Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20130329

they will join the conversation here on c-span. we will also have facebook. we posted a question for you. lots of questions so far on what your thoughts are on the connection between infotainment and political journalism? here is one comment. fox and msnbc are nearly wall- to-wall infotainment. they do not even attempt to be journalistic at the primetime slots. says they give you at least a laugh. bill donohue back the iraq not war. the #we are using is infotainment. we are using is infotainment. to los, we take you angeles. recent conversation with a couple of journalists, including eight new york times hollywood reporter and former cnn anchor and abc reporter. this is an hour and 15 minutes. tonight'shews, moderator. [applause] thank you for being here. thank you to my colleagues. this is a terrific panel of three incredible journalists with incredibly different backgrounds. let's get into it. i must confess this is the first time i was told i would be moderating this panel. i felt great physical pain. it was a flashback, a moment of real physical pain back in 2003 .utside buildings in norwalk wasrecall election scheduled and people were going to run for governor. i was staking it out and covering it when arnold schwarzenegger walked up the stairs to file his papers. i was sitting at a respectful distance and trying to get in a question. arnold was ignoring me. i knew, my head had hit the ground. mowedbeen moved over -- over by teams of reporters and cruise. -- crews. a respectful distance while they went right up to arnold and got questions -- answers to their questions. i did not need medical attention, but i had a question in my mind -- should i be angry at these people who had managed to follow journalistic decorum? or should i learn something from them? a kind of maybe martial arts training they got. that is kind of the question of tonight. the entertainment culture is what it is. it is here, even if you are just standing there, it can knock you over. if you are a journalist, the question becomes, how do we get the journalism we need? how do we get that in that culture? how do journalists negotiate in the culture? fighting? -- fight it? i will introduce the panelists. charlestart with latibeaudiere, tmz co-executive producer. before that, he worked at "extra." before that, he worked at a tv station in phoenix. he produced the nightly 10 p.m. newscast. he majored in broadcast journalism. punching bag for a lot of people. you have been blamed for the decline of civilization. [laughter] give me the opportunity to turn the tables a bit. >> the fall of civilization? [laughter] >> when you see networks, newspapers do political coverage, how do you look at those stores? are there things that you know from the work you have done at teams he that makes you think, hey, and this can be done better? i will take down civilization now. no, i listen. tmz dabbles in politics. i do not think what we do -- what we do is part of the menu at this point. the way that people need to learn about politicians. what we try to do is make politicians personalities. we get people interested. when we do politics, it is more on the surface. we're not talking about policy or how the senator voted on a particular bill. we are just talking about the personality of the person. there is a new interest in finding out about these people and not just as politicians, but drawing people into learn about the policy if you tell them a little bit about the person aside from politics. our most trafficked political stories were for a photo of aaron showing his abs. the congressman from illinois. he is ripped. we were shocked at the interest he got when he put that photo up. suddenly had constituents that were reaching out to them that never ever knew he was the representative. they thought, wake uit as secon. [laughter] it is funny that it took a photo of his abs to get people to pay attention. i think it is a little sad that people are interested in that anyway, but if that is what takes, then that is what it takes. now his constituents were paying attention to how he votes on things, whether they like it or dislike it. at least now they're interested. they never we is. ow who he is.kn >> give us a window on how the sausage is made at tmz. essay that argues as a news organization is a lot more vigilant than a lot of the major newsrooms. it has a sort of mission of reporting disciplines of phone calls and a lot of checks that other places do not do. is that true? .> yeah people say that a lot and say, how do you know about these stories? it does not a magic formula other than what you said -- or threeone calls dozen phone calls. you kind of get used to people hanging up on you. you get used to that. .t is the only way you go, ok. cool icon next? -- who will icon next question mar? we say, how many phone calls did you make? i called this person and they said they will coming back. why are you waiting for them to call you that? storyll miss out on the who is actually making the phone calls and trying to find out what it is you are trying to find out. there is always more than one way to skin a cat. don't wait. make as many phone calls as it takes in a short amount of time is necessary to get the information. when it is confirmed with multiple sources, then we publish but you cannot wait. that is the new environment of journalism. if you wait, you lose. i went introduced our next guest. you are remembered well for reporting on 9/11 at the world trade center. .ou have one awards you are an abc news anchor now. you lived in this town when you were really young. i'm curious as to what you think. this moment where people get .heir information if you're covering a campaign, you're more likely to see the candidate on an entertainment show or daily show than in front of you answering detailed questions in an open-ended interview about policy. and popwebsites culture often drives political coverage. how should journalists negotiate this? ofr time to bring news politics and government to this world. do you want to play these games? do you want to be on social media? do you want to be a character on tv? -- the sameuck thing happened to me. they took a picture of me without my shirt on. [laughter] got that photo right here. [laughter] >> but you did not have it first. [laughter] there were a bunch of questions. these guys did not invent that kind of television or information. -- these things have been around forever. they do it in a different way on a different medium at a different level. i do not find it particularly threatening to journalism at all. in fact, if you listen to what he said, we make lots of calls and we check it out and verify and then republish it. that is pretty much what journalism is. that is pretty much what it is. they do it on a guy with a really good abs, but it is just journalism. was notd schwarzenegger -- i'm sure the mayor candidates ultraquiet lump sum here. he is a celebrity. loneseomome here. he is a celebrity. i do not think journalism has changed. i think what we all need to do is stop pandering on it so much. get back to business. he is interested in these stories. i'm not interested in chasing his stories, but i am glad he is not chasing my stories. i want to make sure that my guys are playing the same discipline to the stories that we are chasing that his folks are applying to the stores that they are chasing. journalists say, i am under escher to be on facebook -- i am underpre pressure to be on facebook and twitter. a it somehow did not get in lot of people's ways. mark might be the most prolific tweeter on the face of the planet, but he is also the most formidable, white house correspondent there is. if you are looking for a reason to bitch and moan, i had to tweak today and could not get the story, but honestly, it is 140 characters. let's be serious. your question was about 940 characters. it cannot be that hard. [laughter] enough. >> no offense. >> nen taken. >-- none taken. >> your network seems to be under incredible pressure. >> look -- >> how do they do it? .> figure it out a quick vacation with a natural disaster. vacation with a natural disaster. it is more entertaining. been cnn.ways it is a public utility of news. you want to know what is going on. your pail with news. and then youff want to be entertained. you have mud wrestling and bill o'reilly telling someone to shut .p or whatever that is more entertaining. again trying to figure out -- it is a hard thing to do. figure out how to make the day when the national disaster does not hit and the day that planes did not hit the towers. make those days as engaging as every other day. you know, it may be that you cannot do that. on those days you better hope .hat adequatanna nicole smith ds [laughter] -- justick a name out to pick a name out. , let'shat note introduced our next guest. spent nine years as a film and .v reduce ov producer he covered the entertainment business for the wall street journal. he has degrees in european election history. , there was an interview in 2001. a great line in the movie business is that the material is everything. is actually nothing. it does not matter. you can show up with the greatest grip on earth and pop it down and thought abc to executive and can come back with the greatest reasons not to get involved. what really drives the entire business is by star power. that is true. , some see that change version of that change happening? >> i think so. print and yourof come at a broadcast overcoming together summer in the middle. there are radically different equations. there is sort of a false dichotomy here. we're talking the infotainment and how that might be changing things. , having looked at it up close, i would say it is one of the most in tensely organizations i have ever seen occur in this town. you have to look underneath the skin of the subject matter. it can distract you. you realize you may or may not be interested in that, but was ,n -- within the small contained universe, i have looked up both and am fascinated at how you work with courts and law enforcement and you get it right and you do all of the things that back when we were better staffed and print publications, we used to do. for an publications are broad -- print locations are broad. staff are coming down. we no longer have the intensity of focus. your gained up in small areas. -- you are ganged up in small areaass. is that lack of importance of the material taking control of journalists? yeah. let'swhat i see happening , i eternally -- internally do not want to say if it is good, bad, or different, that is a different equation. it is hard unless you study it meticulously to make a judgment. if you look at the way we handle entertainment in the new york times, particularly on the web, there is now a vast amount of material posted and sometimes printed that does not matter. it is absolutely vacant stuff. it are driven to the south and look at miles of things took out the real stuff, we have miles and miles of that on the website in the paper. -- because we are old timers trying to jill in and do some things like tell people something they do not already know, which is getting to be one of the rarest elements in the noosews. much is a regurgitation of what is known. isting that first impression storiesnside of print door and telling people something that matters. we have web reducers that have evolved over the last four or five years. post myho used to stories go out and will do a q&a with any celebrity but trust half a on their own -- .hat draws traffic on their own that would push stories that might take us a week. i will look and there will be seven stories pushed down because the celebrity junk is basically clouding it out. it is taking time and space and energy. trafficndamentally all driven, at least on the website. the more frequently you mention a celebrity name, the higher your traffic will go. if you want a lot traffic, keep a constant flow those things. it is not matter if people have done it or set it. you have got to keep moving those goods. >> i do not disagree with that answer. i will tell a little story that , but you willld disown it, as you should. the single worst day i had on tv was actor robert blake was arrested. blake waser robert arrested for popping his wife. robert blake had won a very good performance in a tv series and is arrested for killing his wife. we spent four hours on it. not like a figurative four hours, literally for hours. we were asking extra correspondents who we booked for no reason that i could to keep this sucker going. how do you think this will impact his career? he has no career. [laughter] beingis no upside to arrested for your wife's murder. four hours -- so i go home at 2:30 a.m. in the morning. my wife who is a reporter looks at me half-asleep and says, why? [laughter] honest to god, i do not need this right now. i do not need it. the next day at work, there are 15,000 e-mails. on an average day we get about 4000 e-mails. i looked through a few hundred. not one said, dammit. you promised us you were going to do serious news? you do enougha jew d robert blake. my bosses were going crazy. you have got to decide, too. that was the biggest number we had since a plane crashed two months after 9/11. -- 20rs ago, celebrities years are now celebrities will drive ratings. think it is new. >> it has just gotten more painful. itthink about how bizarre is, think about the oscars. 10 or 12 years ago, we wrote about the oscars two times in the course of a year. there were nominations and then it happened sto. that was about what enterprise was worth. starting in about the year 2000, i believed i was personally responsible for a terrible, terrible corruption in this process. as anworking that time editorial director for inside.com. kind of a first early experiment in web news oh stop like instantaneous news, traffic delivery, we did all the media covering. that made money on inside.com was something that i and a couple of actors called the oscar crapper. we figure it out as a lark, we would get him to do a mathematical model and add up all of the factors -- from color of hair do nominations, create a model that you could then need information into and every single day for five months, rank all of the contestantnders. he said to take it down to a decimal place. that will fascinate people. for five months straight, we posted a ranking, a horse race of who is getting ahead. we instantly sold the entire page for the run to an auto company. tory day for 120 days, i had write a handicap that went with this oh stop i was doing as many as three appearances a day the cable news shows. i would be called in because people found this fascinating. as you go forward -- >> i knew you from somewhere. [laughter] they found something that worked. thatid someone not apply to the rest of the operations? they found a working formula. what you are saying is that a lot of what you do -- the scary part is when you feel that you have become a slave to it. >> any story that takes -- look, when you'd be the papers everyday, there are lots of intelligent intelligent sounding stories in that paper. they are still pretty intelligent. if you know them from the inside and you have done them for 20 and 35 years, you know that there is a styrofoam quality to many of the stories that are being done in a day of what used to take a week. -- not thatample this is not a great story. i think every story has to be valid and do something. back in the middle of the 1980s when no one in this town -- everyone in hollywood talked about someone who is hideous and running the hollywood business and is corrupt. the had never been one single newspaper story about him. not one. he prided himself on doing this all in the dark. and sitting on the wall street journal and i thought, screw that. we will figure out a way to put them on the wall street journal. two months and i donned batman everywhere. you would come down the stairs man everywhere.gged that he would come down the stairs. i would piece together who the hell this guy is. ultimately we ran on the front page of the journal. it triggered this entire reversal in his behavior. he decided he could not hide anymore and went public. many stories came after that. thattook two weeks on story today, i would be fired. to exploithere ways it? my own experience with arnold schwarzenegger becoming governor of california was a gift from god. .eople read our stories i got stories into the l.a. times about hard topics, local taxes for finance, businesses. i even wrote a book about the initiative process. i was able to do that because i storiesem all up as about arnold schwarzenegger. he was the way into that. dropped as arnold schwarzenegger because he was already a movie star. a lot of people in congress or the senate, they are very interesting people. if you can get to that and he'll back a couple of the layers, you might find that -- and peel back a couple of the layers, you might find that they are interesting. maybe seeing want to give representatives playing basketball and realizing he has a great jump shot might be interesting to some people. an agenda?ave >> no. like i said, we will not delve deeper. sometimes we talk about someone 's politics, but we try to make these politicians personalities. learn something about the personality and you might be interested in them. here something about them on voted this ando this, though, that is a guy i saw on tmz and how he is into hip-hop and talk for five minutes about why little wayne .s not the new two-partupac [laughter] we had this conversation with them. there is a part of me that thought badly we do not delve deeper into his politic and what he is voting on, but that was not the conversation will sto. i really want to hammer him about reaching for water in the middle of his response to the state of the union. we had a fun conversation with this guy. maybe the people will be interested now and what his politics are. we will hand it off now to people who'll will delve deeper into the politics. there are still huge appetite for that. we can create more of an appetite for to learn about politics. are turned off by politicians right now. why not make it more interesting? then people might pay more attention to what they are voting or not voting on. mediae's a question -- has real consequences. i cover this area of chemical belts. a plant that the blowing up. i kept asking an engineer why this kept happening. he said, the problem is that it not about -- they think they know how the government work and how politics work, but they don't work. i guess it gets to that russian question of -- are regarding out -- are we crowding out things that would make us better informed? should be used celebrities to better inform us? >> that is outside of everything we are talking about. maybe people have it wrong. i'm not a great believer in the church of journalism. i think it was john stuarewart y years ago who said the only hope was to have maximum anddom and maximum outlet maybe if we are lucky on a will find the truth is take shape among all of it. i think there is a huge .ultiplicity of outlets god bless. let everyone go at it. the more you have got, the greater the hope that ultimately you will be able to feel what is real. >> just a little point here. i'm a great believer in democracy. , they will readers figure out what they need to know. they will make judgments that are appropriate to their lives. our job is to put it out there. but we need to put out there correctly. charles -- into the last couple of weeks there has been an amazing story. a person had signed a deal with al jazeera. there was a story that a person had filed for poughkeepsie. -- make up see. -- bankruptcy. both stories are put out by a satire website. they both made it out there. maybe rather than worrying about all of this big stuff, we ought to worry about the small stuff. check it out. part of theun it, conflict with the web is that it is killing us or you. it makes it -- it is like an e- mail. you see things that you never would have written in an e-mail and you can say things on the web you never would have written down. it is easy to push a button and it is out there. i may not care about the guy but i care a lot about teaching students with the journalism they are doing. if you learn to be a reporter, you can report on celebrities, politics, sports, the economy, but if you do not know how to be a reporter, all you can be as a celebrity. that is all you can do. iswhat scares me the most that the huge vacuum, the stuff that we do not know that no one is touching him of the illusion that everything can be known by getting online and tickling something with your thumbs leaves this gigantic vacuum aren't actual in permission that is never uncovered. in santa monica last year in the there was a, ,tunning case in which 20 young jewish professionals filed a lawsuit for anti-semitism against a hotel, which they had been thrown by the owner on a sunday afternoon with the alleged was afraid -- she was pakistani and that her family would pull funding of they found out there were 20 jews raising money at a pool party, which was authorized by the hotel staff for the idf. she came in and threw them out. they filed a suit. this is sitting in the santa monica court. one quick round based on the complaint goes on the internet. i wonder who is right and who was wrong. what really happened? what did she really say? what are these young professionals like? do they have a chip on their shoulder or are they for real? and said, ied at me have grown up there my whole life. get down to the courthouse. i want to know if this happened in santa monica. believe me, i will go do it. uninvited, i dropped in and sat in the courthouse with what turned out to be a three-week trial. i kept dodging my duties and running in there to listen to testimonies. it was amazing. the jury found against the elder and with good reason after she testified. there was not one reporter at any level in that trial. there was no local reporters. nothing. if my wife had not chased me into that -- i thought for the executive editor of our paper -- these people are just like your daughter. we will run it. how many times a day does that happen that we do not know about these things anymore? >> there is this blurring of lines and no one seems too unhappy about it. i look at it and i can tell. i'm allegedly a professional journalist. i cannot tell if the actors are running the government. it is also the mixed up. there are political scientist who argue, this is great. we are returning to the late 19th century when the public was most engaged. , voteds who could vote in huge numbers. there were parades. those were the glorious times a real political engagement. now we are much more cynical. the blurring lines, does that have consequences for things like ethics? there are some media organizations that pay for tips. tmz i think is one of them. there are others that don't. should we worry about that? should we worry about confusion? first, we do -- not pay sources or pay for information. we pay for photos and video. -- [laughter] >> i had something in my throat. i do not need a rubio. [laughter] >> clarification made. >> why do you care? what difference does it make who is running for office? what difference does it make? it seems like you want us to be upset about this blurring of the lines. what caused this and why there is this fascination with celebrities, but you cannot deny it is a reality. you can sit and whine about it. you can complain that it is harder to cover a story now or you can deal with the reality of it. this is the way it is now. withnot have any issues having politicians or entertainers becoming politicians. i think the problem with ethics your deadline is two minutes ago. you cannot wait for the printing presses to start running. you had to do it now. that can cause a problem with ethics and people decide they will plate loosey-goosey with the facts. if you do that, you have a problem with ethics. i do is tell the interns, what is really important here? what is important is speed. what is more important is accuracy. we need to have this now. now.t the actual story that is what you need to wish for. before you hit the button to publish, make sure what you're publishing is correct. theday that we publish michael jackson death was literally six people standing around the button and harvested their and said, we double checked. we have this and this. are we sure? yeah. hit the button. that was a story that was so big that you have got to triple, and say this is correct. then hit the button. but if you just ran off and printed something and hit that button, you will get screwed. i'm not opposed to being contrary. paid tonight,eing i will be contrary. [laughter] i remember jackie o's time. i wrote something about it to my editors -- and brought it to my editors. everyone was really excited. we ought to find out if she is dead. [laughter] .retty much of the baseline >> it can be really embarrassing. >> honestly, it is no different. res areed pressues different. i imagine they are. gesturesnomic different? -- are the economic pressures different? absolutely. but the basic truth of journalism is that if you do not get it right, you do not last very long in this. i do not think it has changed much. >> focus on the area where lines have learned. i personally find it troubling. it makes it incumbent upon all of us to think more clearly on what we do. a lot of the political and historical information we get is coming from movies. i cover movies. moviess occurred is that at the lower end and a fair number of dramatic films of long as they're not the big, if extra been blockbusters, moves very quickly. physical activity. network" like "show so networcl and zero dark 30 -- i think there's something very beguiling, particularly about documentaries. there and you are watching the movies and it creates the illusion that everything you're being told must be true because i see it. i see but a horrible thing he just said. the back of your mind or thinking we'll must be true because the camera never lies. .he camera always lies in film, the camera is a direct yours told to restructure reality and not to report reality. -- the camera of the director restructures reality and doesn't report reality. how are we being used and manipulated id seemingly benign or inspirational political tales that are being told? i would love for some to do a split level documentary and the but all of the same footage -- i would like to see the first minutes as an anti-bush documentary and then reedited with all the same materials but to stick up. you can do that. -- is the one place that >> two things. i think most of the documentaries are preaching to the choir. iatever harm there is, believe there is some harm, it is confined to people who suffer from this primary information disease of our time, which is simply wanting to hear things you have already heard or believed. thus on the subject of historical, i live in phoenix. i go to movies really early in the day. it is what you do when you're old in phoenix. [laughter] it is fabulous. "linkedin" and there is this elderly couple. , i thought that was great. the husband said, i cannot get over how much he sounds like lincoln. [laughter] i go through life trying not to be noticed. i turned around and i was like -- but my wife grabs me and says, come on. maybe things are happening too damn fast. that is maybe one case where the lines are are blurring. maybe it is an issue. we were discussing this today. does it bother you that the first family seems to be attaching itself -- and this started beforehand -- attaching themselves very publicly to celebrities? is that an issue? does it bother you that maybe they are getting too close to them? why are they getting close to them? ?ecause they want to be seen they want some of the shine that they get? hang a celebrity wants to out with the president, maybe they get the shine the other way around. -- maybe a celebrity wants to hang out with the president, maybe they get the shine the other way around. >> there was a complaint about the oscar show where they were upset that michelle obama showed up. not one person i talked to that morning said they like that. hollywood rebel deeply. a great conversation. we want to bring the audience into it. >> time for questions. there'll be dozens of them and really have a limited amount of time. from the form will be at the reception upstairs. please come to us. we member to say here first and last name before your question. this is being reported and will be put up on our website. you can share it with your friends who could not be here tonight. c-span is also here tonight. it will probably air next month. jennifer has the worst question. -- first question. >> my name is aaron. i was troubled by the fact that one topic i thought was not really discussed much was that we live in a democracy. people vote and our innocence responsible for the decisions made by our government -- and thus are responsible for the decisions made by our government. when entertainment starts crowding out real information that people need to make these decisions, i think that is a problem. fornyone is going to vote or against marco rubio because what he thinks about some raop star, we are in real trouble. i think so. is that not something that bothers you? some responsibility that journalists have to our society? >> i agree. it would be a huge issue is someone voted for marco rubio a cause they also like tupac. maybe if you listen to what he says and make an informed decision, listen to what he says about issues and then make an informed decision. he is on your radar because you heard about something that appeals to you. you are right. all of the information is still out there. i guess the problem is that it is harder to find. they used to be you could turn on the news at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. and you would get that information. now you're not getting it there. it is still out there. you just have to search for it a little bit. >> a slightly different take on this. you will be offended by this. i will tell you put this in a gentle way. if you go back in your lifetime or my lifetime, you'll find that the more likable candidate wins the presidency almost every time. there are ties. johnson goldwater -- and goldwater, neither you wanted to hang with. likable than less lyndon johnson. say what you want about george w. bush, but he was more likable than al gore in my opinion. the more likable guy wins. particularly in a president, the one the guy who comes into our living room every day to be likable. i do not think musical taste is a reason to vote for a person, knowing who the person is tells us a lot about those things we can't anticipate happening, but do happen when someone is elected president and they had to respond. that might be more important than knowing how they feel about the deficit. >> but the camera always lies. i don't believe for one second look, you read a landmark book. it has been 40 years that we have been dealing with this phenomenon. the nixon-kennedy bates. we are -- debates. we are trusting image. >> no, there are truths here. kennedy was more likable than nixon. even nixon liked kennedy more. [laughter] >> many of the things occurred, he might not have been more likable. >> let's get another question. >> hi. as a former longtime print reported that handles social media on a new site, i'm curious. you talk about the speed driving the decision making process. the other thing you did not get of bigs the impacts data, our understanding of the stories that people want to watch. part of what is driving the infotainment interest is that what are the audiences are showing in a very hard to refute way what they want to follow. it is him is like big data in understanding the hard numbers of social media and seo are changing. they are going with the money us. -- is. rue.hroug that happened to magazines. told you about something outside of yourself. it shrunk and died one by one. that you could hardly dream were occurring out there. wasy magazine demographically driven. magazines have been put in a place where they fundamentally a -- mirror reflecting 00 m reflecting the desired readership. it became a niche market. for thes a wallpaper people who are ready feel that way. -- already feel that way. what is happening with the internet, it is impossible to refute the pressures of traffic and the numbers. you will always do better by giving people what they want to stop but that is -- what they want. but that will not necessarily create value. sometimes a single, true fact that no one wants is still a single entry fact and is important. what this stuff has done is make that gatodata more precise. but the data is what it was before. it was clear. people and executives would call and say, what happened at 101:15 ? we covered the war. i do not know what got into us. [laughter] has it been painful? >> it is funny to me. -- literally of >> it's like most people who watch when they watch lawyer shows and doctors. they go, well, first of all, no one's having that much sex. [laughter] and it's never really that good. so i -- i think -- like a lot of things about the internet, it's increased speed but speed was always an issue. it's microtargeting -- the information is more precise. it's not that we didn't -- we didn't have a sense of it before because i think we did. and so while i understand the argument, i think like a lot of things it's just -- it's just that someone exaggerated sense of what has always been. we would see that princess diana just sold magazine but we would really know she sold magazines but we actually knew that before. >> you come from television where that has been -- everybody has known that. in tv, you grew up with ratings and feedback and knowledge -- >> right. >> believe or not up to this day we have editors i don't care if one person doesn't care about this, go out and do it. >> why is that dude working? [laughter] >> yeah, really. i had a story about chinese censorship in american movies. it was very difficult to put together. but it had to do with the fact that american movie studios are running their script through chinese censors because they're uninvited. they say change that. do the other thing because they want the mue three be viewed in china. there's one kid in the whole world, the colorado state student who was asked me why the hell aren't you doing something about the chinese censorship? there was no demographic value to that. but it did end up on the paper. >> to the left? >> i want to push on a simple story question of what's at stake with this whole issue and you've kind of been alluding to it is this a crisis or snot you have cnn, which seems like the same old thing and at the other thing, "new york times" seems to be more urgent. life expectancy is up. simple question, is there a crisis or not this info tainment thing? >> first of all, i really -- i don't mean to sound offensive about this which is a pretty good clue that i'm about to. but i don't -- i don't represent cnn. and i don't want to. and god knows they don't want me too. i'm pretty comfortable on sort of network television broadcast, those things. i don't want to be -- i don't want to be seen that way since i'm not comfortable. and i don't think -- yeah, i was an employee of theirs. i was an employee of abc but they don't want me speaking for them either. is ate crisis? i don't see it as a crisis. i don't. i think democracy -- information democracy is kind of messy simse. this can get messy. but it's always been us in some way or another. and this will sound like a copout, and maybe it is, i don't know. is what we need from you is some diligence in what you do that you have to look for stuff. it is there. the time -- i mean, honestly, you wouldn't know it from this conversation. the times" is an amazing newspaper. reading about an avalanche in washington state, i can't find that anywhere. but if you only look at the home page, you don't get it. in every sense you don't get it. and so we all -- and in the kids we teach and -- we need to work harder, better, smarter and more efficiently. but so do you. >> here's the question -- is there a good infotainment and bad infotainment? >> that's his department. >> if it's about important things, if it gives people a sense of what reality is? >> that's completely subjective. i don't know -- i can't put my finger on exactly why. i hate that word "infotainment." when i got the invitation to be here, i saw "info tainment." people don't -- it's like people don't like the word "news." it's almost like they don't like it. they don't like to call it news. they want to be entertained. maybe people watch msnbc or fox news channel because they're entertained while they're getting their news. they don't want just news. and that's why -- so i don't know what it is about infotainment, but i'm getting off the subject. i don't think it's a crisis. and i don't think whether you can say whether there's bad info tainment or good info tainment. whatever people want. like you said, it's a democracy. if you want to read about paris hilton and learn about lindsay lohan, you can go to tmz. but you have a right to go to "new york times" "new york times." >> think you're right. it is not a crisis because for it to be a crisis you have to believe that things were wonderful before and that wonderful has died now and that what is going to hawaii and i think you'd have to been idiot to think that's true. it's just not. but it is a time of enormous chaos, you know what i mean? it's like periods in chinese history. we have a thousand years of chaos. we're in a period of chaos and change. and i think that's just incumbent on everybody to do a whole lot more thinking about what their reading, what they're seeing, what it means, what they're getting it. then it used to be. can you imagine? i never thought that 10 or 15 years ago that you would have had get-togethers like this and they occur all the time now because everybody is -- is sharing in that process of trying to figure out what is happening here? what is this all about? i think that's a good thing. >> i've got time for one last question. again, i want to remind you, please join us upstairs in the lobby for wine, beer, soft drinks, whatever you'd like. we're in great company and all of our gusts will be there tonight. our last question. >> hi, matthew ross. i wanted to talk about this idea -- i don't know if i'm making up this term but the heback journal lism where you talk about some parody information has come out and then it's turned into actual news like what you say about palin. i know that the "associated press" have been doing this for year. it's been that way since the beginning of news. but this seems that piggyback journalism is happening so frequently now. everybody's on the same whether it's entertainment or actual news that a lot of misinformation is going throughout because of this. one person gets it wrong, everybody gets it wrong. do you feel that this is actually dangerous? >> that i think -- i don't know if i would use the word dangerous but i think that does come from what you were talking about that there are sights that do nothing but they're agregators. they want to get a story up on their sight that they know that people are searching for. if sarah palin is a hot topic then they're going to putter in the story. this could be a huge problem in ethics if you're running a show. and your goal for the day is i'm going to get the biggest numbers i can get today. doesn't matter if it's true. doesn't matter if it's real. i'm just going to find the stories throughout that i know people searching for. it's easy to find that information. anybody can do that research. and i'm going to put up the story that that is dangerous. people walk up to me and say hey, is it true -- i think my sister called one night and asked me about stevie wonder. i said that's not true. she said i saw it a few times on facebook. so people start passing that along. >> we've been finding particularly the last 18 months there's been a shift of some kind that that phenomenon has created enormous opportunity for us because once everybody gets in the habit of piggybacking and moving in a way in one direction, it makes it far easier for somebody who just has a simple cop mon sense that could think ahead a little bit. to pick up the next story and leave the next way and leave the next way and leave the next way. when individual reporters or editors develop that habit and i do know many that cultivate that exact skill, it turns time-out be a great opportunity for everybody else. >> is there an argument because of that confusion. tmz does -- you're as transparent as heck. you have a hoe that shows your process. i mean, you know -- >> yeah, right. but i mean, someone could see that show and get a fair idea of how you work and make decisions about how much they want to trust you. i mean, i don't know. even morning shows, you know, you see a little bit more of the seams. but it's the mainstream, the new york times. >> it's still under the curtain. maybe they need to take a show to the "new york times" story meeting. like bill can he recall argued for a paris hilton feed. >> distract all of them. but don't show up in my reptorial pod. one of the great problems is that if you're really digging in hard on something too difficult, people do not want you to tell. what they don't want you do tell -- you are going to deal particularly in a hollywood contexting. you might not do it abusively. you can bring share on the road lie or you can get to the bottom of something relying on a great that's anoun mouse and -- anonymous. you'll see a great deal of truth running out of the system incidentally. >> i've been thinking about the sarah palin thing. and i don't know how to quantify student. [laughter] >> you know, honestly. >> the thing that worries me in all of this is that part of what i've learned i think as a young reporter is not simply what was the story but what isn't is story. and if there's one thing that's beyond me is the gatekeeper. there is no gatekeeper function. nobody ain't saying that isn't the more anymore. there was a story back when john kerry running for was ent about john kerry having an affair with an intern. he was having an affair with an intern. it ended up going on drudge. my boss said what are you doing with the kerry entrance story? >> i've got a problem there,'s not a single fact in the story. i don't know what to say other than people are talking about a story that has not a single fact. that was the gatekeeper function of journalism. that's gone. flow the next day the candidate goes on jamie who is not a great place for journal lism. if a guy's having an affair with an intern, at that point i have no choice. the candidate has denied it. what we do, we've plean played this all game which is why we're sitting here tonight. we did the story about the anatomy of a rumor which we called dressing up a pig. but it was stig a pig. what the internet has stolen from us editorial. it's not like the best thing goes out there more than it does. it's that step that shounlt be throughout at all the gatekeeper function is gone. and it's never coming back. a you guys have to live in world where news is just thrown-up. and for you to pick through it. you know? theus what scares me. and if you want to use the word crisis, i'll agree that that's a crisis, more so than anything -- some dude's abbs. well, i think -- we'll leave it at that. [applause] >> the event in los angeles from a couple of weeks ago hosted by zocollo public square -- cohosted by the con kite cronkite. here on c-span we are going to continue the conversation to get your thoughts. we are opening up the phone lines for your participation. what's behind political organization? where do you get your news from? topics like that. here's how you can participate. the phone lines are for those of you on the east, 202-585-78 80. 202-585-3841 in the mountain area. and for journal lism students 202-585-3882. make sure you mute your television. also facebook,.com/c-span. we have a curm of posts already. and on twitter we're following the #infotainment. also joining us this evening hall. c-span is january you likely seen her on fox news channel and cnn's reliable sources. and via skype it's patrick ga .in who covers politics not only at politico, the fish bowl d.c. and patrick gavin. thank you for joining us this evening. i look forward to a conversation about the broad ssue of political news and entertainment. jay, we'll start with you. if we had to do a survey of ur students, walked into the classroom and you would ask -- who are they reading? >> they look at c-span, but they also get a lot of their take on the news and they enjoy the daily show. and i think that's true of a lot of young people. they watch -- they like to take on the news on those kinds of shows. >> during the commercial, there was a lot of talk about the nuts and boats of journalism and the duel pressures of both getting it fast or getting it right. what's that pressure like for you at politico. ort of beat the competition. they wanted to make sure they get it right. politico has sort of a hierarchy ander torship you know we made mistakes as other news organizations have. but that is a risk every journalism has experienced either through your day job or on twitter or on facebook. it's weighing back the decision -- a fast sort of facts. there are a lot of pressure to get things out quick. because you've got to do it for your own reputation and also for your employees to shoot it right. >> go back to jane students and r comment about some of them coming from the daily show. how does he walk that fine line between being attention grabbing, informational and nbc covering a very hard political scene. >> politico might be slightly uniquely defense. we a very narrow scope and vision. intensely -- intense political junkies. so under that umbrella for us, anything that is political is relevant to us. and so that could be something about the americans. about the nexus of celebrities and pom ticks that we see all the time. that could be ashley judd, donald trump. not to make the white house correspondent dinner. that us, if it's about and we see that with celebrity culture. back to the nuts and bolts issue with january hall. there was a lot of that in the conversation at zocolo public square. what are you trading your journal lism students for. where do they want to go work for a tmz for example? >> i would want anybody who wants to work for tmz. some of them all worked for political. my students. -- i teach politics in the dia or from a news study journalists. i get future journalists. my students are interested in journalism. and i think that they are -- they know they need to be pullity media. they creates their own personality in a way. and they know that -- you know, we believe that they need to is how to report which is previous. everybody was praising tmz because they gave up the facts. we are also trying to educate for a universe that is online, multimedia apps, smart phones. you have to file a lot and quickly. we've got lots of calls waiting. you mentioned an interesting terms, you said multimedia storyteller. do you consider yourself this way? >> absolutely. you would just grab your foot cam and talk to whoever is there. everybody no doubt does that and it's gotten mucher. we had reporters covering the 2012 campaign that they would have an interview with mitt romney and we would have it on the website minutes later. i think everybody -- if you're not use liesing your camera, that's when you can unfair.g that's > ev len, welcome, go ahead. > i have a friend who collects headlines. , y were collecting comments whether they should be checked out. >> where did you read that? >> on the station. and there were flashing head lines as part of the show. >> you mean on "washington journal"? yeah. one of them was aggravated -- n released >> i'm going to let you go there and we'll go to patrick gavin first on this on the role of headlines because politico does get some very attention grabbing headlines. how important is that in the editorial decision there. >> it's certainly important. as at least political it's a uniquely difficult challenge. if you look at our website, this main argument he's got a decent amount of real estate to expand on your numbers. you've got maybe 35 characters or little bit more. it is a very challenging things. she not only described arguments about driving accurately. the web can be a very difficult format because a lot of times defending on the platform you're writing for, you might have a very, very limited piece of real estate to get the point across. your need to make interesting -- is something that people can write their paychecks with. >> the column this evening, dylan bires' meeting, not attention grabbing but certainly news from the both and rush rity limbaugh made comments on his radio comment. this issue of where media personalities make news about politics. it's more and more common. >> well, you know, it's very interesting, the gay marriage story. politicians are now falling over themselves to endorse gay marriage. when they were arguing that this is a reason that they needed to enter vuneveen because this is an oppressed group. now you have a lot of people in the med yo. still until the republican side. i guess you would call him a celebrity in a lot of ways in the sense that he carry as lot of weight, what he says when he wasn't after that young woman in georgetown. he said about her, about country septemberives. that because news. in it something that came the campaign. he is setting the political agenda. >> let's go to allen town. allen is in brooklyn. go ahead. >> thinking backing the last 30 years when it was considered a personal choice and freedom a lot of people or drive without seat belts or drink as much alcohol because they figure it's their prock active. now we realize that there are social scosts to their behaviors. i think we are today about what these issues of the personal cost of personal behave. how much people pig out on sugary entertainment news. it's a matter of public concern at an electorate is voting wisely for the later generes that are going to be affected by our decision. they are collectively one that steers the ship of zate. later generations are passengers on this ship. -- we are going to gift shift. the only way we can sheer staship, this will be the debt, cry mat, infrastructure is that if we have so much understanding, no a victim was crying. we are affecting people we're responsible for. >> allen, thanks for your comment here. >> well, think that's a very important point. you know, neighborhoods still ccording to the latest pew sur -- one. >> in fact, he was saying they're losing circulations to a lot of other places. her k the collar makes that. i personally say that that is lamentable in so many ways. it seems be a way where kids can put their issue forward. you think his fame to try to spot lying be which people might not be covering that could be a good use. the bad news is you have ana nicole smith who ha a sad death over and over and you're not covering serious issues, that i . ink is a more center john on facebook writes that i rather get and it begun instead of repeating the aim power block. facebook.com/c-span. we go to sandy who is in milford connecticut. >> hi. i'm very happy to be on here. was ago the prom excellent. i was at the dreckedtor's ghilt california and i talked to sam watersome. i asked when was the show going to land. this should be a typical news, program today rather than the growth entertainment that we're seeing and i would like to see a real news program at 7:00 p.m. in new york, come trooble -- "new york times" which i they sent a message. he said in there writing that this is just reported over and over again. sometimes for two or three days which is really doubt. i would love to see a real program. they were looking for it at 7:00. and i thank you for the show. >> patrick, what di you think about her comment. there's not a real news program. he said. >> all those organizations obviously have a certain responsibility to, you know, to be respectful and to do the news in a way that's generational to the reader. i'm also fairly consume oriented on a lot of good estions that are being raiseded. there's c-span, charlie rose, cbs. there's a lot of great . ucational training the new yorker, i mean, if you want tush late substantive journalism, it can be found. as we all know, "dancing with the stars" is going to dwar. what we're doing right now. and "dancing with the stars" is oing to dwarf the charlie rose show. ws organizations are our providers. viewers need to meet that content. that expectation has to be there from the consumers in order for that the demands to be met by the businesses as well. >> that caller, wanted to give he iewers a flay that offers an apology for the war in iraq. voy. m will mci he was testifying before congress march 24th, 2002. i liked that moment. adults should hold thems accountable for failure. apologizes i'm for the american people for our failure. the failure of this program during the time i've been in charge of it, to successfully inform of the american electric. let me be clear that i don't apologize on behalf of all blood cast journalists. i speam for myself. i was in an unamended train wreck of player. i'm a leader that they call the results. and failed to report on tectonic ships in our country. in the truth to how strong we are to the dangers we actually face. >> that hbo program a fictional setting but the material very real. how often would we see something like that happen? how rare is that that an anchor or a major network news. would take -- make them ologize for something in the reporting. the sometimes and "the washington post" and how they didn't question the administration and how we didn't know enough. and we were look to people who said they aren'ted iraq. i just want to add a little defense of the network newscast because they still at 7:00 on have a new cast. verybody has this di mena on vellwation. but they have done a lot of very serious news. the caller may disagree with me on that. there are -- it's almost a problem. you know, c 33 got big problems right now. he just told me it was addressed. there's always this con slict. and giving people what they need. they're k to be fair a serious newscast. on that cruise ship story that was on c 33. you're the managing editor for the day on cnn. the paul would that be story of the day? >> you put me on a tough spot. they have a new nbc. they didn't spend a lot of money to cover that. t they and other nets -- and i think they probably might have pulled away. let me get ea quick response. same question to pavin gavin. they've got all this story, do you cover it or not? >> if that is a direction they face it's going to bring in more viewers. >> it's difficult to blame them. i didn't qualify. but that certainly would not ennews of the day. but the reality is you do have to cut the cainl network a little bit more time. and they do need that air time. -- i think that the one ey made, they got of looking there. >> political journal, this one is from pamela. she writes about the political story. rush limb back,. celebrity merges with political news. our politicians, celebrities and slenities politicians? > and one more, info tainment. dumbing down of america is nearly complete. james, welcome to if program. >> thank you. -- and i'm a poe also a part-time editor for those who want a meeting here in central mass. there are too many stories like the ones that don't have any acts -- keep getting reported. they should be caught off. mitt romney's income taxes were one where it came out with no facts. didn't form -- and those i ried over and other an bore them. -- i ciate c-span's would say 80% of news listening directly. i'm retired and so i have plenty of time to plon store that. let's go on to journalism student. corey, hi will? >> i've been watching the show as students we are taught to plug the gab in. but also in real life. my question is where am i supposed to do this? an i follow my heart to give the attention? r do i watch everyone in the udents it's hard to be ool listic. don't i'm very critical of the media. but i do think there are places that are doing straight moves, serious moves an you need to alone yourself with one of those or start a block. there are plenty of outlets. you know, there's a lot online that could can do with napping. it's not all terrible. but it is true -- you know, i used to by things in magazine. the three second rule which is whatever you've got on the cover of "people" magazine for example, has got to go so people and that is what we're up against in a lot of ways but it doesn't mean we're going to aban dom the idea of it. i really feel stronger about hat. highway's play. how important is that for you. -- for you? >> i'll let it goes. perhaps i would say a special knee. but the reality is is that branding is important for a lot of time because you do see here in washington where joufrpblism . nds to do -- the you didn't see a lot of reporters jumping from news conversation to news conversation. if you didn't have sort of "the washington post" made behind you, you know, you are essentially not paying them now. you don't need to have that ehind you. -- daily.the dale his -- he took his work with his oith sight. he's done pretty well. that is a rare example of how .randing can be >> patrick gam monday from political and jane joining us here on c-span. by taking your comments about and political journalism certainly wasn't of the folks that talk about mentioned where they get their news, is the daily show with john steward. here's the issue on the gun violence issue from the program. >> we were going to have to take real and substantial action to reduce gun violence in the country. it's been three months since then. -- over 3,000 viments environments. >> to prevent the justice department, for example from taking a look at gun shot owners inventory to make sure there haven't been theft. >> that makes sense. >> prevents the justice partment from attracting them. i'm american once again. >> we've got the judge for a weapon. >> the daily slow request john stewart, jay hall quickly on that clip he's obviously talking about some things that happened. i think he definitely shakes opinion. that's a pretty p.c. slow. i've been doing it a lot of reporting about -- about what he was talking about which is it is. rol and why is most of my students is that he puts out the hypocrisy often. he will edit something where sarah s karl rove or palin is very experienced but highly. noter edits i think sectlyive what kind news pun debt say and and i think that's punctures a lot of he pretense. sadly there's a kind of sin ji that you can have. but that is part of his appeal. he cares about very serious issues too. >> let's get to this john. welcome to the conversation. >> hi, good evening. basically i wanted to talk was where jeff daniels talking about his apology for the iraqi war do you think we'll see any newsperson or anybody a-- ininvolved in the match. -- it's not just even the elephant in the room anymore. i've heard -- wilson is bad and nicole smith and other minor celebrities issue. i was thinking about it as a journalism. . litary journal i just can't get over the lack of atheanings it ha busy nn the con quert looking bats. aaron brown brought up the fact hat john carry you're going to eat it. just want to know how these "people" feel. where are we? what do you think about his comments that isn't thoroughly covered. >> i think the answer is know. people can disagree or green about that. >> the main of how the us handled the situation. that seems to be one of the runt of the criticism goes. .hat for better, for wovers they teal i think that's -- that does stop with the administration and the state department for if there were any wrongdoing and how they handled that. so i don't think that's the best example in which you might see network anchor apologize. i think that -- you know, the reporters apologize all the time but they're usually on very, very glad issues. we plaggede your eyes. -- that have plagued your eyes. there have been policy discussions where both sides do have their own talking points and their own intentions. news considerations generally will not apologize for that type of thing. -- xt up from warren p. warren, pennsylvania. >> i'm absolutely amazed that there's something on tv like this on tv. yeah, you guys. my question was with the validity thing, how are you supposed to find news on the internet when you can't find -- you know, who are you supposed to tru? and what happened to the freedom of press. who are you supposed to tru if you can't trust the people on tfer that for years that our grandparents have been tellings. this is supposed to be the news. it's like none of its' happening the way that it's supposed to be. let jane hall take an on that we were talking about the brand name in journalism. >> well, you know, i think that you have to -- you know, don't agree with this thing that is often said which is -- it puts it back on the consumer saying you need to sample broadly. and you decide. i think that is the most tremendous copout. it is better to go to sources that you feel have some level of depth and object activity. what has happened in cable news in general that you have opinions more than you have reporting because of the it cost it how gets back to this other question which is it's als fun to see a food figse fight. bun den tri and john stewart going after that. that is entertaining. find the sours that you see really reporting this sfoir. i guess i'm a huge fan, newspapers. i think they've had cup bags. they started doing what we call stake oult on gun control, on how the n.r.a. has had power for many years if you think the nrment r.a. maybe mowled i have been >>ed in the past. i just was a to come back to can. e thing if i they feel they can report much more independently about what hatches. you get into a political story of susan being attacked and hillary clinton getting in accounting. i'm not sure if we're going to know the truth of what happened actually. let's from bob. >> go ahead with your comment or question. >> all that matters is that i -- a >> hi, there. >> i'm a little nervous. >> that's ok. go ahead. >> i sam so -- i'm a little bit upset because you've been talking about on the newscast, but you never mention things like de"democracy now". every morning i watch her cause they tell so much news that no one else covers, yet i am amazed that no one is talking about that. >> we asked you at the begin og of the program, where are you getting your news from? so you listen to your democracy every day. and she -- not one other station covers. >> del, thanks for shiming in. this will get back to the previous comment that jane made in terms of reliable sources. what does politico do on a daily basis to ensure that political itself is a reliable source that people keep coming to politico for news they can trust. > they have the same type of sourcing that other organizations do as well. the nice thing about journalism is that it is sort of self policing in the sense that if politico gets something wrong, that's egg on our face, that's going to hurry our reputation. every blog, independent writer and reporter is facing the same type of thing. there is very little incentive to mess things up. and when you do, that's going to be a huge step for you and your organization. it's a very tough thing to climb out of. if you don't have straight policies in place, make sure you're getting it right. make sure you report the reporting of others. >> both of you have spend times in both newsrooms. i want to take a look at the clip from tmz and comment afterwards on -- not necessarily the comment. because it's political in nature but the dynamic of the newsroom. >> paul ryan electrifies the g.o.p. convention last night. but insiders say there is something he could do to make his speeches even better. -- paul is inship. a little bit more of an attire will accentuate that physic. .> that's aaron >> they think he needs ea box over. >> it's boxy. >> like when you lose weight and you're afraid you're going to gain it back. >> it's true, ryan's a fitness fanatic but maybe that suit is from a before picture time. or maybe there's another explanation. >> he borrows chris christie. >> that would explain it. >> tmz senior editor there harvey levin and his staff in the tmz newsroom. how close is that though the topic are different? >> it's not very similar to our newsroom. >> you know, i think stuff like that could be pretty good fodder for people. i don't know that necessarily get too worked about i. the reality is that that's exactly what you would expect. you'd be a little bit -- you'd be taking it back. but the reality is there is plenty of room, i think, for people to cover politics the way they do. that's how tmz does i. the fact that tmz is interested in d.c. as much as they are is a very, very telling story and tells you a lot about the kind of culture that's over the air. . don't blame them >> you mentioned that up a can of your students at american university would like to go to work for tmz. what's behind their motivation? >> no, i didn't say that i said i hadn't had -- i'm not sure i'd encourage them. i just want to be on the record about that. i think what they do is very interesting. this is definite, you know, sort of mocking tone to that narrator. when they report that michael jackson -- they only reported on michael jackson, you know and they had their packs straight. i think that clip speaks to me about -- someone tweetedability this. now, i think we require both men and female politicians to be very good-looking. and you know, sarah palin was very attractive. and other publications put her on the cover in running gear. -- s from "runner mag "runner" magazine. people were showing pictures of obama standard. we require a standard of good looks. abraham lincoln may not get elected. didn't have abs as far as i know. this is important. so they lood good and we cover them. it seems to be a factor in politics. >> well, on the issue of celebrities here a tweet from nancy who says info tainment -- here are some news i don't want to hear again, kardashian, arias, bieber, royal pregnancy and lohan. >> back to mount prospect, illinois. >> hello? you're on the air. >> yes. i just want to make a comment. i remember it was a couple of year ago and i think we were cutsing things because we 45d a difference of opinion. you'll come back once again, won't you. he says i won't come back again. he said you're an entertainer. you're not a journalism. >> you've been on bill o'reillies in the past. >> i would defend bill o'reilly. i don't know that i would say he's an entertainer. whatever you think about him, he has a point of view. he goes off the news. he is big into combat. i, you know, have two years where i di fended him every week. i always thought the o bam -- and they were being interviewed by thefment if people go on there i i think he can give them a shot. on the phone. >> first of all, i listen to tom harken. they took him off the radio. and we have to list them online. right now some apartments in washington d.c. sectly what you have addressed are the issues back in the information. i think that's the reason why it has to dumb down. you don't have the news organizations. i could remember as a wild walking walter con kite. it's one thing else i would love to say. -- the video about what's the senator's name? were you back in 2007? >> uh-huh. >> i'm liberal. >> in our video library.org. do you think now a days as opposed to 10 years ago, there are fewer. >> i think there are certainly more media outlets. like the color mentioned -- you know, that happens in some isolated cases which other reporters have talked about the pressure they feel from their "corporate overlord." but i do think -- it's hard but attend of the day any organization and our parentser help us to make a profit. i think that if they do, climb it up here. if they do, they would get it done. it can or can be covered. but ultimately bad new gem. it's not good. friday journalists. but he's certainly great to happen, it's the kind of nervous culture that's been created some newsroom today after they take over. i wouldn't have smelt to make it a red alert issue. we've got about 15 more minutes in our conversation on what's info tainment and political journalism with james hall from american university. and patrick gabon from politico. i'm taking your phone calls here. journalists the 202-585-3882. off to bellevue, washington. this is ward. welcome. >> yes, good evening. by the way, thank you for c-span. i'm old enough to remember when there was some semblance of a distinction between opinion and news in journalism. i believe that from the early 1900's they were receiving a code on that. and in the 1960's you ended up with new journalism which was kind of great for it seems to have bled over to newspapers. nowadays we have this self-selecting silo from people who listen to rush limbaugh or they listen to msnbc. that disturbs me greatly because i'm still a reader of newspapers, even if it is online and it has to be reuters. one thing that bothered me was the comment about the n.r.a. in a sense that the treatment is -- i don't think -- i think it's gone over the line in terms of the so-called gun culture and that sort of thing. andsh that pbs and the a.p. other news sources will stick to journalism. that is basically it. >> do you want to follow up with a comment? >> i knew when i was saying they didn't think i was as clear as i was trying to be. jon stewart has a clear point of view. i was trying to make the point that newtown fostered a lot of looking at the power and players involved in legislation or lack there of. or why a certain bill is sun setted or why this hasn't happened in the past. my point was more to reporting and i think that is a thing that has gone by the wayside. reporters are under pressure and they don't have the same resources. if you looked at most news organization they have had cutbacks and buyouts. what you lose in that is the kind of reporting that allows you go in depth. >> going back to "tmz" for a second. here's their website. this is a story with barbara walters. she was doing an interview with president obama. she made some mention that she's going to retire next year. it seems in the last 10 or 20 years that the presidents are often seen with celebrities. it doesn't seem to be news anymore when the president shows up on "late night with david letterman" or on the jay leno program or recently in the oscars michelle was used to present one of the awards. how much more frequently are we seeing this, patrick, and what is the benefit to the president or the presidency with the association with celebrities? >> there has been a spike in it. the reality is there's been a long time relationship between the presidency and hollywood. the two of them seem like kindred spirits because of the egos in this town. in the last four years because hollywood has been very supportive of president obama, much more so than his predecessor george w. bush, you have seen a big spike in celebrity visitors to the white house in particular. i think we've also seen as well is a little reduction in the stigma that politicians that might feel with associating themselves with presidents. if there was a stigma you wouldn't see michelle obama at the oscars. i think this stigma mass gone away with this presidency. but the reality is, you know, you see a spike in the celebrity in washington, d.c. you've seen a spike in celebrity coming to washington, d.c. the fact that "tmz" is talking about barbara walters is more in their wheel house, they talk about paul ryan, they talk about president obama, they talk about michelle obama. there are so many outlets that traditionally have no interest in washington because washington is traditionally thought of as boring and stale. but the sex appeal for better or worse, in the past four years has significantly upticked. >> from politico this evening, from the click column people watching in washington, d.c., the head library is that the daughter of senator mccain gets a tv show. we go to glen. >> thank you very much. i want to say about the comment about the appearance of politicians and that kind of thing. one, i guess that means the old chi shea that politics is -- hee shea that politics is show business. i kind of disagree with you. i don't care what these people look like or anything like that. i don't think most people do. i think that is underestimating the audience, which i think is a big problem. that's where you get a lot of this nonsense because of the powers at be, what sleep shea -- cliche you want to use. by and large, most people wouldn't if they thought it has a drastic impact on their life and that kind of thing. you were talking about the decline and the standard of living for average of americans and that of stuff on a consistent basis. >> where do you get your daily news from regularly? >> anywhere i can get it. newspapers, radio, television, anything available at the moment. >> i think one thing we haven't focused on is people in the public eye using their celebrity. michelle obama for better or worse we look to the first lady in some way as a person who personifies style. that's been a tradition. there's a lot ofation, probably too much on what she's wearing. she has highlighted american designers. she made a whole initiative about exercise and making school lunches more nutritious. i don't think an unknown person who wasn't already looked at and has people curious about them would get that kind of attention. there's a youth of celebrity and i think this first lady is in some ways is a celebrity. you can use it in a positive way. i think if i was that kind of person i would be looking for ways to use it. is at 's" harvey levin the launch of what he is calling he's looking to get younger people interested in politics. here's what he had to say. >> the fact is young people are not interested in tradition alameda for the most part anymore. it doesn't speak to them. it is getting -- the audience is getting older and older. so when young people aren't coming and the old people are getting older, you know what happens in the end. i mean, it's inevitable. so when you look at what happens with the dynamics of the audience, then the question is what are people doing to attract those young people, to regenerate interest in what's really important, which is the news. when i say the news it could be politics, it could be city government, it could be celebrity. be but what do you do to attract those people? then the question is how do you reinvent yourself? >> patrick evan on the subject of attracting younger users. what is the demographic of politico? >> what we want to focus on is -- like asaid before, it is a narrow group. we want the country and the world's most intense political junkies. the people show are most devoted to what goes on in washington and in government around the cub. that is not a wide field. that is not as wide of a field s harvey levin's site or cnn's site. >> do you think the way news is delivered today or more specifically, twitter with people having news feeds streams of news and that they get quick hits of stories from articles linked on twitter. is that the way of the future? what does that say about long-form w -- generalism reporting? >> i think people get their news in different ways. but these things swing back and forth. for the past decade or so you see hyperspeed news cycles. then it swings back then you get the slow news movement and you get people reporting and people spend more time flushing a story out. you get readers sick of twitter and it is information overload. the reality is, i think the news psychological go in cycles. you're going to get periods in which news is coming out in hyperspeed then you're going to get periods where people are overwhelmed by it. these are people who don't have time to check newspapers all day. they want someone to tell them in a newspaper or in a 30-minute broadcast here's what we need to know. there's still a big audience that is not necessarily on twitter, that is not getting their news online and wants somebody to tell them what is going on in a more traditional manner. >> let's check twitter one more time. writing this is the wrong titlele for the program. we'll get a couple of calls from ohio. welcome. go ahead. >> hey, how are you doing? just wanted to say i'm a big fan of the show. about the infotainment, i was wondering, if it should be info will have slavement. ith the government sending out and telling them what should be done is the difference between news and i see on the tv. it feels like shackles and chains. but i took a pop culture class, went to columbus state. the pop culture class seemed to crazy because i did not fully understand what was going on. you kind of see a higher level, i guess, you see a higher level of what the elites or whatever they don't want you to say it as glen point it out earlier. >> i will let your comments stand. let's see if you guys have something to add to his comments. >> i want to add about what patrick said. ipads, mobile devices, people are getting headlines that way. you can go deeply. there's a lot of interesting experimentation and work going on about the safety of your water supply and you can look up your city. i don't want to say nothing new is good or everything in the past is gone. but there's a lot of interesting experimentation. so far the advertising avenue hasn't been there but there is a lot of interesting experimentation is going on. >> so maybe the medium for delivering the news such as numbers those are fading -- newspapers those are fading away but the demand for news is still there and media organizations like politico and other news organizations that the advertising will come back. >> well, i hope so. i think the question is, you know, is journalism what we're trying to talk about or the survival of hard copy newspapers what we're talking about? i think newspapers online have a strong brand, from what i've read. they are doing interesting aned a add on. whether they get the advertising is going to decide how it plays out, i think. >> concerning celebrities, i'm in state college where we have the big scandal and joe paterno and s quite a celebrity. and in his grand jury testimony he admits being told by his employer that sandusky was doing something of sexual nature of a young boy. for tn years paterno never tried to rescue that victim. people here refused to see that truth. know the suit goes on the katie couric show and says we're unaware but in paterno's own words admit he knew and he did not know anything. there is a lot of pandering ecause paterno is a celebrity. admitted into the school or an employee or anywhere if you don't recognize him as a hero. they came here and held these things under the light. people will not read the grand jury indictment and they refuse to see the truth. signs all around us we store paterno's wins. it breaks my heart to see people not side with the victims in this case. >> we'll let you go. patrick we'll let you comment on that and any final comment you want to make. > a good parallel is there a temptation to provide coverage -- they are called source griefing stories. like joe is apointed the new chief of staff. you will see a lot of profile pieces that are largely flattering by doing that piece. but that is a temptation as a daily challenge for reporters. what is so interesting about washington, washington is one of the few cities where there is more reporters than there are sources. sources in a lot of ways control the information. they know -- sources know that hey, i got this -- i got this great scoop and i have seven outlets that will take it. you're going to go to the outlet where you will get the fairest treatment. it is not like you're in arkansas and there is one paper and you have to give them the scoop whether you like them or not. to connect it, there is a temptation that reporters have to fight to not be too cozy with the figures around town. >> in your final thoughts on the even's topic of infotainment and political journalism. >> i think we have established ere's a natural affinity between celebrity in hollywood and politicians. but i think it was a newspaper that uncovered ultimately, what the grand jury was investigating about sandusky. whether joe paterno got coverage a lot of journalists say that because he was a celebrity he did. so i think that illustrates different things we've been talking about tonight. jane hall is a professor in washington, d.c. patrick gavin write for politico d covers issues like personalities. thanks for being with us this evening. >> thanks a lot. >> just a reminder too, the conversation continues online. at facebook.com/c-span feel free to post your thoughts on infotainment and political journalism. coming up this evening, we will re-air tonight's program. that is 9:45 p.m. eastern for those of you on the west coast. >> when they first moved here he spent a lot of time at home. the primary people who would have visited prior to the war of 1812, would have largely been friends from the area. rachel is acknowledged to be a nice hostess. very welcoming. during jackson's fame after the battle of new orleans, pretty much from 1815 on through the rest of rachel's life. they had lots of company and many, many parties or dinner here's. you know, they were entertaining people who were used to fine things in the city. they appreciated those fine thicks too. she had very, very nice things. o this kind of dual image of this frumpy country lady, she wasn't that. i think it was more about her comfort in the big cities than it was about her actual appearance. >> our conversation with historians on rachel jackson, wife of the president andrew jackson is available on our website, c-span.org/first ladies. >> coming up, the pentagon briefing with defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman dempsey. that is followed by president obama on gun violence. hen the supreme court looks at a case regarding drug sniffing dogs. on our next "washington journal" we'll look at state abortion laws and a potential legal challenges they face. then gregry this week on the same-sex marriage cases before the u.s. supreme court. later a roundtable discussion on the conceptions and the misconsumptions of the u.s. economy. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern on -span. thursday, a senator briefing that chuck hagel announced that furloughs will be reduced. jeernl martin dempsey. his is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. i brought one of our junior officers with me. [laughter] oung, handsome, vibrant. you all know the chairman. let me begin with a couple of comments versus reading a statement. i will hit a couple of points here that may be some interest to all of you then open it up to talk about whatever you want to talk about. that came from a lunch i'm going to now hold on a onthly basis with the enlisted men and women from across the services. men and women who are serving in the lower listed ranks, who are stationed in various locations in the ternl united states but -- the reasonernl i asked to meet with them because it was just me and the junior enlisted. we talked about whatever was on their mind and asked me questions. get to ask them questions. what do they think? what we're doing right? what are we doing wrong? what are their concerns? how are their family? are they going to stay in the military? what do they think, is it better than expected? what are their concerns? it is a tremendous ways to humanize a relationship but particularly important for me as i am new here. i think we all understand certainly, general dempsey does. you can have all of the technology and the advanced weapons and plans and strategies, but if you don't have the right people it won't work. that is not unique to the pentagon. people are your most important asset. you take care of those people and you protect them. you try to stay ahead of what they thinking. at the time that is very uncertain with budget issues and what's going on in the world, it isn't just a matter of reassuring our people, which is one thing. but getting their feedback. i know that marty does that a lot. he did it just last week when he was visiting different bases. that is what i did for the last hour and a half. if you walk to talk about that i will be glad to respond. prior to that i met with the leaders of three african nations. i think you all know about that. that was a good opportunity, certainly for me on behalf of r military institutions to hank the presidents. those countries were picked by the president for recognition for what they're doing on their economic development, their mocracy and their leadership in a tough area, a tough region, and their cooperation with the united states on a number of things we have working together. if you want to talk about that in a particular way, i will be glad to do it. one thing and marty may want to comment on it too is the president is nominating air force general to serve as the new commander of our european command of nato. i met with the general on my way back from afghanistan. spend some time with him and, again, marty may want to talk more d.n.a. about that -- detail about that. but we need to get that position filled. i would say too that not only is he well qualified but the job that he has done over there has been significant. so he needs a little relief one of these days. i wanted to particularly recognize him and it will be more appropriate and we'll all recognize him in more detail as this unfolds. last night i spent some time on the phone with the south korean's defense minister getting connected. as you all know i've been connecting with a number of ministers of defense since i've been here. this relationship, as you all know between the united states and the south korea is particularly important in a particularly important time. i had known him, not well but had a good opportunity to discuss a number of issues and go into some detail. if you want to talk about any of that we can. last major topic that i would mention before we get to your .uestions, the budget i know you're not interested in that. in particular to confirm a story that is already out there, that has been out there on the furloughs. we are we're going to be able to reduce and delay these furloughs. but not eliminate them. that right now looks as if we'll an original from 14.mate of 22 days to that we think will save the the ment anywhere from original estimate was around $4 billion we could be plan on bout $2.5 billion. these numbers are floating as you all know. but this is good news. it's good news from where we were two weeks ago. the comp troller are and the chiefs are still working these numbers. i understand there's going to be more indepth briefing after we're finished here on that. et me also hit the current budget situation in a little bit of detail. marty may have thoughts on this as well. what the continuing resolution .as done for us it did fix some of our urgent problems in particular, it put some of the dollars back into the right accounts. we still don't have the flexibility that we had hoped to get. but having money in the right accounts is particularly important. what that does too is it reduces a shortfall, at least in the operations budget. you also know that we came out better than we went in under the sequester. it looks like our number is $41 billion now versus the $46 billion. it gives us program authorities o start new programs and military construction, which is significant. some of the things we're looking at and we're still working through and we'll continue to work through, like ai said, $41 billion is the number we're having to adjust to. that is eas operations about $ billion higher than we estimated. a lot of cost in that. more expensive to bring -- to start bringing troops and equipment out of afghanistan. and there are other constituent jencies as well. in the operations and maintenance account we're going to be short, at least $22 billion for f.y. 14. we're going to have to deal with that reality. that meens we have to prioritize and make some cuts. we'll have to do what we gotted to. some of the specific things that we're going to have to do are in the process of doing, what we anticipated what we have to do. cutting back and sharmly -- sharply, reducing training for nondeployed units. i've already mentioned the furloughs, that is better news. we're not going to be able to eliminate furloughs. i suspect overall the biggest issue that we're going to be dealing with in the future is the department's people and its mission -- how these numbers are going to affect all of that. directed rtly why i the chairman and the deputy a retary of defense to begin framework r entire of first of strategic interests using the base line, the starting point, the president'ses defense strategic guidance. how do we protect that? how do we implement that? we're going to do that with less. where do we and how do we prioritize the threats? then the capabilities required to deal with threats anticipated and unanticipated threats. we'll continue to do everything possible, i think deputy secretary carter has noted this, the chairman has not to harm, reduce any way our fore structure. that would be a base line for us. there will be changes, some significant changes. there's no way around it. would say also this is an imperfect process. any decisions we make and we'll have to make some and will make some, we'll be within the context of that imperfection. we don't have any choices but get through a very significant analysis back to why i ask the chairman and the deputy to lead a review on intensifying a review on everything. what do we really need? how do we protect those strategic interests? there's some opportunities in that, i think. i think everyone would agree with not just have to find the high ground of opportunities this way but we are where we are. so that's what we're going to do. i think i'll stop with that because we could be at this all day on the budget. further w -- any comments i have until your questions but i'll let him say whatever he wants to say. >> thanks, mr. secretary. et me say that i supreme court the nomination. he's an extraordinary leader and he's worthy of the confidence that he has earned from our allies in europe. i would like to add my own perspective of the budget challenges that the secretary mentioned. the uncomfortable truth is that on monday we'll be halfway through the fiscal year and 80% spent in our operating funds. we don't have a satisfactory solution to that shortfall and we're doing everything we can to stretch out our readiness out. we have to trade at some level for our future readiness and future operations. it will cost us more in money and time in the future to come. we'll try to recover the lost readiness at the same time of reshaping the force. we can do it but that is the uncomfortable truth. e can't do it budget uncertainty, time and flexibility. i want to make special mention of the word flexibility. to us that does want mean transfer authority and reprogramming. these are necessary but insufficient. i mean what i describe as full flexibility. i'm talking about the unpopular but the unavoidable institutions that will be necessary. excess equip or facilities. we have to reduce redundancy and we have to change at some level our compensation structure. without that kind of reform, we will lose the human capital, the important, talented young men and women and we'll lose combat capability. with that kind of reform, we have it in us to stay strong. if our elected leaders can help us with full flexibility our people will do the rest. last week i met with marines at the marine air station in south carolina. there, sergeants were leading and lance corporates were teaching and privates were learning and they are still getting it done. but dysfunction back here is a distraction to them. nearly every question i feel with military members and their families was about the protected budget uncertainty. that's a shame. they are worried about their families and they are concerned they are going to be idol. they don't -- idle. they don't join the military to billion idea. they look to have a sustainable future. i know if we can do that we'll be ok. i look forward to your questions. >> mr. secretary, regarding north korea. would you say that in north korea more dangerous now than you think it was six months or a year ago? could you talk about the decision to south korea for this exercise? was not more of a provocative move by the united states? prove kating north korea to do something more than they already have been? >> we the united states, south korea, have not been involved in prove kating anything. we've been engaged in south korea in joint exercises. the b-2 flight was part of that. i made announcement a couple of weeks ago regarding a new missile defense capabilities, which cuts to your question about is north korea more dangerous today. think they are very provocative accent -- actions. it has ratch ited up the danger. we have to understand that reality. we, the united states, south korea, all of the nations in that region of the world are committed to a pathway to peace. the north koreaians seem to be headed in a different direction here. we will uneequivalently defend and we're committed to that alliance with south korea as well as our other allies in that region of the world. we'll be prepared, we have to be prepared to deal with anything that happens there. >> along those lines. last week general signed with his counterparts signed a plan, it talks about consultations any he south in light of north koreaian provocations. we've been told this is to put a brake on things to prevent things from escalating, to have a calming affect. would you agree with that? >> this has been about a two-year process. i wouldn't describe it as putting a brake on our south korean allies -- >> a break on the escalation. >> look you know the general wears three hats and he's responsible for sustaining the alliances and he has the u.s. forces career hat. he has to have not only visibility and transparency, but he has to have influence in the process of managing the potential for conflict on the peninsula. this is essentially allowing him and my counter part to come to an agreement on how that influence will be handled. >> why now? >> well, -- >> it has been going on for over 60 years and you've had consultations going back that far? >> sure. the answer to that question is this has been an ongoing effort over the last two years to have a plan in recognition of the stated place of the south korean government they are not no, longer willing to be provoked. we wanted to understand what that meant. >> when kim jong-un he was an unknown quantity. but with more aggressive weapons development from the north koreaian yeah over the last couple of years, the nuclear test, and certainly an escalation in the rhetoric, if not outright threats to attack the united states. what is the take on him now? is he attempting to bargain his way to the bargaining table to get aid and money? or is he a more serious threat than first imagined or a more serious threat than his father? >> as you note, there's a lot of unknowns here. but we have to take seriously every provocative word and action that this new young leader has taken so far since he has come to power. e have seen historical trajectory here on where north korea will go to get the attention of the united states, to try to maneuver us into some position favorable into to them whether it is more assistance or bilateral engagement. but the fact is, this is the wrong way to go. the action he's taken and the actions they have taken and the words he's used is not going to project a more responsible, accountable relationship. >> isn't it the belief that he's in charge or is the north koreaian military in charge? >> well, he's the leader. north korea. r of >> secretary? have you seen any moves that suggests military steps by the north koreaians we should be concerned about? >> we're in our annual exercise cycle. there has been moves on the east coast and some of the artillery units from seoul. there have been movements. we haven't seen anything that causes us to believe there are movements other than consistent with training exercises and consistent patterns. >> and the b-2 -- >> the reaction to the b-2 that we're concerned about is what the reaction from the japanese. those exercise are to assure our allies can count on us to be prepared and to deter conflict. >> sequestration question. since january, the public has is hearing the military warranted for a sequestration crisis. sequestration is here now. is it a peed of adjustment where you have to live within your means basically? >> you're always adjusting. when you are dealing with $41 billion less than what was projected in a budget you're going to adjust. to maintain readiness is a key part of our responsibility. i think as germ dempsey has said, as i've said, all of our leaders have said, we will work around that. we will make things work for that readiness. that is a priority. you have to have that. it is a balancing and a rebalancing, just as we've noted in our comments here and in others. we've got no choice. it is what it is. ut make no mistake, this capability of this department of defense to defend the interest of our country and our allies will be there. >> the answer is yes, actually. it is both. it is both for this reason. some of you are students of history and the expansion and contraction of the budget. this is not the deepest but it is the steepest decline in our budget ever. so what we've got is an f.y. 13 problem that will affect readiness and it will affect it into 2014. what the secretary has challenged us to do is lead our way through that. we have to get through 2013 and 2014. 2016 look at the 2015 and budget we have to look at this. >> so the united states faces a readiness crisis because sequestration -- have you gotten enough relief from the budget so mitigate a full-blown readiness -- >> give us two weeks to answer that question. we're in the midst of trying to figure that out. >> how much did it cost to send the b-2 flight over to south korea. was that a change to the strategy in way? does that affect the budget crisis that you're talking about? >> i don't know the exact cost, marty may know. i will answer it this way and marty might want to respond. we're undergoing joint exercises with the south koreans. we plan through these exercises and deterrence is part of that. as marty said, the commitment to our allies, the unwavering commitment on the korean peninsula. we factor in all of these different tactical moves for compliance with the larger strategic exercise with our allies. i don't know the exact cost of what it was but maybe marty can help you. smile don't either. we budget for a certain number, we call them blue lightning global reach exercises. we budget for a certain number. this was within the context of the budgeted exercise program. even if it wasn't, jennifer, with what is going on in north korea and the necessity of assuring our allies we're with them, we will find a way to do this. we have a readiness challenge but we're not going to put people at risk. >> the way you describe the north korea's regime that it is irrational and little is known around the dynamics around kim jong-un. why do you think it is wise to respond to the provocations or poking back? >> i don't think we are poking back. we've always had a significant presence and relationship. i don't think that's new. but i think more to the question and this would be my answer to your question, north koreaians what understand that they're doing is very dangerous. they have some options. they can take another approach to a better future. but what they're doing now is not way to do that. we have security issues here that we have to protect and commitments in our security interests. so no, i don't think we're doing anything extraordinary or provocative or out of the orbit of what nations do to protect their own interests and assure, ,s the general said, especially to your south korean allies be to our other allies in the region that we must make clear that these provocations by the rth are taken by us very seriously and we'll respond to that. >> do you feel that you know enough about the regime that the responses by the u.s. are take fln the way that you intend them to be? >> well, you know enough about north korea, there is uncertainty in that government and in their leadership a and intentions. that is not the issue. the issue is we have to be prepared to defend our interests and our allies' interests. we have to be prepared to defend look at any potential, any possibility. yes, we have other approaches that we would prefer. we would prefer that the north do that as well. >> do you know the formation of the administration that comes to syria? to change the calculation of a sad's regime and to find a peaceful solution for the transition? but when it comes to the threat like chemical weapons and the regime and it was testified last week in the senate that he mentioned some plan by some european countries in any tow. what is the position of the u.s. on this issue? and the omes to turkey chemical weapons, about the plan -- [unintelligible] and between the israel and turkey and how it will affect the calculation in the region that the president also mentioned. and you're quite popular in turkey because the funder -- nintelligible] >> i'm glad to know my standing s significant in turkey. i admire the turks and the government and i have noted that in the speeches i have given. he did something that was significant and has had a very important sustaining legacy in the world. sometimes we in the west we don't appreciate what he kid. that is the depth of my knowledge of all of that. but thank you. as to -- tell me your other points on syria. that you referenced president obama was able to lead between turkey and israel, ritically important. important for both israel and turkey, and if for the middle east and our sister tr. prior to the last couple of years is building and developing is important for both countries. clearly is in the interest of all of us that relationship is being put back together. it does affect syria. it does affect the outcome. it does affect the neighbors in developing more confidence, i would suspect among the neighbors in that area that turkey and israel will once again begin working together on some of these common interests. the chemical weapons, as you know the united nations have just chosen a former swedish diplomat to head up an investigation of what was used and wasn't used other there, which is important. i don't believe we as of yet have confirmed an absolute use of chemical weapons by assad. he does possess chemical weapons, it is dangerous, it is real. we've got to deal with that and how we would respond to it. let me stop there and see if general dempsey has further comments on that because he's along with the chiefs has been orking on some different challenges. >> we are working this most complex challenge through our partners so through turkey and its nato alliance, our nato alliance. through jordan, which is a strong partner and, of course through israel and we have planning efforts with each of them. not just uniquely for the possibility of chemicals but also for eventuallies, the loss of control, heavier defense weapons, receive fuji or human refugee or humanitarian. we have a number of plans and a number of partners to help us figure this out. >> two questions. one is -- at the time of the attention going around the global in middle east and asia and you have vast experience of foreign policy of so many years on the hill dealing with the same issues. my question is, u.s. budget is going down and china is spending in he areas, especially south asia. w much do you think china is dangering u.s. security and the regional issues or the regional nations in south asia and also in asia, especially india's fear of china's expansion? also, secretary kerry just came back from afghanistan and you have been there, sir. you have been in the region and what do you think now -- the people are asking what is their future after nato or the u.s. leaves the region? what will be the future also -- the role of india in the region, sir? >> india is an important country and will continue to be an important power, not just in the region but in the world. economyically, diplomatically, in every way it is important. india will continue to play a stabilizing role in that part of the world. as to your question on afghanistan, you know that it orderly, intended an responsible transition of the united states to have forces out of afghanistan. that is what we're building for. that's why each of these block with the reements detention facility, turnover, gets us where we all want to go, a peaceful transition. a transition that will hopefully put afghanistan in a position to ve a peaceful prosperous future with our continues assistance. as you know, the president has laid out his commitment for a train, 4 involvement, advise, assist. that was agreed to, as you know, at the nato meeting in chicago last early summer with our nato partners in afghanistan. we're on our way to do that. it's jagged, ragged, not easy, up and down but we're on track. our force reductions are on track. but that's just part of it. afghanistan is a sovereign a ion and we want them to be strong sovereign nation with a significant future. china, china is a great power and will continue to be a great power. it has interests, certainly those interests include the pacific and asia. we have interests as well. i think always the key to relationships with great powers is common interests. you anchor relationships around common interests, you don't start with your differences. that's what we'll continue to do is build on to those common interests with china, economic, diplomatic, military to military. that's the responsible approach. you know as i would make my last comment on this point then i'm sure the general has something to say about this but, the rebalancing of our strategic interests, rebalancing in the pacific in asia also assures our allies in that area. it is not just about north korea. it is about south korea, japan, all the neighbors in that area. so these are accommodations have to be i don't think the way to solve that is going to war. we have got to be smart how we handle this, common interests. we're on a path to do that. >> i just want to add the defense strategic guys from last year took a longer view. rebalancing all the things that the secretary mentioned would occur over time. one of my focus areas was building a joint force for 2020. none of this is the flip of the switch. >> following on north korea. going back to the decision last week. the criticism is that decision based on long-range missile threats. either they launched something last year or images of possible mobilized -- this is a threat that doesn't exist yet. that kind of thing -- this is an overreaction and the u.s. may have been duped here. can you explain exactly why such a robust response? is there something -- people need to know more about that threat. secondly, you have had talks with the british. i would like to know now what was talked about. >> i will let marty handle that question. you didn't let me finish. i want to say something about your question. not-well-thought-out strategy on missile defense. first, we don't have any choice in defending this country. t to anticipate worst case scenarios. we know north koreans have missile capability. we know they have significant capability. and as we think through ong-term threats, we have to plan, sure, for short-term but also for long-term in every decision that is made and the announcement that was made a couple of weeks ago wasn't some nee-jerk reaction to the young leader's threats in north korea. these are decision-making processes that evolve based on threats. performance -- potential threats. you only need to be wrong once. i don't know what president, what chairman, what secretary of defense wants to be wrong once when it comes to nuclear threats. so i would take issue with your nall -- analysis of our decision. there was an awful lot of thought that went into this and strategic thinking and all that goes into these kinds of decisions. >> you know, it was -- it was the specific north korea threat that caused that thinking to occur. you have heard me speak about the proliferation of technologies, whether they be bullistic missile technologies or cyber technologies. you have also heard me say that the homeland can't be considered a sanctuary as it has been for many generations. this is thinking again about how to get ready for the future. this is like the gretsky thing, skate to where the puck is going to be. not to where it has been. george marshall and his british colleague called together their combined chiefs and met at roosevelt hall at fort mcnair on the top floor and they decided how they would make sure that their relationship would advance the cause of not only their own countries but truthfully the world out into the foreseeable future. my british colleague and i decided to recreate the moment. we recreated the picture. it did strike me how much younger we looked than they did back in those years, but we had some incredible conversations about their future, our future, you know the degree to which they intend to further integrate into europe or remain a cross-atlantic partner. they were questioning us about our rebalancing to the pacific. we are both facing economic challenges. we chartered a course to make sure they remain our strongest partner. it was very well done. i haven't rendered that report yet to the secretary. no u'll excuse me if i go further at this point. >> he only allowed me to spend 15 minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> tonight here on c-span, president obama on gun violence. the supreme court decides a case regarding warrantless searches by drug-sniffing dogs and later infotainment and political journalism. president obama is in florida if i had freud talk about the economy and job creation. he is speaking live at port miami starting at 1:5 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the dallas city hall. >> november 24rks196 3, dallas nightclub operator jack ruby shot and killed lee harvey oswald. the man arrested for the ssassination of j.f.k. >> i felt very sorry for jack ruby. he looked alone. he looked forlorn. he just really looked pitiful. he never said anything. never smiled. i made eye-to-eye contact with him. his eyes were fixed. he had a vacant stare, i guess you would say. i really felt sorry for him. >> this saturday at 7:15 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv this weekend on a c-span 3. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce is hosting its annual aviation summit this weekend in washington. united conned fell in president and c.e.o. jeffery smisek spoke about why he thinks current air fares are a bargain. >> i was just wondering if air fares as they continue to climb, has it got to a point where the leisure traveler may not be able to make as many trips as they would have liked to this past? >> air fares are an incredible bargain now. they are 20% cheaper than they were 20 years ago. the fact is if people got used in the battle days of the industry, people got used to fares that were absurdly low. airlines were suffering losses on every single passenger. we were covering passengers that were not even covering the fuel cost. i can't talk about future air fares because my lawyers slap me when i do that. but air fares today are an incredible bargain. we can get you from point a to at t b with complete safety great speeds. it is a very efficient transportation. obviously as fares change, people make decisions on whether or not they make particular trips, but this is a business that is brutally competitive. so i don't worry about air fares. >> thursday, president obama warned that interest groups opposed to new legislation on guns are trying to delay the process. hoping that public attention to the issue will fade. his remarks came at a white house event attended by mother who is had lost children to gun violence, including victim s of the sandy hook elementary school shootings. his is 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and the vice president of the united states and ms. katerina rodgaard. [applause] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> first, i would like to thank from the bottom of my heart, the president, the vice president, for inviting me to speak here today. never in a million years did i think an average citizen such as myself would get an opportunity like this. my name is katerina odgaard. i reside in suburban maryland and i am the mother of two beautiful young children. i have a unique background, both in the performing arts and in law. i have been personally affected by gun violence. as a dance teacher, i lost one of my students at the massacre at virginia tech. she was a bright, beautiful, talented dancer who lost her life that was stolen from her at the age of 18. i will never forget her presence in my classes, and her nthusiasm for dance. as the mother have a first grader, i cannot even look at my own daughter without thinking about poor, innocent victims at sandy hook. my heart breaks for them and their families and the families of the eight children every day who are killed by guns in this country. after losing her and seeing the horror at sandy hook, my reaction was that i no longer felt it was safe to raise a family in this country. i felt like i either needed to leave the country or do something. as an attorney, i vowed to do something because i feel that my right to feel safe in this country and the rights of our children to feel safe in this country are paramount and worth fighting for. i have never been an activist before. ut i have found a voice with moms demand action for gun sense in america. and i am proud and honored to help them fight for better laws in this country. i am also honored to acknowledge vice president joe biden, strong roponent of gun violence prevention measures in the senate for decades and now in the white house. he is also an advocate for the rights of women and children. as mothers, we are eternally grateful for your support. enough is enough. the time to act is now. i am now extremely honored to introduce to you the president of the united states of america, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you, katerina, for sharing your story. she was lucky to have you as a teacher and all of us are fortunate to have you here today. i'm glad we had a chance to remember her. katerina, as you just heard, lost one of her most promising students in virginia tech. the shootings there that took place six years ago. she and dozens of other moms and dads, all victims of gun violence, have come here today from across the country. united not only in grief and loss, but also in resolve and in courage and in a deep determination to do whatever they can as parents and as citizens to protect other kids and spare other families from the awful pain that they have endured. as any of the families and friends who are here today can tell you, the grief does not ver go away. that loss, that pain, sticks with us. it lingers on in places like tucson and aurora. that anguish is still fresh in newtown. it has been barely 100 days since they were taken from us by gun violence, including grace mcdonnell and lauren rousseau and jesse lewis, whose families are here today. that agony burns deep in the family of thousands, thousands of americans who have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun over these last 100 days, including a girl who was killed on her school less than two months ago and whose mother is also here today. everything they live for and hoped for taken away in an instant. we have moms on this stage whose children were killed as recently as 35 days ago. i don't think any of us who are parents can hear their stories and not think about our own daughters and our own sons and our own grandchildren. we all feel it is our first impulse as parents to do everything we can to protect our children from harm, to make any sacrifice to keep them safe, to do what we ought to do to give them a future where they can grow up and learn and explore and become the amazing people they are destined to be. that is why in january, joe biden beating a task force, came p with and i put forward a series of common sense proposals to reduce the epidemic of gun violence and keep our kids safe. in my state of the union address, i called on congress to give these proposals a vote. in just a couple of weeks they will. earlier this month, the senate advanced some of the most import reforms designed to reduce gun violence. all of them are consistent with the eaked amendment. none of them will infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. what they will do is keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who put others at risk. this is our best chance in more than a decade to take common-sense steps that will ave lives. as i said when i visited newtown just over three months ago, if there is a step we can take the will say just one child, just one parent, just another town from experiencing the same grief the moms and dads who are here have endured, then we should be doing it. we have an obligation to try. in the coming weeks, members of congress will vote on whether we should require universal background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that criminals or people with severe mental illnesses cannot get their hands on one. they will vote on tough new penalties for anyone who buys guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals. they will vote on a measure that would keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate these mass killings off our streets. they will get to vote on legislation that would help schools become safer and help people struggling with mental health problems to get the treatment they need. none of these ideas should be controversial. why wouldn't we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or hand on a gun? why wouldn't we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40% of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? why wouldn't we do that? if you ask most americans outside of washington, including many gun owners, some of these ideas they don't consider them controversial. right now 90% of americans, 90%, support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found be a danger to themselves and others from buying a gun. more than 80% of republicans agree, more than 80% of gun owners agree. hink about that. how often does 90% of americans agree on anything? t never happens. many other reforms are supported by clear majorities of americans. i ask every american to find out where your member of congress stands on these ideas. if they are not part of that 90% to agree that we should make it harder for a criminal or someone with a severe mental illness to buy a gun, you should ask them, why not? why are you part of the 10%? there is absolutely no reason why we cannot get this done. but the reason we're talking about it here today is because it is not done until it is done, and there are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock for changing the subject or drowning out the majority of the american people to prevent these reforms from appening at all. they are doing everything they can to make our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration or their assumption is people just forget bout it. i read an article just the other day, wondering is washington -- as washington missed its opportunity because as time goes on after newtown, somehow people start moving on and for -- forgetting. let me tell you, the people here do not forget. grace's dad is not forgetting. her mom is not forgetting. the notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as newtown happened and we move on to other things? that's not who we are. that's not who we are. i want to make sure every american is listening today. less than 100 days ago that happened. and the entire country was shocked. and the entire country pledged we would do something and this time would be different. shame on us if we have forgotten. i have not forgotten those kids. shame on us if we have forgotten. if there is one thing i have said consistently since i first ran for this office, nothing is more powerful than millions of voices alling for change. and that is why it is so important that all of these moms and dads are here today, but also what it is important that grassroots groups out there that got started and are out there mobilizing and organizing and keeping up the fight. that is what is going to take to make this country safer. it will take moms and dads and hunters and clergy and local officials like the mayor's here today standing up and saying, this time really is different. we're not just going to sit back nd wait until the next newtown or the next blacksburg or the next beautiful, insent child is gunned down in a playground in chicago -- innocent, beautiful child is gone down in a playground in chicago or los angeles before we summon the will to act. right now members of congress are back home in their districts and many are holding events where they can get from their constituents. i want everyone listening to make yourself heard right now. if you think checking some as criminal record before you can check out a gun shows common-sense, make yourself heard. if you are responsible, law-abiding gun owner who wants to keep irresponsible, lawbreaking individuals from abusing the right to bear arms y inflicting harm on a massive scale, speak up. we need your voices in this debate. katerina, mom like who wants to make this place stronger country for our children to grow up, get together with other mothers like the ones here today and raise your voices and make yourselves nmistakably heard. we need everyone to remember how we felt 100 days ago and make sure that what we said that time was not just a bunch of platitudes. hat we meant it. the desire to make a difference is what brought corey here today. corey grew up in oklahoma where her dad sold firearms at gun shows. today she is a mom and a teacher. she said that after newtown, she cried for days for the students who could have been her students, for the parents she could have known, for the teachers like her to go to work every single day and love their kids and want them to succeed. corey says, now i decided was the time to act. to march, the time to petition, to make phone calls because tears were no longer enough. and that is my attitude. tears are not enough, expressions of sympathy are not enough, speeches are not enough. we have cried enough. we have not enough heartbreak. what we are proposing is not radical. it is not taking away anyone's un rights. it is something that if we are serious, we will do. now is the time to turn that heartbreak into something real. it will not solve every problem. there will still be gun deaths. there will still be tragedies and violence and still be evil, but we can make a difference if not just the activists here on stage but the general public, including responsible gun owners, say, you know what? we can do better than this. we can do better to make sure that if your parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence. that is what this is about. and if enough people like the parents here today to involved and if enough members of congress take a stand for cooperation and common sense and lead and don't get squishy because time has passed and aybe it is not on the news every single day, if that is who e are, our character that we are willing to follow through on commitments that we say are important, commitments to each other and our kids, then i am confident we can make this country a safer place for all of them. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] >> some of the mother who is attended that white house event spoke to reporters later. they vowed to hold lawmakers accountable during the 2014 midterm elections if they don't support the guns bill. >> i'm shannon watts. i'm the founder of moms demand action for gun sense in america. we were founded in indianapolis, the day after the sandy hook shootings. since then, we have 80,000 members and in 80 chapters in 40 states. the states include montana, south dakota, texas, some of the states you would not think are for common-sense gun laws, but this is a non-partisan issue, and moms are coming together to fight for stronger gun laws in this country on the federal and state level. >> i'm kim russell. i'm director of communications for moms who demand action. i got involved in this organization one day after shannon started it on facebook. i am a victim of gun violence. this issue is very important to me. when i realized that my children were no longer safe, i knew i had to do something about it. it has gone on too long. gun violence is a health crisis in this country, and it needs to be stopped, and we can do something about it. we are a great country and we can prevent gun violence. we cannot take away all of it, but we can reduce it, and that is what we're doing to make this happen. we are calling our legislators every day. e wake up in the morning and let them know we are moms and we need action now. this is the mother of hidiya pendleton. >> hi, i'm cleopatra cowley. i am the mother of hidiya pendleton. i became involved with mothers gainst gun violence. after the murder of my daughter on january 29, i am speaking with you guys because what i have learned since my family has become victims of gun violence is that there are common sense laws that are not yet passed, and we need to implement something that makes common sense, so we can protect our children, our families, our loved ones, and there can be longevity because someone needs to get to work on it. it is time to get to work. it is time. t is just time to get to work. >> what was your reaction when you hear, you are reminded about the inability of a lot of elected officials -- >> i'm sorry. >> what is your reaction when you hear elected officials are unyielding on this point? >> my reaction is it should not have to affect you directly before it matters. the laws that are being scrutinized, are trying to be implemented. they are common sense. my 10-year-old could understand hat we are requesting, so i do not understand the holdup. i do not understand the holdup in implementing something that makes common sense for veryone. >> there are 80 million moms in this country. this is a nonpartisan issue. it doesn't matter if you're a republican or a democrat. we need to come together under one umbrella and say enough. we are not going to live in the america that was outlined by wayne lapierre. we are not going to let the good guys shoot it out with the bad guys. it is not going to happen. mothers will not allow it. eight children die every day in this country, but sandy hook was the first time over 20 babies were shot and murdered in the sanctity of heir own school. we are going to be a force to be reckoned with. if it does not happen this session, we will be back at the midterms. >> what do you want? >> background checks. we want an assault weapons ban. we will come back again and again on that issue until it happens. ammo should be tracked and regulated and not bought online. it should not be easier to buy ammo. these are common sense laws that need to be implemented. not just by congress but by our state legislatures. >> what would you say to the senators who say they will filibuster this? >> it is outrageous. as president obama said, these people deserve a vote. we will not allow inaction anymore. we will not forget newtown. if there is a connecticut effect, it is the uprising of 80 million mothers in this country. >> there has to be a growing sense of frustration with this. as the president mentioned, we are not even 100 days from it, but the attitudes are softening, if you will. >> it is frustrating that our legislators are trying to hem and haw, but they underestimate the mothers in this country. we will not forget. we will be back again. this is a marathon, not a sprint. it took decades for gun lobbyists to get us where we are and it will take decades to undo it. i am telling you, if people think we will forget about this, then they are in for a reckoning at the midterms. >> you mentioned you had a personal story. would you share that with us, please? >> i'm from atlanta, georgia. in 1999, i was out with a good friend. he was a high school teacher. it was four days after columbine. at dinner we spoke at length about how horrific it was, how it could not happen again. after that we were robbed at gunpoint. we were both shot, and phillip died. since then i have always wanted to do something, but i never thought my voice mattered. it felt safer for me to stay in my bubble, to feel like that i was this random act and it did not happen to anybody, and it was easier for me to be an anomaly. after newtown, i experienced ptsd, and since that i have been trying to recover from. it is a physical thing. trying to recover. you get sweaty palms, your adrenaline starts racing, but you cannot move. those feelings came back to me, because i realized i am not an anomaly. i need to wake up. this is happening to a lot of people every single day, and now my children are not safe. i have a first-grader and a pre-k son. i take them to school every day, and i need to pick them up. that is my right as a mother, and i do not want the gun lobby to get laws passed that will take that right away from me. they are not my legislatures. they are not my voice. they do not speak for me. we are the majority. 56% of americans want an assault weapons ban. we need legislators to know, we are the majority here. it is just the opposition is very loud and very organized. they make a lot of phone calls. we make a lot of phone calls, we are tweeting. we are taking action. a lot of moms like myself have never done any activism before this, but this rocked us to our core where we can no longer be quiet. and moms -- we take care of business, and this is just more business we're going to take care of and we're not going away. we're here. >> it has been so recent, i am wondering how you are processing the continuing grief in the middle of this effort to try to do something against gun violence. >> one more time. i want to make sure i answer the question correctly. >> the death of your daughter is recent, and yet you stand here today before us, part of this movement. i wonder how you are processing this personally. >> the question is how to process waking up to an empty bed where my 15-year-old was. that is difficult. this is difficult as well, but i am making sense of it. i have always been strong illed. i am just determined to be a elp to someone else. i feel my grief. i feel there is nothing i can do to bring my 15-year-old back. i love her more than words could ever express, more than the tears i could show or scream or yell, and my right has been taken away to continue raising her. nd that is awful, and you will hear me and other mothers who have been affected by an unexpected loss, so we do not want others to feel the ame. and so i mean that when i say that. o it is easy for me to process at that i am standing here in front of this microphone, answering questions as best i can, in my mourning, but at some point you have to get to work. my standing here is a form of work, and i hope i am inspiring someone else to also work and have their voices heard. i don't want to feel like i can't speak on an issue. i want to take full advantage of the opportunity to state my opinion and how i feel. every day i am hurt. it is not just saying january 29 -- and no one knows when numbers are going to come on the other side of that dash. until those numbers are there, i will be hurting every single day. that is a consciousness that needs to be raised. but only to the people who actually took my daughter's ife, who are being arraigned today, but also the congress and as people who handle laws. there needs to be consciousness there, that people need to think about how we are truly impacted by it, and i am processing that just fine, i guess. > thank you. >> president obama is in florida friday to talk about the economy and job creation. he is speaking live at port miami starting at 1:55 eastern on c-span. this week, north dakota's governor signed into law new restrictions on abortion in the state. on our next "washington journal" we will look at state abortion laws and the potential legal challenges they face. log gregory anglo, the cabin on same-sex marriage and the supreme court. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> what do you do about the israeli/palestinian conflict? it took the president until june 2012 to come up with an answer. his answer was two states for two peoples. jewish state and a palestinian state, but only when that palestinian state will be a decent, stable, peaceful democratic noncorrupt government. first, that means -- has got to go. >> elliott abrams gives his view n the bush failures on the palestinian-israeli conflict. >> the supreme court ruled 5-4 that using a drug-sniffing dog immediately outside a suspect's home is an unconstitutional search under the fourth amendment and requires a warrant. it limits dogs sniffing around the outside of a home. the oral arguments are an hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 11-564, florida v. jardines. mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- in the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique, both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. as to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband, and that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that. >> i mean, that just can't be a proposition that we can accept across the board. nobody under that view has an interest in contraband in their ome. the question is, can you find out the contraband? it's just a circular argument. and if -- and in the -- was it the caballes case that talked about that, if i have the right name? that was where the contraband was visible, it was almost like the smoking gun falls out. well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. so i just don't think that works. >> well, justice kennedy, in the caballes case, the contraband wasn't visible before the dog alerted. in the home case, we're not saying that you don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home. of course, you do. the question is whether you have a legitimate expectation >> so doesn't that mean that what's in your home that's not visible to the public has an expectation of privacy as ell? >> not when it comes to contraband, your honor. and we think that the kyllo case helps >> but that -- that is circular. then why do you need a search warrant? if you have no expectation of privacy in the contraband, why bother even with a search warrant? >> because, your honor, when you have a search warrant and you go into a home, there's going to be a lot of private information that you're going to come across, even if your expectation is finding evidence of a crime. >> mr. garre, does your argument mean -- you say minimally intrusive, and that the dog will detect only contraband, that the police then are to go into a neighborhood that's known to be a drug dealing neighborhood, go into -- just go down the street, have the dog sniff in front of every door, or go into an partment building? is that -- i gather that that is your position. >> your honor, they could do that, just like the police could go door to door and then knock on the doors and hope that they will find out evidence of wrongdoing that way. but the two responses this court has always pointed to is the restraint on resources and the check of community hostility. here, the police were combatting a serious epidemic of grow houses, hundreds of houses each year that were a scourge to the community, not only in terms just of the drugs that they were rowing >> suppose -- suppose the house had on the lawn, no dogs allowed? >> i think that would be different, your honor. it would be -- and that's a way in which the house is different than a car. homeowners can restrict access to people who come up to their front door by putting gates or a sign out front. >> well, that's right. and there's such a thing as what is called the curtilage of a house. as i understand the law, the police are entitled to use binoculars to look into the house if if the residents leave he blinds open, right? >> that's right. >> but if they can't see clearly enough from a distance, they're not entitled to go onto the curtilage of the house, inside the gate, and use the binoculars from that vantage point, are hey? >> they're not, your honor. >> why isn't it the same thing with the dog? this dog was brought right up -- right up to the -- to the door of the house. >> your honor, first of all, i think that, as this case comes to the court, the police were lawfully present at the front oor. that was established by the courts below, and we don't think that they've challenged it ere. that's at least true with respect to the police officer. the police officer could go up to the front door and knock and detect the smell of marijuana, just like officer pedraja did. >> well, then we've taken an unrealistic case, if that has been conceded, because it seems to me crucial that this officer went onto the portion of the house that -- as to which there is privacy, and -- and used a means of -- of discerning what was in the house that -- that should not have been available -- >> well, i think the way you would >> in that space. >> i think the way that you would answer that question, your honor, is, of course, there's a curtilage that extends around the house and protects, in which the homeowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy. it's well established, we think, going back to the common law, that there is an implied consent for people, visitors, salesmen, girl scouts, trick-or-treaters, to come up to your house and knock on the door >> yes, but not implied consent for the policeman to come up with the dog. the only purpose of the dog is to detect contraband. so you can say, yes, there's an implied invitation to the girl scout cookie seller, to the postman, even to the police officer, but not police officer with dog, when the only reason for having the dog is to find out if there's contraband in the house. >> well, justice ginsburg, first of all, i think, if the girl scout or the salesman or the trick-or-treater brought up a dog with them, there would be complied consent for that too, at least as long as the dog was on a leash. i don't think the subjective >> this is not any dog. this is a drug detecting dog. >> no, that's right. but i don't think it changes the subjective purpose of why they brought the dog with them. >> why is that an implied consent? that's a huge assumption. at least in the cities that i've lived in, you have to have a dog on a leash. and you don't give implied consent. if you're allergic to animals, you don't want dogs walking around at your door. >> well, you can certainly put the "no dogs allowed" sign out front. and there, there would not be implied consent. >> no, no, no. but tell me why that you presume that there's implied consent? >> well, we start with the proposition that >> do you think homeowners freely let dogs just come into their apartment? i mean, there might be some homes that do. >> well, certainly not in the apartment, your honor. this search took place, the dog walked up the same way that a salesman would and alerted at the front of the door. he didn't go in >> so we're going to treat it like a human being now? you're invited to knock on my door because you're a dog? >> no, i think -- and certainly this is true in my neighborhood, your honor, is neighbors can bring their dog up on the leash when they knock on your front door, and i think that's true in most neighborhoods in america. homeowners that don't like dogs and want them off their property have a way to combat that, and that's putting a fence around it to say, no dogs >> so now we tell >> allowed. >> all the drug dealers, put up a sign that says "no dogs." >> well, they could, your honor. there are certainly houses that have that. but with respect to the question >> isn't it fair just to assume that -- what's logical? i -- i let people knock on my door because they have to say something to me. i don't let a dog come up to my door -- i don't willy-nilly invite it to come up to my door. >> and i think -- your honor, i think the reason why that doesn't work here is that if you ask that question with respect to the officer, i think it's well settled or accepted that police officers can walk up the front path, absent a sign or something, knock on the door -- >> that implied consent, does that include them coming up and -- up to your porch and sweeping stuff into a garbage pan? >> i don't think it would, your honor. i think that we're talking about going up there, knocking on the door. the police officer cannot just >> police officers can come there to knock on the door, but i thought you've conceded that police officers can't come there to look into the house with binoculars, right? >> with binoculars >> when the purpose of the officer's going there is to -- is to conduct a search, it's not permitted. >> if the purpose of the police officer here, for example, was to walk up to the house, hope that they answered the door, or hope that once they were up there, that they would smell the odor of marijuana, as officer pedraja did, that would not convert it into a search. there was no invasion, physical invasion. >> that's true, but if you're looking at expectation of a reasonable homeowner, imagine you have a home, a long driveway. you do expect people to come up and come into the house, knock on the door, maybe even with ogs. do you expect them to sit there for 5 to 15 minutes, 15 minutes, not knocking on the door, doing nothing? i mean >> well, your honor -- >> is that something i wouldn't -- would you be nervous about that? >> i think >> anyone coming to your door and not knocking. >> i think what -- i think what appened here >> just sniffing. >> well, i think everyone accepts when someone comes to your door, they can avail themselves of their god-given senses, whether it's looking into a window without binoculars, taking -- breathing in and smelling the air, as officer pedraja did. i don't think there's a constitutional difference when the person has >> no, there is in this sense. justice scalia just said it. he said, you do have an expectation of people coming into your door, perhaps even with animals, perhaps even with binoculars, but not looking into the house, not looking into the house from the front step with the binoculars. now, why is that unconstitutional? because it's very unusual that someone would do that, and a homeowner would resent it. >> well, your honor >> would a homeowner resent someone coming with a large animal sitting in front of the front step on his property and sitting there sniffing for 5 to 15 minutes? forget the sniffing. just talking, loud noises. is that something that you invite people to do? >> your honor, what i think you can say there is implied consent to is a dog accompanying a person on a leash walking up to the front door, taking a sniff in a matter of seconds, not minutes -- >> ah. is that what happened here? >> well, that's not what the record says, mr. garre. >> i thought what happened here was 5 to 15 minutes. >> i mean, the record suggests that he put the dog on a very long leash, the dog goes back and forth, tries to figure out where the smell is coming from. it's not just -- you know, my first thought was you go up to the door, the dog barks once, and that's it. but you read the record, this dog is there for some extended period of time, going back and forth and back and forth, trying to figure out where the greatest concentration of the smell is. it actually seemed, from my reading of the record, to be, you know, a lengthy and obtrusive process. >> your honor, i think what the record shows is, is that the dog was on the scene, i.e., at the curb, walking up, going back into the car, and then leaving, for a total of 5 to 10 minutes. walking up to the front steps, sniffing, alerting and leaving is a matter of seconds or minutes. it's not -- the dog isn't up there for 5 to 10 minutes. it happens very quickly. i think in thinking about reasonable expectations of privacy, it is important to keep in mind physically what's happening in these houses. these people are growing drugs in the houses with the aid of electricity and light and heat. and they need -- they need air conditioning in order to control the heat. and that air conditioning is blowing a very strong odor of drugs out into the public, and the people know that. they know that. we know they know that because they use mothballs, which officer pedraja found here at the front of the house, outside of the house. and so what you're talking about, although we talk about what's going on in the home, really what's happening here is odor of illegal contraband is being blown out into the street and someone is coming up to it and using their god-given senses in a way that humans and dogs have used for centuries and detecting that. >> well, we've had a lot of -- we've had a lot of discussion about whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes or whether it's mothballs. i understood the issue before us to be whether or not under the fourth amendment it is a search for a dog to come up to the door and sniff, not with respect to we're not making a judgment, i thought, on the probable cause in light of the totality of the circumstances, but the ground of decision below was this is a search when the dog sniffs. >> that you need probable cause just for the dog to sniff. no, that's absolutely right. and the dog sniff itself clearly is not a physical invasion in the same way that looking is not a physical invasion under the common law. and the dog, we think >> it isn't just the sniffing in the abstract. it's the sniffing at this point, the sniffing at a person's front door, right? i mean >> well, that's true, your honor, but i think if it wasn't a search for the police officer to walk up there and sniff and report smelling live marijuana, then it wasn't a search when franky walked up there and alerted to the presence of an illegal narcotic. >> well, i didn't say it wouldn't be a search if the police officer himself did that if he went there with the intention of -- of smelling at the door. he's going there to search, and he shouldn't be on the curtilage to search. >> i think it's been conceded in this case, at least it was below, that the officer could walk up there, knock on the door, report the smell of marijuana, and that that was not a search. >> mr. garre, this is what we said in kyllo. and i'm just going to read it. we said, "we think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search, at least where, as here, the technology in question is not in general public use." so what part of that do you think separates your case from this one? in other words, what part of that language does not apply in this case? >> well, first of all, franky's nose is not technology. it's -- he's using -- he's availing himself of god-given senses in the way that dogs have helped mankind for centuries. >> so does that mean that if we invented some kind of little machine called a, you know, smell-o-matic and the police officer had this smell-o-matic machine, and it alerted to the exact same things that a dog alerts to, it alerted to a set of drugs, meth and marijuana and whatever else, the police officer could not come to the front door and use that machine? >> your honor, i think the contraband rationale would be the same. it would be different in that you don't have technology in this case. and i think that's an important distinction because, as we read kyllo, the court was very concerned about advances in technology, and that's just not true for a dog's nose. >> so your basic distinction is the difference between like a machine and franky. >> well >> that we should not understand franky as kind of a sense-enhancing law enforcement technology, but we should think of him as just like a guy. >> your honor, i think that's true for two reasons. one is franky is using the same sense of smell that dogs have used for centuries. so this isn't a case where if you allow a dog to sniff today, he might use x-ray vision in the future. that's not going to happen. and the other thing is that frankly -- that the use of dogs for their sense of smell, which everyone agrees is extraordinary, mankind has been using them for law enforcement type purposes for centuries. >> not this -- not this purpose. you said centuries, but i think you recognize that it wasn't until the seventies when the dogs were used to find culprits. but to use it in this way i think it was only since the seventies. >> well, to use it for drug detection purposes, that's right. but they've -- we've been using dogs to track thieves for centuries going back before the founding. scotland yard -- scotland yard used dogs to track jack the ripper. that's the same type of way in which they are being used here. the fact is today they're looking for drugs in this context, but -- >> mr. garre, there's no dispute that dogs can smell what human beings can't, is that correct? it's not that we can find a machine to put it on a human being to enhance their sense of smells, dogs can do something human beings can't. >> they have a much better sense of smell, that's right. but i think if you look at >> so you have to treat him like a guy, to think that he is not like technology in terms of augmenting what a human being can do. >> well >> he's not augmenting what a human being can do. he's substituting what a human being can do. >> he's -- the dogs, no doubt, have an enhanced sense of smell compared to the officer. but i think that's really not functionally different than using an airplane to look into the house, like in florida v. reilly. and in that sense, i think this case is a lot like that. in florida v. reilly, the officers used a helicopter to fly over the drug house, and they saw exposed marijuana. here, you're using the drug detection dog to smell the odor of marijuana that is being pumped out of the house into the street. and the people who use the house know that. they know that, and we know they know that because the mothballs were present. mothballs are a masking agent. people don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy, this court has held, in things that they knowingly expose to the public, even in the home. that's what the court said in florida v. reilly. it's what it said in katz itself. and i think, here, one way to resolve it is to say people who live in grow houses with a distinct odor of marijuana, who know that that is being pumped out into the street because of the air conditioning that they need to run the grow houses, there is no invasion in their -- in their expectation of privacy when either a man or a dog, when lawfully present on the property, uses their god-given senses to detect that. if i could reserve >> thank you, counsel. > thank you. >> ms. saharsky. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court -- i'd like to go right to two points that respond to the court's questions. the first is the question of whether the officer and the dog were lawfully in place, whether they could approach the front door, was conceded below. and, as the court -- as the case comes to this court, that is not an issue before the court. and i want to make sure that the court has >> i didn't -- i didn't understand the concession to be that the police had come to the door with the dog, the sole purpose of the dog being to detect contraband. >> well, let me give the court specific citations on that. the court of appeals, the florida court of appeals, found that the dog and the officer were lawfully in place. that's ja pages 104, 105, 112, 116 and 120. before the florida supreme court at oral argument, respondent conceded that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the porch, and the florida supreme court accepted that concession. that's petition appendix page 31, also noted by the dissent in pages 78 to 79. in the brief in opposition to cert, respondent said that the police could approach the front door for a knock and talk, and made no separate argument about the dog's presence there making it not lawful. so as this case comes to the court, it is with the dog and the officer lawfully in place at the front door, approaching the front door just like any girl scout, trick-or-treater, or anyone else could. and just to respond, justice ginsburg, to the questions that you raised, the police officer's purpose in approaching the front door does not mean that the officer can't come to the door. the court has said in many contexts that officer purpose doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter if the officer is looking for a lost child or thinking that that >> you're agreeing with mr. garre that the police could take a dog and go down every house on the street, every apartment in the building? >> well, assuming that the police can lawfully be in the place that they are going with the dog, which is conceded here -- >> a house just like this house? >> if they are approaching the front door using the normal path, because the dog only detects contraband, yes, they could be used in those circumstances, but that's not happening. there have been justices who've warned about that >> well, so any home, any home anywhere, and we should say that that's ok, and we can say it's ok because the government won't use it? >> there are justices that have warned about this for over 30 years, and these problems have not come to fruition. >> this court has dealt with an , am that was seized before piece of luggage, a car. they have not dealt with the dog sniff in the context of a home that's not seized. admittedly the court did not decide this specific issue, it distinguished the case of kyllo as saying that that was finding out about lawful activity in the home, and that a person -- the critical distinction between kyllo and the dog sniff in caballes is that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband. >> i just -- again, as i told mr. garre, i just can't accept that as the premise for the case. the argument we're having about whether there is a reasonable expectation in society generally, whether or not the police because of limited resources are not going to have -- that's all fine. but this idea that, oh, well, if there is contraband, then all the -- all the rules go out the window, that's just circular, and it won't work for me, anyway. >> well, i wanted to be sure to respond to that, justice kennedy, because i would hate for the court to have the impression that all the rules go out the window. that's not the case. what we're talking about here is a sniff that would allow the police to go to a detached and we have probable cause >> fine >> to get a warrant. >> but don't ask me to write an opinion and say, oh, we're dealing with contraband here, so we don't need to worry about expectation of privacy. there is simply no support for that because caballes cited jacobsen, and jacobsen was where the contraband fell out of the package and it was in plain view. least for me, in this case. >> well, the reasoning in contraband -- in jacobsen, though, the court said that the rationale, the reason for its decision in place, is because when you're talking about people's reasonable expectations of privacy, they have both a subjective and an objective component. so it's not just that you want to keep something private, it's that you need to have a legitimate expectation that you can keep that private. and the court has said over and over, in place, in caballes, in jacobsen, that you do not have a legitimate expectation with respect to contraband. that doesn't mean that the >> again, i don't think the cases go that far because those were cases in which the contraband -- jacobsen -- was in plain view. everybody knows that it falls out of the package. at that point, you don't have any what you're saying is, oh, well, if there is contraband in the house, then you have no legitimate expectation of privacy. that, for me, does not work. >> what we're trying to say, justice kennedy, is not that you lack any privacy expectation in the home. that's why you need to get a warrant before going into the home. all the dog sniff allows is for the police to try to go to a magistrate and establish probable cause to get a warrant. >> that's fine. we can talk about reasonable suspicion. that's all ok. >> how does what you're saying, ms. saharsky, square with karo? because in karo, the only thing that the beeper alerted to in the home was the can of ether, which was clearly an item that was being used for drug manufacture. and there was nothing else other than that item, which you might not call it contraband, but it was evidence of illegality, this can of ether. there was no thought that it was used for anything else. and that was the only thing that the beeper alerted it to, and, yet, nonetheless, we said, you know, of course that's a search. >> i think that my answer touches on the point that you made, which is it was not contraband. the police thought that it might be evidence of a crime, but the court did not say it was contraband. and, actually, there was a discussion at the oral argument, where defense counsel made very clear that ether has many lawful uses. that makes it different from what the court considered in place. this came after the court's decision in place. >> well, not lawful uses in somebody's house. i mean, maybe lawful uses in a factory or in an operating room, but nobody has cans of ether in their house unless they're making drugs. >> well, with respect, your honor, the defense counsel i think correctly suggested in the karo oral argument that, in fact, there are lawful uses in photography labs in houses and the like. he actually had an expert that came to the suppression hearing in that case and testified about the various lawful uses of ether in a house. so i think, as the argument came to the court, the government was not making an argument that that was contraband or evidence of a crime. the government was just saying, oh, it's very limited information, because we had already -- we had already tracked the ether to the house, so you weren't finding out much. and the court said basically what it said in kyllo, which is, it might not be much, but it's still about lawful information, activity in the house, and that's protected. but in caballes, the court came back and said, sure, we've said kyllo, lawful activity in the house, but your interests in protecting contraband are different, those are not legitimate interests. and the court has said that again and again and again. >> but in kyllo -- and i think this was what justice kennedy was saying. in kyllo, there was already a seizure that had happened, and the court just said, this is no -- this is really no greater an intrusion. >> well, with respect, when we look at the -- when we look at the language in these cases, in caballes and the like, you know, the court wasn't saying, oh, it's not a search because this has already -- this had already been seized and nothing more was happening. the court said it was not a search because there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. and just to be clear, the question about whether folks have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to contraband in their house has to take into account two facts -- first, that we're only talking about contraband, but, also, that dogs have been used and known for centuries for their sense of smell. >> yes, but i -- what i'm curious about, and it's an unanswered question for me, is we are considering whether the dog sniff is permissible, so i wanted to know what a dog sniff at the front door involves. and at page 96, 97, 98 of the joint appendix, with which you are familiar, it explains that. it isn't just going up and (indicating), that's it. it's a process called bracketing. they describe it at length. the officer, the dog officer, said he was in a rush that day and it didn't take more than 5 to 10 minutes. and my question really is whether an ordinary homeowner expects people to walk down the curtilage and, with a big animal, and the animal -- they don't knock. they behave in the page 96, 97, 98 way. well,ectively think, that's pretty unusual behavior, whether it's a policeman or anybody else. so what do you respond? >> this sniff occurred very quickly, and it >> it was 5 to 10 minutes and it's 96-97. >> right. i think the 5 to 10 minutes, like counsel said, was the whole process of of bringing the dog up to the door, et cetera. the sniff happened very quickly. but putting that to the side, what the dog is doing is sniffing things that have been exposed to the public from inside the house, smells that the officer himself could smell, could smell in in plain smell. and the court has said in other cases, like in place, that what the dog is doing is very limited in scope, it happens very quickly, there is no physical invasion, it's something that actually this court has said in florida v. royer is something that we want officers to do, because it >> could i follow up on justice breyer's question, because it strikes me as a little confusing. does the dog, as soon as he or she is at the door, sniff and sit or sniff and not sit, or does the dog -- i mean, you've talked about the sniff is immediate. what -- what is the 5 to 10 minutes? >> the 5 to 10 minutes as i read the record was the whole process. the -- the dog sniff i think took seconds or maybe a minute or 2 minutes >> and the whole process is -- is what? >> that they were -- that they met at the front gate, that they were walking up to the -- to the door, that the dog did the sniff, that the -- that he talked to the other officer, and then he went back to his car, which was parked i think some some length of time away. so -- >> it doesn't take the 5 to 10 minutes to walk to the door. so the officer walks to the door, the dog sniffs right away and then? >> well, the dog sniffs. he has to find the strongest source of the odor. so he starts sniffing right away. he sniffs around for a few seconds, he finds the strongest source of the odor and he sits down at that place. >> where -- where in the -- where in the record do i find the few seconds point? >> well, i think the -- probably the cites that -- that justice breyer gave are the cites that describe it. so i'm not sure that there is something more specific than that. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. blumberg. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- police officers taking a narcotics detection dog up to the front door of a house is a fourth amendment search for two distinct and separate reasons. first, when police reveal any details inside a home which an individual seeks to keep private, that is a fourth amendment search and that is exactly what a narcotics detection dog is doing, revealing details in the home the individual seeks to keep private. >> that's your first reason and i don't want you to be deterred from giving us the second, but if we can concentrate on that for a minute. that seems to me a proposition that's equally unacceptable to what the government is saying, that you have no interest in contraband. the police often, when they have ordinary conversation with people, want to find out the details of what that person is doing, where the person lives, what goes on in the house. "hello, have you had a nice time at the at the park today? i see you're coming home with your children, is this where you live? " this is all routine conversation that we always have in order to try to find out what people are doing, what they are like, where they live. so i -- i think the statement, and you you repeated it quite accurately from what you have at page 16 of your brief -- just goes too far. our decisions "establish that police action which reveals any detail an individual seeks to keep private is a search" -- that is just a sweeping proposition that in my view, at least, cannot be accepted in this case. i think it's just too sweeping and wrong. >> justice kennedy, i would add a few words to the end of that statement -- anything that an individual seeks to keep private in the home, and that's the difference. your hypothet about conversation, certainly a police officer can talk to someone and ask them questions about >> well, the police officer talked with somebody at the police station, or walking down the street about what their occupation is, do they work at home. they're -- they are trying to get information. that's perfectly legitimate. >> certainly, but in that hypothet >> well, then your broad statement simply does not work. haveppose you -- you someone who, who has been guilty of a crime. he has -- he has the body. he has committed a murder and he has the body in the home. he certainly wants to keep that private, right? and he foolishly and mistakenly leaves the blinds open in the room where -- where the corpse is lying, and the policeman at a great distance has a telescope and he looks through the blinds and he sees the corpse. can the police go into the home? >> in that situation, the person inside the home has knowingly exposed what is inside the home to the public. >> oh -- he hasn't knowingly. he was careless. >> well, but i -- i understood under your hypothetic that he knowingly left the blinds open. >> he certainly wanted to keep it -- he wanted to keep it private. >> well, certainly, and the defendant in reilly wanted to keep the marijuana private. >> well, you could say the same thing here. they wanted to keep private the fact that they were growing the marijuana, but they -- they used a means of suppressing the heat that made it impossible to keep it private. >> well, that >> they were careless. >> i -- i don't believe there is anything in the record to indicate that the air conditioner was blowing the smell of marijuana out from the house in a very strong manner. as a matter of fact >> there were the mothballs. >> there were mothballs there, and detective bartelt, the dog handler that was standing at the front door as well, testified without contradiction or without hesitation he didn't smell anything. so if -- if mr. garre's representation about an air conditioner basically blowing the smell of marijuana outside the house so that anybody would smell it >> what were the mothballs there for? >> the mothballs presumably were there to -- to mask the smell of an odor coming from the house. >> ok, then anit's manifesting expectation of privacy. >> well, that's my question. are we talking about the expectation of privacy in the marijuana or the expectation of privacy in the odor? >> the expectation of privacy on the -- in the details, what's going on inside your house. can'tl -- well, no, that be right, because if you're letting smoke out that -- that -- i don't know, from the burning of a body or something, you don't say, well, because he's trying to conceal that you can't rely on the smoke. >> but that's knowingly exposing what's inside the house. >> so i guess the question here is, if you appreciate the fact that the odor is coming out to the extent that you're going to put mothballs all around the house, it seems to me that you -- you may have an expectation of privacy in the marijuana plants, but you don't have an expectation of privacy in the odor, because you're emitting it out, out into the world, and it's the odor that was detected. >> but assuming that's what the mothballs were there for, that's to keep the odor inside house, so that the public cannot find -- cannot detect that odor, unless you go up there >> that's like saying you put the -- the drugs in a -- in a bag to protect them from observation on the outside, but you use, you know, a clear bag rather than a, you know, opaque one or something. you didn't -- you weren't very successful. and -- when you began you said assuming that's what the mothballs were there for. that is what they were there for, isn't it? there is no other reason >> there's -- there is really no evidence in the record as to -- the only people who testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress were the two police officers. >> well, i think your first reason is -- is so broad, it is clearly incorrect. it's so broad, you ought to go on to your second reason. >> yes, i was going to ask for your second, your second point. >> well, the -- when a police officer takes a narcotics detection dog up to the front door of the house, that is also a fourth amendment search because that is a physical trespass upon the constitutionally protected area of the curtilage of the home. >> you know, we've had hundreds of years of trespass cases in this country and in england. has there -- do you have a single case holding that it is a trespass for a person with a dog to walk up to the front door of a house? >> well, there are cases that go back to the -- i'm sorry, i don't have the, the citations -- but there are cases in the 1700s that established that basically a dog running on to someone else's property is a trespass. >> that really wasn't my question, was it? >> i thought your question was if a dog comes on to private property >> if a dog on a leash is brought up to the front door of a person's house, was that a trespass at the time when the fourth amendment was adopted? >> if it was without the consent of the homeowner, yes, it was a trespass. >> what is the case that says that? >> i do not have the case. >> you don't have the case. >> you're assuming the conclusion in these things. i mean, i thought since katz the rule has been whether the homeowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in -- which is infringed or violated or interfered with when the government acts. so it's a question of does he have that reasonable expectation. so now we're back to exactly where we were. your opponents say, no, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy >> well >> to protect a person with a dog coming up to the door and going (indicating), all right? now, your response to that is what? >> my response to that is that does violate the resident's reasonable expectation of privacy. >> and then the question was, as justice alito put it, why? he says, we go back to the 17th century, as far as you want, and there is no law that says there is any kind of expectation in a homeowner that a person won't walk up to the dog -- to the door with a dog on a leash and sniff, which, as he says -- which your opponents say is what happened here. and your response to that is? >> my response to that is that any entry onto private property in the 1700's was a trespass, was the tort of trespass, unless it was with consent. >> what about, mr. blumberg, the government cited many, many pages in the record, i just took the first one, petition -- appendix to the petition, 104 and 105. the court said, the officer and the dog were lawfully present at the defendant's front door, and we were told that that was conceded by you a number of times. >> absolutely not, justice ginsburg. what i -- what i said in the florida supreme court, i was given a hypothet about an officer coming up by himself without the dog to knock on the front door and talk to the homeowner. and i said that i conceded that would not be a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and this court has stated as much in kentucky v. king. and then the court said to me, what's the difference? and i said the dog. and that's exactly what i'm saying here. >> ok. so that's clearly -- you do concede if the police officer walks up to the door, smells it himself, no problem there, is that right? >> if the police officer is perform -- is knocking on the door, part of a knock and talk, yes, but, if the police >> but smells it himself, so there's no problem there. so the difference is the dog. so what difference does the dog make? suppose the dog were not doing this ten-minute bracketing that justice breyer was talking about. suppose this really were a very simple procedure. the dog comes up, takes a sniff, barks, sits down. and, you know, to make it even more, the dog is not a scary- looking dog, the dog is a cockapoo. so just like, you know, your neighbor with his cockapoo walks up to your door all the time, that's what this police officer has done. why do you win then? >> well, whether it's a cockapoo or franky, who, from all the pictures, appears to be a very cute dog, it's not what the dog looks like, it's what the dog is doing on the front porch, which is -- >> the dog does what your neighbor's dog does. >> well, no, this dog -- the neighbor's dog does not search for evidence on your front porch. that's the key distinction. >> but, mr. blumberg, i think you're, with respect, misguided to concede that if it was just the officer alone without the dog, it would be perfectly ok. >> i did not mean to concede that, and i was going to say that. >> well, i thought you did. >> i was about to return to your >> and i would assume you would say that if the officer walks up there with no intention to knock and talk, but just walks up to the door with the intention of sniffing at the door, you would consider that to be a violation, wouldn't you? >> and that was the point i was going to make in response to justice kagan's question. >> well, our fourth amendment cases are very clear that they don't turn on the subjective intent of the particular officer. >> and i am not arguing that. i am arguing -- >> i thought you just said it depends on whether or not he's going up to the door to sniff or going up for something else. >> it depends what the officer does at the front door, not what his state of mind is. if the officer goes up to the front door and starts sniffing around the cracks and crevices >> yes, sure, if he's down on his knees, but, what if he goes up to the front door and sniffs? i mean, he's >> that's -- >> he's got to breathe. i mean, how do you tell whether it's different? i don't understand. he's going up to drop off, you know, tickets to the policeman's ball, and he smells marijuana. what is that? is that a violation or not? >> it is not because he is not performing any type of search. >> so it depends on -- but if he's going up to sniff, it is a violation? >> not going up to sniff. if he goes up there and does sniff -- >> what if he goes to -- >> and starts searching around, looking in the windows >> he goes to deliver the tickets, and he sniffs? he doesn't intend to sniff before he goes, but he goes the deliver the tickets, and he smells the marijuana. is that a search? >> no, because he's not performing any kind of search. and this court has repeatedly held that an officer >> well, he doing exactly the same thing. two officers go up to two identical houses. one goes up with the subjective intent to sniff. the other one goes up with the subjective intent to drop off the tickets to the policeman's ball. your answer is one is a search, one is not a search. way,, and i am not in any shape or form tying it to the subjective intent of the officer. >> all right. again, i think you're wrong not to accept that. i think our cases support it. i think you cannot enter the protected portion of a home, which is called the curtilage, with the intention of conducting a search, that that is not permitted. i think our cases establish that. >> i believe the language >> and it's fine to say -- i don't think it's true that the intent of the officer is never relevant. it is relevant in that context. the reason for the officer going onto protected property, if he's going on just to knock on the door to sell tickets to the policeman's ball, that's fine. if he's going on to conduct a search, that's something else. >> the language in this court's opinion in jones is for the purpose of conducting a search. >> can odors be in in the equivalent of plain sight, plain smell? in other words, the officer goes up to drop off the policeman's ball tickets, the door is open, he sees the dead body. the officer goes up to sell the policeman's ball tickets, and he sees -- he smells the marijuana. ok in both cases, right? >> yes, mr. chief justice. >> so this depends upon how strong the odor is. >> this court's decisions establish that a police officer does not have to close his eyes when he goes up to the front door of a house to do a knock and talk. he does not have to hold his nose to prevent. anything that he naturally observes using his ordinary senses when he is there for a lawful purpose such as a knock and talk is fine. >> if the -- let's say it's a townhouse that goes right up to the sidewalk. their police go by with dog intending to sniff, and the dog alerts, on the sidewalk but two feet away is the front door, that's ok, right? >> well, that would not be a trespass. that would not be a search because a trespass -- >> so it's ok? >> no, it's not ok, respectfully, because the dog would still be revealing details inside the home that the officer could not reveal using his or her ordinary senses. that's our first argument in this case. >> well, let me make sure i understand you. the policeman is walking down the sidewalk with his dog, the dog stops and alerts. that doesn't constitute sufficient probable cause to get a search warrant to go into the townhouse. there's been no entry onto the property, just a policeman walking with his dog. >> well, but i assume on your hypothet it's a policeman walking with his narcotics detection dog up and down the street. >> sure. >> a dog that he knows is trained >> he's walking the dog. he's not out searching. he's walking the k-9 dog, and the dog alerts on a house without any trespass. you think that's still bad? >> yes. and i would submit that would basically be the same thing as a police officer walking up and down the street with a thermal imager that's turned on. >> but you do say that this is an easier case. >> this is an easier case, of course, because the police officer in this case -- and not only the facts of this case, but the question presented is going up to the front door of a home. >> i thought the relevance of technology was that the technology that we have now was not necessarily -- was not -- much of it was not available at the time when the fourth amendment was adopted, so we can't tell what the -- what people in 1791 would have thought about it. but that's not true of dogs. dogs were around. they have been around for 10,000 years. >> dogs were around, justice alito >> and they've been used -- and they've been used to detect scents for 10,000 -- for thousands of years. certainly, they were available for that purpose in 1791, weren't they? >> but in 1791, dogs had not been trained to detect criminal activity within a house -- not -- i'm sorry -- >> but they had been trained to track people, had they not? >> yes. dogs have been tracking people >> so in 1791, if someone -- if the police were using -- or somebody was using a bloodhound to track -- someone who was suspected of a crime, and the bloodhound -- and they used the bloodhound to track the person to the front of -- to the front door of a house, would that have been regarded as a trespass? >> yes, i believe it still would have. >> and what's the case that says that? a well, the -- i do not have case that says that taking a bloodhound up to the front door of a house would be a trespass. but if you analyze it under the definition of what a trespass is, it's an unlawful entry onto private property without consent of the homeowner. and there is no >> without implied consent. >> right. >> actual or implied consent. >> i don't believe a homeowner, back in the 1700's, impliedly consented to police coming up to the front door of his house with a bloodhound, even though everybody knew they could do that. >> well, are there cases that say that the implied consent exists only where the person is coming to the door for a purpose that the homeowner would approve, if the homeowner knew the purpose of the person coming to the door? >> the specific doctrine is implied consent by custom. and so you look to what is it customary for people to accept in terms of people coming onto their property. >> how is that different from what justice breyer i think correctly indicated, our inquiry as to whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy? in a way, that's circular because if we say there is, then there is, if we say there isn't, then there isn't. but if we're looking at community values in general, isn't it a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> it's very similar. the two doctrines are very similar. whether you're saying it's a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, as justice breyer >> let me ask this. i think i know what your answer would be. suppose the policemen have little microphones on so they can talk into their radio, the microphone on their lapel. suppose the policeman goes to the homeowner and he has the microphone in his lapel on so his partner can hear the conversation, and they can -- the two of them talk about it later. they're talking to the homeowner. is that an unlawful search? >> if the homeowner chooses to engage in conversation with that officer and his conversation is overheard on the microphone -- >> it doesn't occur to him that that mike is on. >> but, again, when you talk to the police officer, that's a reasonable possibility. you don't have -- that's not a reasonable expectation of privacy, that if you talk to a police officer, that that might be going out to another police officer that's in the car down the street. but there's no -- a homeowner does not -- >> but -- but maybe it is a reasonable expectation, maybe it isn't. i frankly think that might be harder than the dog case or that you can make a stronger case for a reasonable expectation of privacy. if the -- if the homeowner is making a lot of marijuana with -- with odors coming out, he knows that a dog or a person might smell it. >> but, again, this particular case is not -- the question presented does not hinge on whether or not a normal officer could smell it, because this officer, detective -- i'm sorry -- detective bartelt said he did not smell it. >> it does hinge on what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> it does. >> and that's what we're trying to find out. >> it does. >> i'll look at this later, but i'm rather surprised. my understanding of the case law was the chief justice's, and i thought what you're supposed to look at is the behavior of the individual, the police officer, who comes to the door or looks into the house, not his subjective motive. now, as we just heard, you said, and with support here, that jones changed that, but i don't know what in jones changed that. jones was the case where the police did in fact go to a person's car and physically put something in it. that's -- something that tracked. that's behavior. >> correct. but the definition >> so what is it in jones that said what we're supposed to look at is not behavior, but the subjective intent of the officer? >> it's the language in jones that says one of the elements in determining whether or not a physical trespass constitutes a search under the fourth amendment is, is there a physical trespass, onto a constitutionally protected area, for the purpose of conducting a search. those are the three elements of the >> what is the constitutionally protected area in this case? >> in this case, the curtilage of the home. >> even though it's the sidewalk where people -- there's an implied license for people to walk up to >> well, that was your -- justice breyer -- i mean, it may be a search. i see that. >> it's not a sidewalk here. it's the front door. >> it's not the sidewalk here, is it? it's the front part. >> no, no, it's the front door of the home here. >> but there is an implied license to walk up to the front door, right? >> only -- only to do certain things. >> there's -- there's an implied license to -- to go on to the curtilage for most people. >> yes. >> the curtilage is -- is not sacrosanct. >> to do certain things such as to try to and sell girl scout cookies, to knock -- even a police officer can go on to the curtilage, to knock on to the door -- i'm sorry -- to knock on the front door, to try and engage the person inside the home in a conversation. >> could we go back to the concession that was asked of you, what you conceded in the florida court or didn't? have you conceded that the police officer sans dog, if he had come up to the door and knocked, that that would have been permissible, that that was not a search or seizure? >> if what the police officer was doing at the front door was a knock and talk. that was the law >> did he have -- did he have a right under the facts of this case? he had been told that in this house they were growing marijuana by a confidential informant. assume that's all that he had. would he have had a right to walk up to the door, knock on it, and start asking questions? >> without the dog. >> let's -- sans dog, yes. >> yes, yes. that's kentucky v. king, i believe. >> all right. so you are conceding that he had license to walk onto -- or walk to the door and ask questions. >> a police -- there's implied consent for a police officer to go up to the front door, knock on the door and attempt to engage the person in the house in conversation if they open the door. >> so why is that? why is that? if you took a poll of people and said do you want -- do you want police officers who suspect you of possibly engaging in criminal conduct to come to your front door and knock on the door so they can talk to you and attempt to get incriminating information out of you, would most people say, yes, i consent to that? >> in terms of consent? again, it's implied consent by custom. and i think at this point it's customary for people to expect that police officers may come to your front door and knock on your front door to try and talk to you. you don't have to talk to them. >> i guess the bottom line is that are you taking -- it sounds to me like you're saying there's no implied consent to bring a dog on to my property. >> absolutely. absolutely. and certainly not a narcotics detection dog. >> you're -- mr. garre said differently, that there is an implied consent for your neighbor to bring the dog up for anyone else but a police officer. is that what you're saying? there's an implied consent for anyone else or there is no implied consent, period? >> i think a strong argument can be made that there is no implied consent for anyone to bring a dog up to the front door of your house, because, as you pointed out, a lot of people don't like -- don't like dogs and -- and some people are allergic to dogs. >> i thought you were talking about a dog trained to detect contraband >> yes. >> not just any old dog. >> we are, but i believe the hypothet was just any dog. but certainly, when it's -- when it's a dog trained to detect contraband, there's no question that no one impliedly consents to that happening and there's no question, as justice breyer pointed out, that a homeowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy that that's not going to happen. >> you draw a distinction between dogs that are not drug detection dogs and ordinary dogs. would you draw the same distinction between a police officer who is not expert at detecting the smell of methamphetamine and a police officer who is expert at detecting the smell of that drug? >> in terms of the right of that officer to come up to the house and knock on the front door? >> to knock on the front door, yes. >> no, there -- there wouldn't be any distinction to that. you impliedly consent and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy that any type of police officer is going to come and knock on your front door and try and talk to you. >> not a police officer. if we start -- policemen have to know how to behave. and in this area, they can behave the same way as other people can behave, and we expect them to behave, even though their motive differs. they're always trying to find crime. that's what i thought the law was. i've been trying to figure out just what you say, but in a slightly different form. do people come up to the door with dogs? yes. do the dogs breathe? yes. do in fact policemen, like other people, come up and breathe? yes. do we expect it? yes, we expect people to come up and breathe. but do we expect them to do what happened here? and at that point, i get into the question -- what happened here? and i'd be interested in your view on that. >> and -- and just to clear up the factual, i don't believe that -- that what happened here in terms of the use of the drug detection dog took 5 to 15 minutes. it didn't take 5 to 15 minutes. it certainly took, i would say, at least 1 or 2 minutes, because what happened -- and again, this is on 96, 97 and 98 -- the officer goes from the street over the curb, up to the front door of the house, with the dog basically dragging him up to the front door of the house. they go up this walkway -- and a picture of the home is -- is in the appendix to the brief -- and then the dog crosses the -- into the alcove, the area right in front of the house. and once he gets in that area, the dog starts violently bracketing back and forth, pulling on the leash. the dog handler testified that the other officer had to stay back, because it was so violent that people could get knocked down by what's happening. and for a period of time the dog goes back and forth, back and forth, and then at some point goes to the crack on the bottom of the front door, sniffs that, and then the process finally stops, he sits down. so that's factually what happened. >> mr. blumberg, the florida appellate court, yes, the court of appeals, did say that that the officer and the dog were lawfully present. but you say you didn't make that concession. >> well, that's -- i did not make that concession and -- no, i certainly did not concede that, but the court found that. and that's the point i wanted to make. the courts, both courts in florida, squarely addressed that issue, justice ginsburg. there is a whole section in the opinion in the third district court of appeals saying the officer and the dog were lawfully present. they didn't -- that section doesn't go, defense counsel concedes that issue. that -- that issue -- that part of the opinion goes -- we find that the officer and the dog were lawfully present. so it's squarely before this court. >> well, don't we have to accept that? don't we have to accept that as a statement of florida law? >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the beginning of your >> do we not have to accept that as a statement of florida law? >> no. >> no? >> the issue is whether or not that's a violation of the fourth amendment. and -- and just because the third district court of appeal found -- that's -- that's what's before the court today. that's why the issue is squarely before the court. the third district court of appeal decided the officer had the right to go up and be there on the front porch with the dog. the florida supreme court disagreed. there is a passage in the decision of the florida supreme court that says an officer going up to the door -- can go up to the door and do a knock and talk, but when the officer goes up with a narcotics detection dog, that is a qualitatively different matter. so that issue is -- >> maybe this is the same question justice alito asked earlier, but people have different senses of smell. so what if there is some person who has, you know, the best sense of smell in the department, and they say, well, let's use him to go do the knock and talks when we suspect drugs, that way, he may discover the odor of marijuana when other people wouldn't. is it -- is it -- is it wrong for them to select the person with the best sense of smell to do that? >> i think that would lead more to a determination that there was a trespass because they selected the officer who had the best sense of smell to go up to that door. so they weren't really going up there to do a knock >> to do a knock and talk. you said knock and talks are ok. >> well, but there's -- knock and talks are ok, but, under your hypothet, it appears that the knock and talk was -- was not really what the officer was going up there for. they picked the officer with the best sense of >> you're on a really slippery slope with that answer. there's dual motives in everything police officers do. >> right. >> they knock to hope the person comes to the door and that they can see something from the door. they knock -- they always have a dual motive. so you're suggesting what? >> no. >> in terms of our rule >> i don't >> that if they select somebody with a sense of smell because they have gotten a tip of drugs in a house, that we give up, in that situation, the assumption that they went to investigate? >> no. but the rule i'm asking this court to adopt does not rely on the subjective intent of the police officer. the rule i'm asking this court to adopt >> he knocks, and he says to the neighbor, who are you? i've gotten a report, and i'm smelling drugs, so i know you have drugs in there. >> that -- that would be fine. that would be -- that would be plain smell in that. but if >> but if he smells first and asks the question second, that's not ok? >> no, no. what's not ok is if he goes up there to perform a search, or if he conducts a search -- and, again, back to the facts of this case, when a police officer goes up to the front door with a narcotics detection dog, there is no question what that officer is doing. that officer is performing a search. and, therefore, if you go to jones, the officer and the dog have entered -- have physically trespassed, because there is no consent to do that, onto a constitutionally protected area, the curtilage of the home, and performed a search. if you just -- you follow the test set forth in jones and apply it to what happened here and the question presented here, it is a trespass. >> i thought the reason -- i thought the rationale in jones, what jones added, was that it is a search if it was a trespass. >> yes. >> and so i come back to the very first question i asked you, do you have any authority for the proposition that this would be a trespass? any case that says this is -- any trespass case in the last five hundred years in any english-speaking country? >> i don't believe any court has faced this issue as to whether or not taking a police dog up to the front door of a house is a trespass under the common law. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. garre, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, your honor. first, with the question of how long they were at the scene, the record says that they were at the scene for five to ten minutes. that's -- that includes in the car, walking up to the door, which my friend conceded was a minute or two, and, then back in the car and leaving. with respect to the bracketing, bracketing just means that the dog is getting excited, moving his head around. this is a passive alert dog. they get a little bit excited and then sit down. it's no different than what a neighbor's dog would do when they get to the front door. second, with respect to state law, we do think it's important. and florida has a decision, state v. -- >> i thought what the dog does, according to the police officer's testimony, is he gave him a long leash so the dog would lead him to the drugs. and what the dog did, i thought, according to what i read, was go past the motorcycle to make sure -- i mean, the officer said this -- you don't know if the drugs are in the motorcycle, you don't know if they're in the garage, you don't know where they might be. roame dog is permitted to around until he catches the scent. is that accurate? >> yes. they're walking up the common path, and you can see it from the picture at the -- appended to the brief, and then up to the front door. whereear the front door he alerted by sitting down. >> but the point is that he's sniffing all the way around to see >> he's sniffing, he's breathing. that's right. >> yes. >> with respect to state law, state v. morsman, 394 so.2d 408 at 409, this was a case that came up during oral argument in the supreme court. it says that, under florida law, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a porch, taking into account that visitors and salesmen can come up to the front door. and i think that that's pertinent here. justice kennedy, if you don't like the contraband rationale, then i hope you would consider the knowingly exposed to the public rationale. here, the record does show that they -- drug houses do vent the stuff outside. it's page a-48 of the joint appendix. that's in the warrant, where they talk about what the air conditioning unit does to the scent of marijuana in the house. we know that they knew about that because officer bartelt came across the moth balls -- that's on page 100 of the joint appendix -- outside of the house. the mothballs were outside of the house, which means >> but i think, mr. garre, that the >> which means that they knew that the odors were outside the house. >> i think, mr. garre, that you have to concede that this is a case about police use -- call it a technology, call it whatever you want to call it -- of something that enhances what normal people can sense. and then the question becomes, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in, basically, people just having their normal senses, rather than some technique or method or technology that enhances those senses? so that your implied consent or expectations about your neighbor might differ fundamentally, you know, if the neighbor comes and knocks on your door, or if the neighbor brings his magnifying glass and his microscope and everything else and starts testing everything around it. you might say, no, that's -- i'm -- i'm not there for that. getsll, and i think that back to our point that this is a dog that's been used by humans for centuries by scent. and in that respect, it's quite different than the helicopter that was used for aerial surveillance in florida v. reilly. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> counsel. the case is submitted. >> the u.s. institute of peace is hosting africa letters friday to discuss democratic reforms. the assistant secretary state for african affairs joins leaders from malawi, senegal, and sierra leone. like at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c- span2. >> the bipartisan policy center created a commission on political reform to work on ending partisanship and politics and government. but tonight he can see the kickoff event of former senators, congressmen, academics, and business leaders. as the commission travels nationwide promoting its campaign. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> mr. secretary, we are going to put them down as undecided. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. chairman, as i listened methose comments, it struck what a wonderful thing free speech is. >> that was the hearing where donald rumsfeld was making the justification for attacking iraq. what you did not hear in the clyburn questions we got a chance to ask him, which is how much money is halliburton going to make from this war? how many iraqi civilians will die from this adventure. i would like those questions answered now by somebody like don rumsfeld. at 8:00 on c-t span's "q&a". >> defense secretary chuck hagel spoke about military spending at thursday's pentagon briefing. he also addressed furloughs of defense department employees. >> to confirm a story that is already out there, that has been out there on the furloughs. we are going to be able to these and delay furloughs, but not eliminate. , andt eliminate furloughs that right now looks as though we would be able to go from an original estimate of 22 days to 14. that we think will save the from i thinkywhere the original estimates were around 4 billion, and we can probably plan on about 2.5 billion. these numbers are floating as you all know, but that is good news from where we were two weeks ago. the comptroller and the chiefs and others are still working these numbers. i understand there is going to be a more in-depth briefing after we are finished here on that. let me also just hit the current budget situation in a little bit of detail. marty may have some thoughts on this is well. what the continuing resolution it did fix some of our problems, in particular it put some of the dollars back in the right accounts. we still don't have the flexibility that we had hoped to get, but having money in the right accounts is particularly important. aat that does is it reduces shortfall, at least in the operations budget. you also know that we came down better than we went in under the sequester, where it looks like our number is $41 billion now versus the $46 billion. program authorities instart new programs, which military construction, which is significant. some of the things we are still looking at and will continue to thatthrough is the number .e are having to adjust to the overseas contingency thattions in the budget, in itself is about $7 billion a lot than we estimated, of cost in that, more expensive to start bringing troops and equipment out of afghanistan and the other contingencies as well. in the operation and maintenance accounts, we are going to be short at least $22 billion for fy 13. deale going to have to with that reality, and that means we are going to have to ,rioritize and make some cuts and do what we've got to do. some of the specific things that we are going to have to do are in the process of doing, and we anticipate we would have to do, cutting back sharply our base operating support, reducing training for non deployed units. i have already mentioned the , but we are not going to be able to eliminate furloughs. >> with more and more political news choices and services and more personalities driving that political news, i thought we would spend some time here on c- span talking about the intersection of what has been called infotainment. we will bring you a recent conversation from los angeles, and then it is your turn. we will hear from a couple of guests, at american university journalism professor and contributor to our reliable sources. we will also open up facebook. we did earlier today in posted a question for you. what are your thoughts on the connection between infotainment and political journalism? lots of comments so far. >> they don't even attempt to be journalistic. patricia says, i like colbert and stuart better. at least give you a laugh. we are also looking at twitter. all of that coming up this evening in about an hour and 15 minutes. we will open up things for your we take you toup zocoloeles and to the public square. i had a recent conversation with a couple of journalists including a hollywood reporter and former news anger karen brown. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> my favorite moderator, mr. joe matthews. >> thanks so much for being here. my colleagues, especially the cronkite school. this is a terrific panel of three incredible journalists with incredibly different backgrounds. let's get into it. i must confess that the first time i was told i was going to be monitoring this panel, i felt great physical pain. flashback for me to a moment of real physical pain. in 2003, outside the county office buildings in norwalk, where candidates must go to file papers with a run for office. to run for going governor and i was there staking it out, covering it for the l.a. times, when arnold schwarzenegger walked up the ,tairs to go filed papers trailed by our younger huffington who wanted to get the full benefit from the press crowd that was assembled. thing i knew, my head had hit the ground. of reporters and crews. i stayed at a respectful distance while they went right up to arnold and got answers to their questions. medicalt need attention, but i had a question in my mind -- should i be angry at these people who had managed to follow journalistic decorum? or should i learn something from them? figure out maybe a kind of martial arts training they got. that is kind of the question of the entertainment culture isit is here, even if you are just standing there, it can knock you over. if you are a journalist, the question becomes, how do we get the journalism we need? how do we get that in that culture? how do journalists negotiate in the culture? fight it? i will introduce the panelists. i will start with charles latibeaudiere, tmz executive producer. before that, he worked at "extra." before that, he worked at a tv station in phoenix. p.m.oduced the nightly 10 newscast. he majored in broadcast journalism. az can be a punching bag for lot of people. you have been blamed for the decline of civilization. [laughter] i want to give me the opportunity to turn the tables a bit. >> the fall of civilization? [laughter] >> when you see networks, newspapers do political coverage, how do you look at those stores? are there things that you know from the work you have done at teams he that makes you think, hey, and this can be done better? >> i will take down civilization now. no, i listen. tmz dabbles in politics. i do not think what we do -- what we do is part of the menu at this point. the way that people need to learn about politicians. what we try to do is make politicians personalities. we get people interested. when we do politics, it is more on the surface. we're not talking about policy or how the senator voted on a particular bill. we are just talking aboutwe aree personality of the person. there is a new interest in finding out about these people and not just as politicians, but drawing people into learn the policy if you tell them a little bit about the person aside from politics. some of our most trafficked political stories were for instance -- a photo of aaron showing his abs. the congressman from illinois. he is ripped. we were shocked at the interest he got when he put that photo up. suddenly had constituents that were reaching out to them that never ever knew he was the representative. they thought, wait as second. [laughter] it is funny that it took a photo of his abs to get people to pay attention. i think it is a little sad that people are interested in that anyway, but if that is what takes, then that is what it takes. now his constituents were paying attention to how he votes on things, whether they like it or dislike it. at least now they're interested. they now know who he is. >> give us a window on how the sausage is made at tmz. there was an essay that argues that tmz as a news organization is a lot more vigilant than a lot of the major newsrooms. it has a sort of mission of reporting disciplines of phone calls and a lot of checks that other places do not do. is that true? >> yeah. say,e say that a lot and how do you know about these stories? it does not a magic formula other than what you said -- making phone calls or three dozen phone calls. you kind of get used to people hanging up on you. you get used to that. it is the only way. you go, ok. who will i call next? we say, how many phone calls did you make? i called this person and they said they will coming back. why are you waiting for them to call you that? you will miss out on the story who is actually making the phone calls and trying to find out what it is you are trying to find out. there is always more than one way to skin a cat. don't wait. make as many phone calls as it takes in a short amount of time is necessary to get the information. when it is confirmed with multiple sources, then we publish but you cannot wait. that is the new environment of journalism. if you wait, you lose. >> i went introduced our next guest. you are remembered well for reporting on 9/11 at the world trade center. you have one awards. you are an abc news anchor now.

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Brooklyn ,Pennsylvania ,Turkey ,China ,California ,Syria ,Santa Monica ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Malawi ,India ,South Carolina ,Dallas City Hall ,Georgia ,Poughkeepsie ,New York ,Hollywood ,Jane Hall ,Illinois ,Sandy Hook ,Virginia ,South Korea ,Senegal ,Chicago ,Blacksburg ,Miami ,Florida ,Japan ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,Atlanta ,Allen Town ,Kentucky ,Columbus ,Ohio ,State College ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,United Kingdom ,Oklahoma ,Seoul ,Soul T Ukpyolsi ,Iraq ,South Dakota ,Israel ,Colorado ,Phoenix ,Arizona ,Sweden ,Maryland ,North Korea ,Dallas ,North Dakota ,Sierra Leone ,Hawaii ,Americans ,America ,Swedish ,South Koreans ,North Koreans ,Scotland ,Pakistani ,Turks ,Iraqi ,British ,Israeli ,Japanese ,South Korean ,American ,Chosen ,Chinese ,Russian ,New Yorker ,Palestinian ,George Marshall ,Lindsay Lohan ,Marco Rubio ,Arnold Schwarzenegger ,Nicole Smith ,Chee Shea ,Aaron Brown ,Joe Biden ,Jeff Daniels ,Johnson Goldwater ,Chi Shea ,Karen Brown ,Jane Paul ,Chuck Hagel ,John Kerry ,Harvey Levin ,Chris Christie ,Elliott Abrams ,Martin Dempsey ,Jon Stewart ,Kim Jong ,James Hall ,Ashley Judd ,Patrick Evan ,Al Gore ,Jay Leno ,Paul Ryan ,Lee Harvey Oswald ,Robert Blake ,Warren P ,Rachel Jackson ,Cleopatra Cowley ,Lyndon Johnson ,Jay Hall ,Jeffery Smisek ,Joe Matthews ,Andrew Jackson ,Los Angeles ,Don Rumsfeld ,Jack Ruby ,Lauren Rousseau ,C Patrick Gavin ,Kim Russell ,Michael Jackson ,Barbara Walters ,Matthew Ross ,Katie Couric ,Wayne Lapierre ,Barack Obama ,Michelle Obama ,George W Bush ,Sarah Palin ,John Stewart ,Joe Paterno ,Donald Rumsfeld ,Joe Mathews ,Hillary Clinton ,Patrick Gavin ,