Return to Transcripts main page
Smerconish
Will The C.A. Fires Be The Catalyst For A Battle Against Climate Change?; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI), Is Interviewed about Climate Change; Can Meta Be Moderated Given The Sheer Volume Of Posts?; Supreme Court Signals It Will Uphold Ban On TikTok; U.S. Newsrooms Offer Some "The Right To Be Forgotten." Aired 9-10a ET
Aired January 11, 2025 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:24]
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Apocalypse now. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.
The L.A. wildfires have killed at least 11, scorched more than 37,000 acres. That's larger than the size of San Francisco. And six are still burning. The Palisades fire, which is still the biggest fire at more than 21,000 acres taking a frightening turn east last night, triggering new evacuation orders into the heavily populated Brentwood neighborhood and parts of Encino. Firefighting teams are trying to make some progress ahead of even worse conditions.
Those are expected next week if you can believe it. More high winds are in the forecast. CNN's Julia Vargas Jones following that fire now in Los Angeles.
Julia, what are you seeing from where you are this morning?
JULIA VARGAS JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Michael. Look, what's really scary is driving up here. We're just west of the four or five which cuts Los Angeles north south. And you can see the fire just behind me, that glow of the fire near. We're close to the iconic Getty Center not too far from here.
As you mentioned, this fire continuing to burn and firefighters only at about 8 percent. They are expecting to get to double digits still today while they can, while these conditions still hold before those Santa Ana winds come back. But more and more people under these evacuation orders, more than 100,000 people and now getting close to focuses of urban activity in Los Angeles like the UCLA campus, the Veterans hospital, the Veterans Center not far from here in West L.A. already evacuated. Meanwhile in Altadena still that fire only at about 3 percent containment.
We're hearing from city officials that there is an aggravate here of this confusion from the evacuation alerts, Michael, that's been adding fuel to the fire, if I can say that. People with growing sense of frustration with the way that the city is handling this, saying that it's been confusing to get alerts that were sent in error to more people than needed to. And then having received that alert that says never mind, this is not for you. But now today officials saying this is real as this fire grows eastward, please heed those warnings, do not turn off your alerts and we are fighting this fire with everything we can. As of now, you might be able to hear there are aircrafts in the sky.
That, Michael, is key. That is the help that firefighters on the ground really need in order to contain this fire and keep it from reaching even farther east into the city.
SMERCONISH: Julia, thank you for an excellent update. Please stay safe.
So, might the California wildfires be the catalyst for a renewed fight against climate change? This week's events in Los Angeles were the perfect storm of hurricane force, Santa Ana winds, drought conditions over development and a warming planet. Not to mention other factors exacerbating the disaster, the L.A. Fire Department's budget cuts, lack of controlled burns and water supply issues that include a large reservoir in Pacific Palisades which has been closed for nearly one year, leaving a whopping 117 million gallon water storage complex empty in the heart of one of the most ferocious wildfires. Among the unknowns whether arson played any role in this catastrophe.
With regard to the global response to this warming planet, it's been mired in political inertia, corporate lobbying and lack of cooperation among nations. The resulting gaps in action have left the planet on track to warm well above the 1.5 or even 2.0 Celsius thresholds which scientists say will lead to catastrophe. In fact, last year became the warmest year on record for the planet, beating out 2023. In the United States, we've succumbed to partisan fighting, and even when there's agreement, things move at, well, a glacial pace. Consider that in 2021, the bipartisan infrastructure bill allocated 5 billion to install electric vehicle chargers on highways and yet nearly four years later, it has, quote, installed 19 charging stations in nine states, according to the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which serves as the program's technical resource.
Meanwhile, insurance companies are feeling the heat, literally and financially. The wildfires are exposing a $1 trillion hole in hidden home value losses from fires and floods. In 2023, California experienced the fourth largest rate of insurance nonrenewals nationwide, trailing Florida, Louisiana and North Carolina. The Pacific Palisade section of Los Angeles has been ground zero since the fires began on Tuesday. Well, there last year, national insurer State Farm issued notices to cancel 1,226 of 2,342 policies.
[09:05:21]
That's an astounding 69.4 percent in one zip code, the 90272 zip code. No wonder so many Californians have had no choice but to turn to the Fair Plan, the state insurance pool, which saw a doubling of its clients to nearly 500,000 in the past five years. But this is not just a California story. It's hitting nearly all of us where it hurts our wallets. Just look at this tweet from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who'll join me in a moment, he of Rhode Island, who's leading the charge on economic risks and costs of climate change, quote, "Climateflation, in five years home insurance has increased more than 50 percent and the rate is accelerating as climate driven risks like flood and wildfire become worse and harder to predict."
Unlike the housing finance system, which is largely regulated at the federal level, property and casualty insurance is regulated at the state level. The result is a patchwork of different regulations where premiums vary wildly due to state by state regulation. That in turn has incentivized economically dangerous behavior in some areas. Check out this map from the "New York Times," which reveals higher insurance premiums for homeownership. The darker the color, the higher the premium.
You can see the distorted rates which is making homeownership unaffordable for many. Zero in on Oklahoma covered in red, where buyers are paying a lot more for home insurance compared to the value of their homes, even though they don't have as much risk in places like California. This happens because California has laws in place that stop insurance companies from raising premiums too much. But states like Oklahoma have weaker rules so companies can charge more. It means that folks in places like Oklahoma are paying extra to help cover the costs of disasters in other states like California.
The point being, we're all in this together. For the past two years, the Senate Budget Committee has been investigating insurers dropping coverage as a result of climate change. In December, the committee released a report on the climate driven crisis. They predict the nonrenewals driven by climate disasters will destabilize insurance markets that will in turn destabilize housing markets.
The results could be a repeat of the 2008 housing crisis, something that Senator Whitehouse has called deadly serious. Here's the bottom line, the prospect of change coming from Washington is dubious, especially where President-elect Trump has denied, ridiculed, actually, the idea of a warming planet. And the public has shown no reluctance to continue to build and live in areas repeatedly hit by wildfire and tropical storm, whether it's California, North Carolina or Florida. But maybe change is coming in the form of depleted insurance companies no longer covering areas prone to extreme weather. And if they won't insure, then banks won't lend, leaving certain areas accessible only to the very few who can afford to purchase without a mortgage.
How many will have to be uprooted before we realize we're in it together? Where, sadly, the cause of the California wildfire seems like it's destined to become a partisan football, here's today's poll question at smerconish.com, which is more to blame for the devastation we're seeing in California? Is it the climate change or government mismanagement of resources?
Joining us now is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who until recently was chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He is now the ranking member on the Committee of Environmental and Public Works.
Thank you for being here, Senator. You heard my whole setup. What is most significant from your perspective, given how you've spent the last two years working on these issues?
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): I would say two things. I would say first, a long campaign of lies and disinformation by the fossil fuel industry is now colliding with the business model of the insurance industry, which requires it to accurately predict future risk. And this isn't just L.A. The risk is increasing in Florida, as you mentioned, even states like Oklahoma. And the cascade that follows is this, climate change makes risk to homeowners unpredictable, which makes home insurance either unaffordable or flat unavailable, which makes mortgages unavailable on that property or in that region.
And with mortgages unavailable, property values crash. And the property values crash is predicted to be significant enough that it creates an economic cascade into the entire U.S. economy just like 2008 did. And in fact, this is a global problem leading the April issue of the Economist magazine saying that climate change is shaking the foundations of the biggest asset class on the planet, real estate. So, we're looking potentially at going off a very steep cliff here when the rate of insurance failure accelerates.
[09:10:19]
SMERCONISH: So I read the report of the Budget Committee. The way you've explained it and the report make perfect sense to me. But you know that some are watching, paying attention and saying, wait a minute, the reservoir was empty, the fire hydrants had no water. They're even going so far as to introduce DEI factors and questioning some of the hires that have been made among firefighters. You would say what to those people?
WHITEHOUSE: There is obviously a lot of nonsense that is going to be propagated by fossil fuel interests and the Republicans who are paid by fossil fuel interests. But if you look aside from just this fire, you also see fire risk and coastal flooding risk and in case of Oklahoma hail risk. The risks are increasing. And you can't blame the floods in Florida on a bad reservoir in California. There really is a risk profile that's changing.
We've gone from $2 billion plus disasters a year to 18. As you pointed out, we've just broken through the 1.5 degrees danger barrier for climate change. So, there are always going to be some local made up excuse. But the fact of the matter is that the weather is changing, it is changing from climate change. That is what is changing the risk.
And the insurance companies have to look forward and try to judge this, you know, accurately for their stockholders and for their business model. And they're the ones who are saying across the country, we've got to back off, we've got to raise rates, we've got to get out. What the hell's going to happen here?
SMERCONISH: Senator Whitehouse, relative to insurance and regulation in California, I'm going to put on the screen, I'll read aloud for your benefit, something that the Wall Street Journal said on their editorial page, "Insurers had already scrapped hundreds of thousands of policies and limited coverage in wildfire prone areas. Democrats blame climate change, which has become an all-purpose excuse for any disaster relief failure. But the real insurance problem is that state regulators have barred insurers from charging premiums that fully reflect risks and costs."
You've spent two years studying the issue. What do you say?
WHITEHOUSE: Doesn't make any sense. First of all, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is the mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry, plain and simple. So it can't be trusted on anything that relates to fossil fuel interests. But even if you could raise prices and Florida just went through a big so called insurance reform in which they allowed a lot of prices to be raised, you hit unaffordability. You get people who are retired in Florida, they have an income, a pension that they're fine with, they set up their finances so that they can live in their home.
And suddenly in Florida, their property insurance prices have quadrupled and now they can't afford it any longer. And going to get a job at Walmart doesn't bridge the gap. And so you get the same cascade. It's a little bit slower than the insurance companies fleeing, but it's still there as people can't afford the product.
The underlying problem is the worsening risk. And that's the thing that we have to address.
SMERCONISH: So if I follow through your causal chain, the domino theory, in the end, won't we be left with people living in those areas that are prone toward weather -- extreme weather brought about by climate change who don't need a mortgage? And all the rest of us, you know, will be blank, out of luck because no bank will lend to us without insurance?
WHITEHOUSE: Yes, if you're a fat cat Palm Beach billionaire, you're not worried about this because when you get ready to sell your mansion, some other billionaire is going to come and buy it with basically for them, change from the couch cushions. But if you're a plumber living in a development outside of Orlando who bought your house with a mortgage and you want to be able to sell that house because it's your most valuable financial resource for your family and nobody can get a mortgage on it to buy it from you, you're not going to find a billionaire coming for that property. You're not going to find a buyer. Property values will slide and then crash and that cascades out into the rest of the economy and it's 2008 all over again.
SMERCONISH: Quick reaction from you. As I said at the outset, while Washington dithers, the markets are about to sort this out.
WHITEHOUSE: Well, you know, these insurance prices are going to make a difference. And for all the lying by the fossil fuel industry and for all the cowardice by the corporate community, they're now running into on climate change, what I call a fiduciary horizon. Where if they're not telling the truth, if they're not making the right investments to protect their company against climate risks, they're now liable to shareholders and other folks to whom they have a fiduciary relationship. So, you're not just going to see insurance companies have to start telling the truth about and reacting to climate change, you're going to see major investment houses. It's going to move into the corporate sector in a whole new way.
[09:15:33]
So greenwashing is fun for a while when you're a big corporation, but at some point your fiduciary liability is going to drive you to get real.
SMERCONISH: Senator Whitehouse, thank you so much for being here.
WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Social media reaction. From the world of X, what do we have? A lot of reaction, I'm told already. I'm not surprised. Unfortunate, had no clue that at Smerconish was a climate cult guy.
Really? You know why? You know why Smerconish has become a climate cult guy? 'Cause I have two things. Take, take it off the screen.
I have two things. I have a T.V. set and a window. OK. Do you need anything more than to know what's going on big picture than to have a television set and a window? I want to know what you think.
Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, which is more to blame for the devastation of California's wildfires? Is it climate change or government mismanagement of resources?
Up ahead, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been battling the Biden White House when it comes to government censorship. But the social media company announced it will no longer use fact checkers to moderate what you post online. Given the volume of content on Meta's platform, was it even realistic to begin with?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ZUCKERBERG, META CEO: The fact checkers were too biased. Not necessarily even so much in what they ruled. Although sometimes I think people would disagree with that. A lot of the time it was just what types of things they chose to even go and fact check in the first time -- in the first place. After having gone through that whole exercise, it -- I don't know, it's something out of like, you know, 1984, one of these books where it's just like it really is a slippery slope.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:21:24]
SMERCONISH: Is it even possible to moderate the high volume of content posted across Facebook, Instagram and threads? Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his company's decision to fight back against government censorship while appearing on the Joe Rogan Experience yesterday. The 40-year-old billionaire said the Biden White House overstepped in its requests to take down posts about the COVID 19 pandemic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ZUCKERBERG: These people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse and it's like these documents are -- it's all kind of out there. And basically it just got to this point where were like, no, we're not going to take down things that are true. That's ridiculous. Biden, when he was -- he gave some statement at some point, I don't know if it was a press conference or to some journalists where he basically was like, these guys are killing people. And I don't know.
Then like all these different agencies and branches of government basically just like started investigating coming after our company. It was brutal. It was brutal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Zuckerberg announced on Tuesday that his company will no longer use fact checkers and instead add a user generated community notes feature across its platforms in the United States, similar to what Elon Musk uses on X. Zuckerberg also noted his decision came down to a matter, he says, of free speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZUCKERBERG: The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech. After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: A few years ago, I interviewed Steven Levy, the editor at large of WIRED magazine, author of "Facebook, the Inside Story." He shared with me a behind the scenes look at what he saw when he visited the office of a Facebook subcontractor hired for content moderation. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN LEVY, EDITOR AT LARGE, WIRED MAGAZINE: Facebook has tens of thousands of people who actually aren't technically Facebook employees that Facebook hires companies to hire them to sit in, you know, before a screen all day and look at content which is reported either by people who are offended by it or, you know, just blown away by how, you know, awful it was. And it's artificial intelligence, which flagged it. And to say, according to Facebook rules, should this go up, should this go down? They got like 40 seconds to make a decision. They go through thousands of pieces of content a day and it's almost like a war zone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Similarly, an American Enterprise Institute report on the use of AI and online content moderation noted, "It's impossible to internalize the dynamics of running a digital platform without first spending some serious time just sitting and meditating on the dizzying, sublime amounts of speech that we're talking about. Five hundred million tweets a day come out of -- comes out to 200 billion tweets. Each year, more than 50 billion photos have been uploaded to Instagram. Over 700,000 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day."
Joining me now is Kate Klonick, an associate professor at St. John's University School of Law. Her research focuses on technology and private platform governance of online speech.
Professor, welcome back. Nice to see you. Can Facebook be moderated given the sheer volume of all these posts?
KATE KLONICK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Yes, I mean, Facebook is moderated. It has been moderated since its early days, going back to 2007 when it was a platform for college students. They've moderated in various ways over the years. And Steven is completely correct in his assessment and what he's describing. That is how the vast majority of content moderation happens, increasingly happening with AI.
[09:25:20]
What it really can't do at scale is the fact checking that programs -- and it wasn't doing that at scale. I am hearing reports out of Facebook that there were some like 17 labels attached to, you know, two posts that were posted on Facebook like a day when you talk about the scale of speech and the scale that you're seeing people post things, there's no way that's a realistic framework.
So I think it's a little duplicitous, it's a little self-serving that Zuckerberg today said, or yes, a few days ago said that essentially that this was the fault of fact check or this was the fault of other types of people. This was -- they do this type of content moderation all the time. It's like it's duplicitous to blame ops on this essentially.
SMERCONISH: This is welcome news for the incoming Trump administration. They like this change. They like the changes at X. What about other nations? Because obviously it's a big world and Facebook reaches people all over the globe.
KLONICK: Yes. So this is a fascinating part of this that I think is kind of lost in all of the clips about the things that are changing around their content moderation policy. This is really a geopolitical maneuver of sorts. This is a signal. And one of the things that you think that I thought was the most kind of salacious about Zuckerberg's announcement on Tuesday was this thing that he said at the end where he was like, we are partnering with President Trump, like as if it was Pepsi and KFC getting together to do some type of, you know, deal for the Super Bowl or something to bring free expression to the world. And this was a signal in a huge way to Europe, which has just regulated in two huge, huge bill, a two huge laws, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act to kind of bring accountability to these platforms that they are -- that Facebook and Meta is going to kind of go toe to toe with them about what it's going to mean for them and what those fines are going to look like if they decide not to comply with Europe's new laws.
And so this is, you know, this is, I think, a line in the sand that is being drawn here.
SMERCONISH: Professor Klonick, let me take advantage of your expertise, knowledge of the law and also knowledge of technology generally. Big argument yesterday in the Supreme Court of the United States on an expedited basis on TikTok. Do you see a scenario where SCOTUS can still punt and leave it to President-elect Trump to try and work out some solution?
KLONICK: I think that they are going to -- I don't know that we're going to get a decision from the court. We'll see whether something comes down before the deadline arrives for divestment for TikTok U.S. from ByteDance. But it is not looking good for TikTok U.S. It is looking very much like I don't see a majority coming out here that kind of strikes down this ban. So it is going to go to President Trump.
And it's going to go a couple of ways. You're either going to see him, order, in my opinion, the DOJ to not enforce this ban, or you're going to see him kind of like shuffle some papers on his desk and decide that TikTok makes some type of kind of gesture to divest. And the meaningfulness of the divestment becomes a judgment call for Trump and he says that it's meaningful enough. And that is all it takes and TikTok stays in the United States.
There are a lot of interests that are backing Trump that from, you know, backers that have billions of dollars invested in TikTok's enterprise in the U.S. to Kellyanne Conway is a TikTok lobbyist now. So there's a lot of reason for Trump to strike down the urgent -- not enforce the ban on TikTok or to find a way for them to be in compliance with it already.
SMERCONISH: We're going to find out soon. Professor, thanks so much for coming back to the program. Appreciate it.
KLONICK: Great to see you.
SMERCONISH: More social media reaction. Just talking about social media, right, from the world of X. Zuckerberg isn't fooling anybody. He's following the Elon Musk strategy to avoid incoming regulations from the Trump administration plus whatever threats they've made behind the scenes.
So, David, I disagree and disagree respectfully with my guest. I'm thinking of what Steven Levy described when he walked into that airplane warehouse sized building in Phoenix. I think that's the way that he described it. And individuals are in cubicles and you're being flashed an image and you've got 40 seconds to make a decision.
[09:30:02]
The sheer volume of this lends itself, I think, to subjectivity. I hope the market can sort it out. I'm willing to sit back and watch and see, because I think that the other extreme is that it equates with censorship. And there was too much of that during the 2016 cycle. And to a more -- and to an additional extent during the course of the pandemic.
I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. Tell me which is more to blame for the devastation of the California wildfires, climate change, or government mismanagement of resources?
Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. And in the age of clickbait and social media, some U.S. newspapers are deleting old crime stories. Should some of us have the right to be forgotten? Be sure to sign up for my free daily newsletter at Smerconish.com for which Steve Breen just drew this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:35:28]
SMERCONISH: Hey gang, here's some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of the program so far. What do we have?
Climate change has nothing -- nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it. We always said, the more you build into the hills or the cliffs, the more you're going to burn or slide.
Uh, really? So, it has nothing to do with not only what's going on in California today, sadly, 37,000 acres, at least 11 dead, and what we see in Florida on a routine basis, and what we saw in Asheville with the hurricane recently?
The way I look at it, and I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not an expert, nor do I want to play one on TV, but I think that California is on the vanguard in terms of having very protective zoning restrictions, in terms of having requirements that people build in a defensible way, in having a statewide fire department that has a $4 billion budget.
I recognize, and we're going to find out, you know, what human factors contributed to this in terms of management or poor management of resources, a reservoir being empty, no pressure in the fire hydrant, et cetera, et cetera. But in the end, to look at those images that we've all seen this week, I don't think that any level of preparedness could have stopped that which climate change has wrought. That's my view.
More social media reaction. You can find me on all the platforms that people tend to.
No water in reservoir, why? No extra water tanks, why? Money cut to fire? Who? No infrastructure improvements -- the list goes on.
All valid concerns. I'm not saying that any of that is invalid, but when you get to the point, as I watched and heard last night where people are throwing into the mix DEI hires, you know, why is that fire burning out of control, 11 dead, 37 -- oh, DEI hires. Like, that's nuts. We've got a problem and we're all in it together. And as I discussed with Senator Whitehouse, my view is that as Washington has dithered, the markets are about to sort this out.
Yes, capitalism and the insurance markets. And we might not like the outcome, because where no bank is going to lend you or I money without having proof of insurance, someone who can self-fund and self-build will get access to those areas that heretofore have been enjoyed by everyone. But that's going to be the real crisis. The insurance companies are no longer going to provide protection, and the banks are going to say, we're not going to lend. Look out where that puts us.
Still to come, local newsrooms across the country -- this is really interesting. Local newsrooms across the country are offering some subjects a clean slate. What are they doing? They're deleting old unfavorable stories. Should journalists erase their previous reporting? We'll address that next.
Be sure that you're staying tuned to CNN as we continue our live coverage on the race against time to contain the devastating California wildfires ahead of next week's dangerous, windy forecast.
Also, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Which is more to blame for the devastation of the California wildfires, climate change, or government mismanagement of resources? Don't forget to sign up for the free daily newsletter while you're there. Scott Stantis drew this for us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:42:52]
SMERCONISH: Are we entitled to the right to be forgotten? The media industry continues to evolve at a lightning pace. It has left millions of Americans with a major problem that generations before didn't have to worry about, their internet record.
A new article in "The Guardian" caught my eye when it announced that several U.S. newspapers and media outlets are beginning to delete some older crime stories, and introduced this staggering statistic, 70 million Americans have prior convictions or arrests, roughly one in three adults. But the policies haven't addressed one of the most damaging ways past run-ins with police can derail people's lives, old media coverage.
Those looking to rehabilitate and gain employment are followed by Google search results highlighting their worst moments. Cleveland.com was one of the first to implement a plan looking to correct this effect. It reviews, archives and considers requests to remove names or some stories entirely. There are, of course, exceptions things like violence, sex offenses, crimes against kids, corruption and crimes carried out by public officials. They won't be considered for removal. The effort has since spread to outlets like "The Boston Globe," "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," "The Bangor Daily News," "The Oregonian" and NJ.com. Joining me now is Chris Quinn. He's the editor of Cleveland.com, the Plain Dealer. In 2018, he pioneered the right to be forgotten experiment after hearing how past crime coverage was impacting those named in his site's reporting. Chris, good to see you. So, what exactly led to this?
CHRIS QUINN, EDITOR, CLEVELAND.COM, THE PLAIN DEALER: Actually, it was the -- what was going on in Europe. There was a law that was passed in the European Union that required the search engines to do this, which I have no interest in that. We have the First Amendment in this country. But when that happened, it was 2016, 2017, I got a bunch of people together in the newsroom and I said, hey, should we do this? We get requests like this all the time, and we always stand on tradition.
And it was interesting in that first go round, our newsroom was very much against it. So, I left it there for about a year. But about a year later I just couldn't take it anymore. I could not continue to tell people, yes, yes, I don't care if we're wrecking your life.
[09:45:01]
We have to stand on our traditions. It was just too painful to read these letters requesting that we take their names out. So, I just instituted it. We got together a committee. We talked about how we would approach it, and we put the word out.
I wasn't the first to do this. I learned later that several newsrooms were quietly doing it. We were the first to go very public with it and take all the flak from those in our industry who were dead set against it.
SMERCONISH: Are there hard and fast rules that you use? Or I guess, like pornography, do you know it when you see it?
QUINN: Well, it's interesting you ask that because as this became a movement later, some journalists got together and tried to come up with rules, and one of them was, you should have written guidelines, which I don't agree with because written guidelines are used against you later.
We -- it's -- I think this comes down to what's the right thing to do. We always come down to a fundamental question, what is the value? Who is the greater value for? Is it greater for the reader to have access to this story? Or is the value greater to the person whose life would be restored if you took it down?
Almost always, the value is to that person you're helping. And you just say to yourself, what's the right thing to do? It's usually pretty obvious. There have been some tough cases, but it's usually pretty obvious.
And, you know, for people that say, hey, you're the first version of history, I don't think historians 100 years from now are going to be looking at minor misdemeanors about somebody who had a DUI and crashed into a bridge. It's just -- that is not high value content for the future. SMERCONISH: I'll put -- I'll put on the screen and read aloud. Here's something that you wrote, as an example of the kinds of stories I'm talking about, consider the drunken teenager who breaks a monument in a cemetery or the errant driver who hits the gas instead of the brakes and drives through a storefront. These are mildly interesting bits of news because they happen, not because of who was involved. But if the names are included and the stories stay on Cleveland.com for years or decades, the embarrassment never ends for those involved.
I'll date myself with this reference. But what about Gladys Kravitz, who says, I want to know what's going on in the neighborhood. Don't I have a right to that information?
QUINN: Yes, I think in real time you have a right to that information. And in the old days when it was in print, it would be there. You'd read it and it recedes into history. The problem now is we have -- we're a powerful Web site. We have, what is it, 10 million people coming a month to our Web site.
So, if you search for something and your name has been in our archives, it's one of the first things that pops up. It dogs you forever. Is that right?
People who have gone to court through a legal process to have their case cleared because they've satisfied all of their sentencings it's out of the court record. The official record is gone, but we still flag it? It's not right. I think when people pay their debt and some time passes, they ought to be able to move on and we're stopping it.
The letters of thanks we get from people when we do this, I mean, they say, I have tears in my eyes. You have given me an extra chance. And that's meaningful.
We're part of this community. We're part of the fabric. We have to be responsible.
SMERCONISH: I get it, the -- I'm thinking of myself and my friends. The indiscretions of my youth are limited to people's memories, you know, or and are beyond being subject to a Google search. So, it makes intuitive sense. Anyway, thank you for being here and explaining it. I appreciate it very much.
QUINN: Good to be here. Thank you.
SMERCONISH: You still have time to go and vote at Smerconish.com today on the poll question. Which is more to blame for the devastation of the California wildfires, is it climate change or is it government mismanagement of resources?
While you're there, please sign up for the newsletter for which Jack Ohman sketched this. Love it. I've got one more for you. This is from Rob Rogers. Both of whom draw for us exclusively one day a week at Smerconish.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:53:27]
SMERCONISH: So, there's the results so far of today's poll question at Smerconish -- a lot of voting, damn, 37,929. Which is more to blame for the devastation of the California wildfires? Seventy-three percent saying it's climate change, 27 percent, almost a third, saying government mismanagement of resources.
Let's check in on your social media comments. What do we have?
Climate change? What a joke. How does climate change cause these fires? What are you going to do about climate change? Millions of --
OK, let's just put our heads back in the sand. I guess that Mary Kay would tell me -- it's an attack on free market. Did she say that? Put that back up. Put that back up. I got to see the last line. Do you mind putting that back up, Catherine? It's an attack on free market capitalism and a money laundering scheme.
OK, then, let's see what free market capitalism is about to do, Mary Kay, because my whole premise today, I'll shorten it and get to the point, is Washington has done nothing of great significance about climate change. They can't even put chargers out for electric vehicles, for crying out loud, with all of that stimulus, pardon me, infrastructure money, but it's not going to matter because the markets, your free market, my free market, I'm a free market person, they're about to get involved.
And the way they're going to get involved is that insurance companies are going to say, we are not providing insurance in these areas that are continually in the path of extreme weather. And then step two is the banks are going to say, sorry, we can't give you a mortgage because you don't have insurance.
[09:55:02]
And by the way, third, the individuals will be able to live in those communities, if they seek to, are the very super wealthy who don't need a mortgage like the rest of us. And I guess to your way of thinking, all of a sudden, I don't know how I get -- get to be the person on the, you know, the platform arguing about this, but it just seems like it's so clear cut, 2024 was the hottest year on record.
Oh, and by the way, what year did it exceed? Not, you know, 1876 or not 1954. No, it exceeded 2023. So, to your way of thinking, it's all a coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence.
I'm not overlooking nor excusing what might have been. I don't know, it's too soon. We're going to find out. You know, why wasn't there water in the reservoir? Why wasn't there pressure in the hydrant? Why was 17 million cut out of the budget?
But from what I saw in terms of -- on television, looking this week at the pace, nothing was going to stop it. People went to bed on Monday night well informed, with no idea of what was about to unfold on Tuesday, because that was the tinderbox made possible by a hotter planet. See you. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)