all the way to agentic A.I., literally

exploit us. They're predatory and extractive, and we should reclaim our rights, and we do it in small steps.

NEWTON: And, Maria, I do go back to what the solution could be here, right? We have had the fact that, look, in Venezuela, we have the return

just yesterday of Maria Corina Machado. In Hungary, the far-right leader, Viktor Orban, was voted out. We just talked about Brazil and Serbia.

So, how to really make our institutions stronger in order to take up any little change in technology or change in government? Do you see a system

that works in terms of the fight back, the step-by-step fight back?

RESSA: You know, what I did was break it down to understand what the problem is, where we are essentially Pavlov's dogs, right, the humanity at

scale. And then the second -- so the first step is understand. Second is defend. So, we defend ourselves. We defend our communities. We defend our

journalists before it's too late because we're heading to market failure. And that last one is defend institutions.

The third chunk is build. Build your own technology. Govern collectively. And then the last one, what is it? What is the world we want, right? We can

actually create it. We're at a similar moment as when the world had to come up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over 80 years ago.

So, look, the governments and leaders that are trying to regulate technology are themselves being targeted. So, they need the people to come

up, bottom up. And those -- that's the challenge we have. What are the steps? Here's an easy one. In Chapter 1, the title is Two Dictators. The

first step is how much screen time do you spend? Which screens? I have three cell phones. How much screen -- how much time do you spend on

screens? And the second step is delete one app, preferably the one that makes you angriest. Because the first step is understand how this is

hacking your biology so that you can go out in a shared reality. Have the civic engagement that brought Bolsonaro back to the presidency, right?

And frankly, for Americans, it's so fascinating to me how when this happened in the Philippines in 2016, I thought that, you know, why are

Filipinos afraid to speak up? Because the people who speak up get pounded down. In America, there's almost a sense of exceptionalism that you're not

being manipulated. You are being manipulated. The tech is designed that way.

NEWTON: Yes. And as you said, the first step is to understand how we are being manipulated. Maria Ressa, always so great to see you. Thank you so

much for being on the program. Really appreciate it.

Now, I want you to stay with CNN. We'll be right back with more right after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:00]

NEWTON: Now, $100 million. That's the reported sum A.I. firms Anthropic and OpenAI have poured into the upcoming midterm elections. At the same

time, Anthropic is facing scrutiny over reports that its Claude model accessed paywalled Georgia voting data. The latest incident in a string of

controversies over unauthorized activity.

Now, the Christian Science Monitor's Aaron Glantz and Sophie Hills have been investigating where these companies' political donations are actually

going. And what they hope to achieve. They join Hari Srinivasan to discuss the unexpected patterns they identified and what A.I.'s growing political

influence could mean for democracies.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, thanks. Aaron Glantz and Sophie Hills, thank you both for joining us.

Sophie, let me start with you. We're just really weeks away from the midterms. And obviously in every political cycle there is always a lot of

money involved. You decided to take a look closer at the A.I. companies specifically and how much they are contributing. How much money are we

talking about that's coming into this election cycle and where is it going?

SOPHIE HILLS, STAFF WRITER, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: Thanks, Hari. Glad to be here. We wanted to take a closer look at where exactly all this

money is going because the grand total is pretty large.

So, together Anthropic and OpenAI have funneled about $100 million into a web of Super PACs. And those Super PACs have so far spent nearly $60

million in support of or in opposition to 65 candidates and counting all around the country. And what's really interesting is these candidates are

scattered around the country. They're on both sides of the aisle. Where these companies are choosing to put the money really doesn't map evenly and

neatly onto an ideological divide.

SREENIVASAN: So, Aaron, you're the A.I. Bureau Chief at the Christian Science Monitor. What Sophie is describing, is that abnormal for politics?

Haven't we always had big pharma companies and all kinds of different special interests lobbying and supporting both sides of the aisle?

AARON GLANTZ, A.I. BUREAU CHIEF, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: Absolutely. I mean, we've seen it with the drug companies and the tobacco

companies and other large special interests. I think we thought it was important to look at OpenAI and Anthropic because the primary focus of this

year's election has been on who is going to control the House and who is going to control the Senate.

But when you look, as Sophie said, about where these companies are investing their money, they are investing on both sides. OpenAI and

Anthropic want to make sure that whoever wins, they are in the room. And so, there are certain races that they're investing in, such as the South

Carolina Senate race, where PACs affiliated with OpenAI have dumped more than $2 million into the campaign of Republican Darlene Graham, who is

facing a very spirited challenge from Democrat Annie Andrews. Annie Andrews has staked out a position against data centers, and Darlene Graham is

getting all this money from OpenAI So, that's a very clear case of the companies laying in on the right.

But there are other situations where they're giving heavily to the Democrats. And some of these candidates are not in close races. Recently,

there was another disclosure about a congressional race in upstate New York where the Democrat has a very safe path to re-election where the PAC dumped

a bunch of money in. So, basically, they just want to be in the room, right? They know that after the election, there are going to be things they

want from Congress, and they want to make sure that they have the ear of people on the left and people on the right.

SREENIVASAN: So, Sophie, how do we know where this money is coming from? Because the just structure of Super PAC sometimes makes it difficult.

OpenAI, for example, says the company itself hasn't donated to any of these groups. But where is it?

HILLS: It is a bit confusing to trace. So, these companies have funded Super PACs that spend on Republican candidates and Democratic candidates.

And the names are different. So, for example, it's kind of interesting, but OpenAI's PAC, Super PAC that spends on Republican candidates is called

American Mission, whereas their Super PAC that spends on Democratic candidates is called Think Big.

So, it was really interesting for us to sort of trace back to the source, look at the filings from the FEC, and see the races where these companies

are directing money, even starting in the primaries.

[13:45:00]

And they weighed in pretty heavily on several primaries in attempts to pick the winners. One example was when Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler,

who's one of the most senior members of the New York delegation, when he opted to retire, there was a heated primary. And Anthropic and OpenAI

actually spent a total of $27 million against each other in support of and opposition to Democratic State Legislator Alex Forrest, who ended up losing

his primary.

SREENIVASAN: So, Alex had staked out a specific position about A.I., right? And I'm wondering, is there any rationale for why OpenAI would be on

one side of the donation versus Anthropic on the other side?

HILLS: Generally speaking, Anthropic is more pro-influencing how the regulations take shape, whereas OpenAI is kind of nominally anti-

regulation. And Boris had worked on A.I. safety regulation as a state legislator. He's also a former Palantir executive, so he has kind of more

of a familiarity with the tech industry than a lot of candidates might.

SREENIVASAN: This is also happening at a time when Americans have a lot of opinions about A.I., about data centers. And I guess how does this square

with the political strategy that these companies might be employing? Because in some senses, their involvement might backfire. Like some of the

candidates don't want to be telling their constituents that they're taking money from A.I. companies.

GLANTZ: Well, one of the really interesting things that Sophie found in her reporting is that all this money -- you know, when you have a Super

PAC, they can't coordinate with the campaign, right? So, they're putting out their own ads in support or opposition to a particular candidate. And

what we've seen in their ads is they often don't mention A.I. at all.

So, these are ads that are being paid for by Super PACs, that are being paid for by OpenAI or Anthropic. These companies have a great deal of

business before the government, not only about data centers, but, you know, they want approval from the FEC to FCC rather to put data centers in space.

They want all kinds of regulations or not around how fast they can grow and whether or not there will be any kind of kill switch.

Importantly, whether or not there will be preemption of state and local laws on A.I., which are multiplying, whether or not they will be able to be

held liable or not for the impacts of their products. All of these are going to be before Congress. And -- but when they have an ad, they usually

don't talk about any of this.

SREENIVASAN: Sophie, in the different ads that you've seen and the different campaigns that you've been watching, you point out basically that

it doesn't say at the bottom of the ad, this was brought to you by OpenAI or Anthropic. And I wonder, given what people know about these companies

right now, would it make a difference in how they voted if they knew that this was an A.I. company that was buying this ad?

HILLS: In some states, it certainly would. You know, I've been covering campaigns around the country for the Christian Science Monitor this cycle,

and particularly in states like Ohio, Iowa, Kentucky. I'm hearing over and over from voters on both sides of the aisle that they are they don't want

data centers in their communities. They're concerned about the rapid development of A.I. They're concerned about tech in general. Flock cameras

have gotten so much coverage.

And many voters have expressed this feeling that these companies are just so big. They're so big and powerful. They have so much money. They're

developing this tech that feels sort of beyond the average person in our busy lives to really dig into and understand in a deep way. And these

voters want to know that their elected officials are protecting the voters' interests, not acting on behalf of these companies.

I think that it really would make a difference if a voter were to see an ad that said paid for by OpenAI, they would think, well, I just went to, you

know, a city council meeting where I said I didn't want a data center in my, you know, community to help fuel A.I.

And one example of these ads is in a Texas race, Republican Carlos de la Cruz, who's running against Democrat Johnny Garcia in a district redrawn by

Texas Republicans. Anthropic has spent more than $1.5 million in support of him. And that includes spending on some ads that they've run. And in one

ad, it describes de la Cruz simply as Trump-endorsed and strong on the border. There's no mention of A.I. or tech.

[13:50:00]

SREENIVASAN: And, Aaron, this isn't just these two companies. I mean, there's a lot of people that have interests in how A.I. shapes our future,

how policy shapes their future. We're talking Google, Meta, Elon Musk. They're all spending and money in politics.

GLANTZ: Yes. I mean, Elon Musk has been the biggest giver by far in this election. And he's also running ads that don't mention his companies and

his interests. You know, a lot of his ads have to do with, you know, trans kids and sports, right, which has nothing to do with his business

interests. So, he clearly thinks that that is the best winning strategy to not talk about Tesla or SpaceX or any of that or the massive government

contracts that he has.

We were surprised that there had been less attention on OpenAI and Anthropic, which are the two fastest growing companies. They're both likely

to IPO and they're seeking trillion-dollar valuations. And so, in this race, when somebody like Elon is very heavily backing the Republicans, it's

important to note that these other companies have a different strategy, which is they just want to make sure that whether the Republicans win or

the Democrats win, that they win.

SREENIVASAN: I wonder, Aaron, there's also this conversation in this country, especially around the A.I. companies, that we are in this

technological race with China. And this is really a matter of national security. And how should lawmakers weigh these concerns against this basic

need that we have for oversight?

GLANTZ: These companies and the president, Donald Trump, are definitely positioning the U.S. as in a race with China, right? And they are saying

that if we don't win this race, it could be damaging to America. In our coverage at the Monitor, we've been focused a lot more on what these tools

actually do, what the pros and cons actually are, and what it looks like in real life.

So, for example, we did a story about a gold rush that's happening in K-12 education, where chatbots that are unproven are being rolled out in

schools. We did a story about the Environmental Protection Agency's development of an A.I. tool to vet whether or not pesticides are toxic. So,

A.I. would be reviewing all the scientific literature rather than humans before a potentially toxic pesticide were approved. We're looking into

surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security using A.I.

And what my hope would be is that we, as the American people, when we assess this technology, we begin to focus more on what it does, how we feel

about that, what kind of decisions we want to make, and a little bit less on this race. The United Nations put out a report this summer that showed

that the United States has 75 percent of the A.I. computing power. China has 15 percent. The rest of the world has the balance of about 10 percent.

So, what I've learned in some of my reporting on the rest of the world is that they're not so concerned about winning and coming in first. They're

more concerned about whether or not the technology works for them.

SREENIVASAN: Sophie, as your reporting's come out, have OpenAI or Anthropic responded?

HILLS: No, and we didn't get response to some questions I sent in some weeks ago either.

SREENIVASAN: Right now, Aaron, it seems like this is an inevitable future. And I wonder where our voters kind of fit into this, given that there's a

lot of people who are so frustrated that decisions are being made without their consultation.

GLANTZ: Well, I think the position that we are taking at the Monitor is that no future is particularly inevitable and that through our reporting,

we can show all the choices that decision makers are making. So, members of Congress are making decisions. People are making decisions at the local

level. Decisions are being made at global bodies and inside companies.

And so, we can weigh in in all of these different ways. So, you know, people may feel, for example, that there's too much A.I. too fast in their

kids' schools. And we saw in New York and L.A. applause put on the rollout of A.I. in K-12 education. People may feel like their chatbots are

exploiting their children. And we've seen lawsuits filed. There's a lot of ways in which this is playing out.

And I think if we focus on those choices, who's making them and who's in the room, we can begin to get some agency and power and start to decide how

we want to shape our own future regarding these technologies.

SREENIVASAN: Aaron Glantz and Sophie Hills from the Christian Science Monitor, thanks so much.

GLANTZ: Thank you.

HILL: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: And finally, Mexico's Day of the Dead celebrations are anything but ghostly. Drummers, dancers and decorated vehicles brought Mexico City's

streets to life, as you can see there, as thousands turned out to the annual parade.

[13:55:00]

The festivities mark the run-up to one of the country's most important holidays, a time to honor the dead and celebrate the bonds that outlive

them. Blending indigenous and Catholic traditions, Day of the Dead, with the celebration of the death of George Floyd. The event is marked with

colorful altars, marigolds and sugar skulls with celebrations that unite the living and those that have passed.

That is it for our program. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can

always catch us online and on our website and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END