Ways for journalists and government officials to Work Together constructively to make sure that the public gets the information that we all need in a democracy. Kathy said i am barbara cochran. Im professor of journalism and the director of the Washington Program of the Missouri School of journalism. And also the president of the National Press Club Journalism institute, which is the charitable and educational arm of the National Press club. This session is one of a series we have been doing this year to address the problems that have arisen, very dramatically, in washington for reporters this year and the threats facing a free press. This spring we discussed the challenges facing white house and other Government Agency reporters and also reporters who were covering local issues at the local level. And other Government Agency we have spoken out along with other journalism organizations about efforts to block reporting about government, and we are preparing a curriculum for the fall that will give journalists the tools they need to report on money and politics, freedom of information procedures, disappearing databases and much , more. And in a few minutes you will hear about another initiative that we are announcing today. Our hope is that todays dialogue between journalists and government spokespeople will foster efforts to solve problems together. So that journalists can do their job of independently informing the American Public, and journalists and officials and work in an atmosphere of civility and security. Todays session we hope is a summit this broader fall that will bring together government communicators and journalism people to make sure information keeps flowing to citizens of our country. Let me underscore that this is point. Not about journalists, and it is not about the communicators. This is about the public. When it comes to democracy journalists are the canaries in , the coal mine. They are an early indicator of what the public is alarmed about. This is not a fight for a media access to information. It is a fight for public access. We welcome your interest and support. Our programs are produced without direct corporate support, and our funding comes from individuals, foundations, and a portion of National Press club member dues. You can make a difference by supporting this important work. I would like to introduce our moderator, kathy kiely. She serves as our first freedom fellow for the Journalism Institute. With her deep experience and passion she has been the perfect , person to highlight the Critical Issues facing journalists and to work on solutions in a constructive way. Please welcome kathy and her distinguished panel. [applause] ms. Kiely thanks, barbara. I have a great panel to introduce and we have a big audience here. A few housekeeping matters. We do have wifi. It is eflclassroom, and the password is journalism, although we have cleverly put a 0 where the o in journalism is. Please write your questions down as you think about them and pass them toward barbara. We of people in the room who can help collect them. If you need to do that, we will get as many of them as possible today. Before we started want to say a few words about why we organized todays event. It might surprise some of you to know that we at the National Press club and its Journalism Institute are sick and tired of being, to borrow a memorable phrase, nattering nabobs of negativism. It seems almost every week since the beginning of this year we have had the issue of statement that runs along the lines of no, you cannot do that, no, you cannot just dismiss news that you do not like as fake, no, you cannot throw a reporter out of a public building, no, you cannot throw a reporter. [laughter] ms. Kiely i could go on and on but what good would that do for us or the country we all care about . On the other hand, we cannot do nothing. One thing you will hear about today is a new survey developed by the National Press Club Journalism institute and the media law resource center. It will enable journalists to report data and sources that are being taken offline. The information we gather will help support a press Freedom Tracker launched this week by a Broad Coalition of journalism organizations, many of them represented here today. Incredibly, the United States of america has now become one of the countries where we have to start toting up physical assaults on journalists. We are worried. We know the hostility we are experiencing in washington is having an impact well beyond the beltway. We know that because it is making it harder for journalists at the state and local level, to get information and we know that because this is the third in a series of panels that the National Press Club Journalism institute has sponsored this year on problems of press access. It is the first, however, where we have included panelists who are not journalists. We are widening the circle because we think it is important for all of us engaged in this participatory sport we call democracy to Start Talking with each other rather than act to each other. And what better place than the National Press club . For more than a century, it has been a gathering stop for people a Gathering Spot for people who make the news and people who cover the news. Our members include journalists and communicators. And i defy anyone has ever been to our bar, festooned with newspaper cartoons and an old shutdown notice from the prohibition, to call us a den of elitists. So briefly, in alphabetical order, i will introduce our panelists. Please hold applause or other emotional outburst until i have gotten through the list, and i will ask all of them to wave when i say their name. So brendan buck. Counselor to House Speaker paul ryan. John donnelly. A reporter for cq rollcall. John heads the military reporters and Editors Association and the National Press clubs press freedom team. Jeff hermes. Deputy director of the media law resource center. Billy house, reporter for bloomberg who chairs the Standing Committee of congressional correspondence. Carolyn lukensmeyer. Executive director of the National Institute of the civil discourse. Mike mccurry, press secretary for bill clinton. He got to know all about jousting with reporters. Senate historian don ritchie, whose many books include three on the history of the Washington Press corps. And last but not least, jennifer talhelm, who can see things from both sides because she was a reporter before she became a Congressional Communications director. Jennifer now works for senator tom udall of new mexico. To acknowledgeke our capacity crowd here, because it is also full of noteworthies. We have representatives of press organizations here, including the committee to protect journalists, reporters without borders, the Reporters Committee for freedom of the press. We also have people who work on capitol hill and in a number of embassies. There are two classes of journalism students, one from American University in washington, and another led by former National Press Club President rick dunham, from beijing. Your presence says something important. How we treat each other in Washington Matters far outside of washington. Im going to start with billy house. Billy was elected by the many print reporters who cover capitol hill to head the Standing Committee of correspondents. A lot of people do not know that reporters have a Standing Committee on capitol hill. The press is embedded in the institution in a way that i think is pretty healthy, so maybe you can talk about what the role of the committee is and how your constituents see things on the hill. The hill has always been open. Is it still that way . Mr. House we are the Credential Committee for the press of the capital. This is an interesting time. There is a lot of frustration in the capital from the two wings, one party that controls both wings of the capital. Their agenda has sputtered a little in the First Six Months of this session. Health care has sputtered and things have not gone their way. Against this backdrop of the frustration comes rattling the capitol is too crowded. There are too many reporters, they are in the hallways, blocking things. We have to do something about this. This may not come from the speaker or the majority leader himself on the floor, but this comes through their system their , people. It is against this backdrop there has been tension about where reporters can go in the capital, the access they should have to members of congress, many of whom do not do town halls anymore and apparently do not want to be asked questions after they leave or go to the u. S. Capitol. Against this backdrop there are real spatial and fiscal plan problems. There are certain chokepoints in the Capitol Building that create problems for lawmakers. Great crowding and transportation and Movement Problems for lawmakers. It is those two things were wrestling with, as the credentialing committee, a, freer access, and, b, making sure that access continues despite real problems in the building itself. Ms. Kiely why should people care if reporters are able to go up to a member of congress and ask a question . Mr. House first of all, as i said many of these members are , not talking at home. Theyre not doing town halls. They are doing teletown halls where they can control the audience. So when they come here it is one , point of contact for reporters that can ask them some tough questions. Beyond that despite all the talk , about regular process in committee, this particular congress has been adept at holding a lot of closeddoor meetings, trotting out legislation without public discussion about what is in it. Even going to the floor and voting on items in which members of the public and the press have not been able to convey any details about. To ask why members of the press are not outside those closed doors so they can tell something somebody what is going to be voted on is a very fair , question. We need to be doing that stuff. Ms. Kiely brendan, want to rebut . Mr. Buck those are disappointing comments. I would challenge anybody to find anywhere in washington where there is as much access to people doing things with power than the capitol. The speaker of the house holds two press conferences every week. There was a lobby on the house floor where reporters are allowed and members come to talk. There is unprecedented access to basically anybody. And i find that frustrating that you would suggest that there is an effort to crack down on press. In fact we work very closely , with of the galleries. And i can speak from the time since Speaker Boehner took over. We have done nothing but liberalize access in the capitol. There is more access today than there ever has been. There is more information flow than there ever has been. The capitol is one of the places where it works very well. Most members of congress get along very well with the press on capitol hill. Most good reporters do not find it hard to get information on capitol hill. Very little is a secret, and we like it that way. We think that is an important part of what we do, an important part of the culture. There are reporters everywhere, and we would not want it any other way. It is part of the lifeblood of what we do. We in the Speakers Office do everything to accommodate that. I am sorry if some reporters are not able to get what they want all the time but it is hardly , for lack of access. In one of my old jobs i worked for Speaker Boehner and my job was to deal with the White House Press, reporters who covered president obama. Anybody who has covered the white house, even in the obama years, would tell you covering capitol hill is far superior to the white house. You have far more access. The white house keeps a tight lid on information flow. Iran into a wellknown reporter just this week who was coming to cover the hill for a week, was sent over to cover something they do not usually cover. She was ecstatic to come back to the hill, because you can interact with people ask , senators or members of Congress Questions at any time. Not everybody is going to answer every time, but they are there. They are accessible. There is nowhere else like it in washington that that is the case. Ms. Kiely before i let billy rebut the rebuttal, i want to turn to jennifer because you are from the senate side, and you have been a reporter, you have done the job that billy has done, done the job that brendan is doing. What do you think is happening . There were incidents on the senate side where people were asked not to tape interviews with people. Can you talk about what you think is happening there, and are you comfortable with the level of access among politicians and reporters . Ms. Talhelm i see it from both sides here. I have worked as a reporter, so i understand the frustrations. Youre relegated to a few locations in the building where the offices are where you have the ability to stop a member ms. Kiely can you turn your mic up a little bit . Ms. Talhelm in response to questions about pretty important and the issues, especially when you are talking about big pieces of legislation that affect most of the country, health care being a good example, where the details have mostly been hidden from the public. In the public has a lot to gain or lose from this is that get lose from the decisions that get made. I see it from that perspective. You are talking about a lot of people on very tight schedules. When you are running past a phalanx of three dozen reporters are so on your way to a vote, it is very difficult to get from point a to point b. There have been some incidents. This is coming in a backdrop of pretty unprecedented hostility toward the media. That raises hackles on both sides. That is definitely part of the conversation. We may be will get to that at a different time in this conversation. But i think if you are in journalism, hearing that kind of hostility, experiencing almost physical hostility when somebody is blocking your access, i think you are bound to get at least suspicious, probably with reason about why you are being blocked from that information. And i think that is the reason we are here, isnt it . To talk about something that can actually be done to prevent bad feelings on both sides. Don, can you put this in historic perspective for us . You have written books about the relationship of Capitol Hill Press Corps to the politicians. How does this Current Situation fit into that history, or is this really unprecedented . Mr. Ritchie i have been asked when did the relations between the press and politicians become problematic . I have definitively traced it back to the First Congress and the washington administration. [laughter] mr. Ritchie washington was frustrated with the press and met with many members who declared them to be the single most misrepresented member of congress right from the start. What has happened is reporters need wellplaced sources. Politicians need the press to get their word out. But they are often angry about the way the press reports it because they do not control that. There have been efforts throughout time to find some way for some kinds of rules of behavior that both sides can live with. There are patterns in which these rules are established, and some new form of technology disrupts it. In the 1840s, the telegraph came and sped up news. In the 1890s, it was mass magazines. They brought in muckrakers. In the 1920s, radio. In the 1950s, it was television. In the 1980s, it was cable television. In the 1990s, it was the internet, and the 21st century, it is cell phones where people can record video, anyplace. So senators have felt themselves ambushed in the halls of congress, whereas once there were rules as to where the cameras could be. And usually what has happened when there has been this disruption is the reporters sit down with politicians to work out a new set of morals. In 1880 one of the rules was to treat the Standing Committee of correspondents. Were the only government who decides who gets a press pass to cover the National Legislature and who still run the press galleries. But that was a response to problems that they were having. And so i suppose the reassuring thing i can say at this point is that it is periodically disruptive, but there usually is a counter response in which people figure out how we can live with this new form of media, and we are still grappling with how we deal with the iphone. Ms. Kiely i want to turn to mike mccurry, because, like, you have argued if there is such a thing as too much access, you and republican counterpart, ari fleischer, wrote that White House Press briefings should not be on television. Talk a little bit about since were talking about technology and how it changes things, can you talk about why you feel that way . Mr. Mccurry lets start with a general observation. The irony is that both sides of this equation presumably want the same thing. They want the public to have access to information because the politicians believe he or she is doing great things in the name of the nation, and they just want that reported, and reporters want access to information that they can transmit to the public. But it gets screwed up when the agendas are different. What the politician wants to talk about is different from what the press wants to focus on, and that becomes the source of tension. And i think how to deal with that tension is probably what this conversation is. On the specific point of the briefing, this is most of our participants here are interested in congressional media relations. It is different at the white house, and brendan made the point. The white house is a much more controlled environment because news from across all of the federal government has to fumble has to funnel through that chokepoint, and it is difficult for a white house to stay focused on the things that matter most to the white house and the president when you have the responsibility of answering questions across the broad panoply of things that happen. But on the specific point of the briefing, and this is the point i want to make i believe that the institute broadcast coverage inthe White House Briefing 1995 the briefing is a briefing. It is not a news event in and of itself. It should not be one. It is an opportunity for reporters to hold accountable those in the white house. It is an opportunity for the white house to deliver the message it wants to deliver on the president s behalf on a given day. That information should be checked against other sources. Reporters ought to report. They ought to take whatever the white house says with some grain of salt and then go talk to people on the hill, others, and compile the story that then present an accurate picture of what the issue is, so the American People can understand that issue in context. When you have live televised briefings of the White House Daily briefing, it turns into what we just saw just a day or so ago of just this food fight between reporters who posture for the camera, press spokesman on behalf of the president who have to respond, and it does not serve the publics interest. I think to partly deescalate some of the tension in this relationship, it ought to be an embargoed briefing. No problem having cameras and broadcast there, but require the reporters to go out after the briefing is over to report on what was said and may be to test out some of the information against other places, other sources, so the public gets a more thorough account. Ms. Kiely jeff, you are a media lawyer. What is your take on that . With that work, and what is your take on the general situation . Do you think press access is where it should be, where it should not be . Talk about the questionnaire you helped us build. Mr. Hermes sure. Why dont i start with the last question. The press tracker, which we have developed together, is a resource which allows journalists and others who have encountered issues with gaining access to information, whether a database that has disappeared, some other block in access to data information, access to somebody you are trying to talk to, to submit a brief report on it incident to the database so we can compile that information and build a record of trends in information. Is press access where it should be, are there systemic problems that should be addressed . From the perspective of a First Amendment lawyer, i work with a media law resource center, and our primary job is to step back from daytoday fights on particular legal issues affecting the press and affecting the First Amendment and strategize, look at what the broader patterns of behavior are issues that are arising more , systematically, develop strategies and responses, and we number our membership over 130 Media Outlets across the country, and develop tools our members can use to fight First Amendment rights, protect free speech rights across the country. It is difficult to do that if we do not have the data to base our work on. And so with the resource like that denial of access tracker, we can see patterns, we can see specific situations in which reporters are running into difficulty gaining access to information for the benefit of the public. We can see whether there are legal issues underlying those problems such that we may orient our resources to equip lawyers to go to court. We may see issues where it is less of a legal issue and more of a policy issue but where we can work with politicians, start to work with Public Advocates on advancing media rights through policy and lobbying. And so this is very exciting for us in terms of the things we have been seeing. Certainly, access to information out of the executive branch has been something my organization has been focused on very carefully over the last several months, looking at the number of foia access suits that have been filed, looking at the interactions with the press, things like the legal implications of the difference between telling somebody they cannot take a photograph and telling somebody they have to delete a photograph they have taken. Those two things might sound very similar, but to a First Amendment lawyer, we recognize you can actually have a First Amendment right to broadcast a or publish a photo you do not have a First Amendment right to take. You can edge toward issues like prior restraint in ways you do not expect. If there is a pattern where we see the dialogue between the press and the government shifting away from limiting access to places to blocking a publication of material gathered that is a red flag. , ms. Kiely i think mike made an interesting point when he said so much information has to funnel through the white house. I wonder why that is. John, you can talk about your own experience. You are at an agency, executive branch agency, trying to get information. Tell us what happened, and how has that compared . You have been a reporter for a long time. How is that compared with your past experience . Mr. Donnelly this is at the federal communications commission, and i do not usually cover them. I normally cover defense. But i was pursuing a story tip there. What happened to me there bears out what brendan said about how congress is one of the best places to find information and we are used to be able to walk up to people in a hallway and ask them a question. Billy is right that there is a growing tension there, especially with more and more reporters responding to the latest tweet from down the street. Reporters responding to both are true. But i am accustomed to be able to walk up to someone and ask questions. I do not want to ask my question in a press conference because i did not want to tip off other reporters which is something that happens. We do not want to tell the world what we are working on. I was hoping to catch one of the commissioners as they were walking offstage. But apparently that is not allowed there. Because as i tried to ask one of the commissioners a question, security guards backed me up against a wall for several seconds. Not long thereafter they required me to leave the building. So i was not thrown, but i was thrown out. And i hasten to say there are a lot worse situations that reporters have confronted around the world than what happened to me. It does illustrate a certain mindset and it is in contrast to what happened on capitol hill. The fcc chairman later wrote a pair of senators, udall and hatch, and gave a misleading version of what happened, claiming i was trying to access restricted areas, which is not true. And if they perceive that i was trying to do that, then that is they are Real Security problem that they cannot tell the difference between a reporter trying to ask a question and somebody who is a real threat. Ms. Kiely and you were wearing credentials . Mr. Donnelly yes. In fact, this very suit. [laughter] mr. Donnelly which is not a credential, but just to let you know that i was not looking like somebody was going to tackle somebody. I had a notepad, a recorder i , had my press pass. In order to entry this area, it is a public meeting, you have to go through a metal detector. You have to have your i. D. Recorded, etc. When i asked them why they pinned me against the wall, they asked why didnt you ask your , question in the press conference . That tells me they knew i was , reporter, so there was no confusion about that. Ms. Kiely carolyn, i will come with you to wrap up this round, cause youre the peacemaker here. Your organization was founded after congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, and i think it is important to note that the hostility that we are talking about in the deterioration of our political discourse affects more than just reporters. We had a number another member of congress shot. I think it is important for us to have civil discourse. You just listened to a bunch of people vent and give different accounts. You have worked before with reporters and editors in ohio. Can you talk a little bit about what might be a way forward here . Ms. Lukensmeyer i think i want to put in piece of information one about how the public sees this issue, not only between government officials and reporters, but between themselves and government officials and reporters. A person has been doing a civility in america poll for seven years, and in this last release, just january 2017, fully 75 of americans, red states, blue states, purple states, believe incivility is a crisis in america and believes it is reducing our standing in the world. And a word that i think needs to come into this conversation when we are adding the public is the issue of trust and the trust of the public in government institutions and the trust of the public in the media. And most of you know this, but both have fallen to lows that have not been seen since gallup started asking those questions after world war ii. There are bright spots in terms of what can be done going forward. In october 2015, the National Institute of civil discourse convened in ohio, because it is a swing state, because it was the year before the president ial election, we brought together a little over 50 people, a third of whom were journalists, a practicing in all four mediums. 1 3 of whom were officials, and some of the ohio house delegation was present, and also civic leaders, heads of civic organizations. And the topic that was taken on was, what was possible for us, the people present, to do about negative campaigning in the president ial election . And a project that came out of that event or that gathering was a decision of 14 journalistic outlets in ohio to shift to what they called citizencentric coverage of the campaign. They started by having the ray Bliss Institute at the the country immigration, health care, tax reform so they were sitting with real protocols from the public about what did the public want to hear from the candidates. And the agreement was made, whether it was a sunday morning talk show or a blogger on the internet or whether it was an editorial board, that when the candidates came to ohio, they would start with asking the citizens questions. And in terms of one of the threats to journalism is the change of business model. Another piece that was revolutionary about this work was the all 14 outlets and agreed to share resources. So the Cincinnati Team did the deep work on jobs and the economy. The akron team did the deep run work on immigration. And they shared their footage and research. This was so successful in ohio from both the journalists point of view and the citizens point of view that this project is being carried forward. A Senior Editor at an akron newspaper has left that position and is leading a project called your voice ohio. You can look at it on the web and track this work. They have now increased the number of journalistic outlets participating in this to 25. And the fundamental reason that the journalists chose to make this leap was how shocked they were and they were sitting face to face with all these leaders, people they interviewed on a regular basis, and what it fundamentally came down to was even those pretty sophisticated, educated members of the public and consumers of media fundamentally no longer trusted journalists and the media. So that the seed of this was given what journalism is, given what we want to do in terms of making sure the public is with an understanding of what is happening in our country, they really set about to say we can as a set of institutional outlets in ohio really move forward bringing dialogue with the citizens into what we do so that what we report is more directly connected to what the public feels they need to understand. Thank you. Id like to pick up on something you said and mike said and ask the press secretary to jump in. You talked about people wanting and there being success covering substantive issues, and mike talked about there being press is where the covering Something Different or wants to put out a different story than the politicians want. We in the press always think we are right, of course. From the press secretarys view, what are the kinds of stories that you think the press is not covering that we should be covering . You want me to go ahead with that one . Chomping at the bit. The speaker does a little thing where he asks the audience to raise your hand. You remember that james comey came to the capitol and raised his hand. And he says, how many people remember that that same day we passed wall street reform and nobody raised their hand. I understand the nature of the presss fascination with what is going on in the white house these days. I would argue there are a lot more interesting stories on capitol hill and resources are being devoted to. Which sounds strange does there are so many capitol hill reporters right now. I would argue most of them are not there to cover what were doing legislatively. There is a lot less interest in that than is warranted, and there is a lot less interesting things going on there. I understand the fascination. I wish it would be in smaller doses. But i would make a plug for investing in your Capitol Hill Press Corps, keeping people there. One of the challenges we have is there is an immense amount of turnover, and we get people to swoop in to cover health care, a complicated issue. People who come in, they crowd the capital, cover something for a few months and then they leave. And the ones that understand it the best are the ones that have been there for some time. It is the people who get the rhythm and the way things work. There are so many inputs in capitol hill. There are so many people you can talk to. There are so many things going on. It is easy to miss it, not get what matters, to not put things in proper perspective. What is a real issue and what is not . What is out of the ordinary and what is not . That is a huge thing. People come in and they had been on the dress code story, for example, something that had been going on for decades. Somebody who had just come to capitol hill for the first time noticed it ms. Kiely the dress code story . Can you explain it . Mr. Buck there is an unwritten dress code that goes on in the capital, not the capitol complex but around the house and the speakers lobby, and over time it had been determined that sleeveless dresses were not appropriate. It is not a rule we had set in place ms. Kiely because the speaker never wears them . [laughter] mr. Buck we had endured and week long, endless brief because people were suggesting unfairly that paul ryan had put in place a dress code that would crack down on a dress code of what women could wear. It was totally baseless. I assure you paul ryan did not know what the dress code was. It was not something he paid a lot of attention to. Yet someone who came in and was there for the first time, and it was interesting to watch the reporters who had been a long time around defending us. And we were not used to being defended. I use that as an example to please invest people in capitol hill, it is important, but it takes time, it takes time understanding the rhythms and how things work, and what is important and what is not when there are so many things coming at you, so many issues that are being confronted at once, so many people who want to tell you something, and some people that know more than others, and it comes with experience, and i think there is a need for people to cover the hill, but stay on the hill. Can i respond to that real quick . Ms. Kiely that jennifer Say Something, and i will come back to you. Ms. Talhelm i have a feeling you were going to Say Something similar. I would definitely agree with the principle that brendan was talking about. Were talking about complex topics and takes time to understand it, it takes experience. Ms. Kiely and is there frustration . Ms. Talhelm absolutely. Theres another aspect of this that plays into all of the points that have been made, and that is the real decline, and while there are so many ways to share information and tell stories and the rise up on line publications has changed the way business is done on the hill, there is also a steep decline in the number of regional journalists who are covering members of congress, which is part of the frustration. Members of congress are trying to tell their stories, to increase the number of diversity in the stories out there. Certainly your frustration that we feel in trying to explain what my senator udall is doing on the hill, but also what is going on and how it affects our state, which is different from every other state, and every state is in the same circumstance. Maybe billy can talk about the numbers, but as i started as a journalist on the hill, which was a while ago now, there were probably two newspapers per major media market, and i was covering arizona, colorado, new mexico, utah. There were two for denver, two for albuquerque, two for phoenix. If you counted yeah. And now the number has been cut in half and more than that. Another aspect is i wanted to make sure that got brought into the conversation is the fact that we have gotten away from the regular order of doing business, which used to be you write a bill, you have a hearing, you pass the bill through the committee, it goes to the floor. We used to pass appropriation bills in regular order, and each of these steps along the regular order was an opportunity to ask questions and learn information and share that information with the public. A good bit of that has gone by the wayside. We have not passed Appropriations Bills by regular order in years. Health care legislation is being written behind closed doors and being brought for a vote after the vote has already started. Through the senate just recently. And all of that plays into the conversation were having about journalist access. Ms. Kiely you have raised an interesting point, both of you have, and i want to let billy respond, but i want to ask you a question, billy. You and i started as regional reporters, and that meant that we covered a delegation of five or six or eight members of congress, we asked them questions about what they were doing, we wrote about the bills they were interested in. And i just wonder, to get to brendans points, and maybe the journalists can jump in here, if we were to go to cover a committee meeting, if there were such a thing, would our editors accept that story . Would, would the public read the story . I mean, are we, are we at a point now where the public will accept a media diet that has some wholegrains in it . Or are we going for skittles . I invite anybody to comment on that question because its a commercial issue, right . You have to have readers. Are people going to read and watch that stuff . Oh, i would say absolutely. If youre covering a regional issue, covering a power plant regulatory issue for phoenix. If youre going to talk about, you know, a certain senators rise in the system i think all of those things would be read by the local paper. News flash though. And this may be surprising at , least with the Standing Committee, the number of credentials havent gone really up or down over a decade. That might be surprising in the age of the web and internet and special niche sites. What is changed theyre showing up at the capitol. Where Cleveland Plaindealer may have had 10 reporters in d. C. , one covering agriculture and one covering defense. That doesnt happen, those regional type bureaus dont exist anymore. But number of credentials are the same. And theyre now showing up at the capitol more often. There is a reason for that. Because that is where the news is. That is where power to be wants to overhaul the health care system. Thats where they want to flip the tax system around. So i would not fault reporters clogging the hallways of the u. S. Capitol. I would say that theres a relevant reason for that. Now, i would respond, i agreed with a lot of what brendan said, but on the dress code, here is the real story on that. The speaker of the house went to the u. S. House floor to admonish members that they would have, that he is going to keep an eye on them. They better watch, they better abide by the dress code and other rules of the house floor. The Standing Committee received a notice from the protocol officer over at the Speakers Office that by the way, that includes the speakers lobby. One of key points of access for reporters with members. It is a room right outside of the house. So in other words the dress code would be enforced and focused on for reporters. Now, we didnt see speaker ryan out there looking people over, looking their shoes over, looking their clothes over but what we did have were security personnel, u. S. Capitol police officers, essentially being turned into disco bouncers from their views of what were the right shoes, what were right dresses, what were the right anything, belts, who knows. And i think don alluded to this. There are rules and then there are rules that are written down. When rules arent written down, they may have been practiced for years. Older reporters may look at younger reporters and say, weve been here. That has been the rule. But i dont fault the younger, newer reports in washington for saying, where are those rules . Can i read them . And that is exactly what a number of them did. And as a result, we find the Speakers Office now saying they had nothing to do with this. I think, i think that raises a good point. I want to get over to the senate side too. I know we were asked at the National Press Club Journalism institute to do a statement , when there was an incident on the senate side where reporters were asked, told they had to go to a committee before they could interview people in the hallway, which had been going on for years. People said, oh, this is always been the rule. I had worked on the capital for years and i didnt know that. I went on to the Senate Rules Committee site, i found a lot of rules but i didnt find that rule. Oh, it is not there. It is another rule that has not been written down. So i wonder, maybe don can jump where do, these rules come from . And why shouldnt they be, if were going to have these kind of rules, and i get it, i dont think people should wear tank tops to cover congress, but what, cant we do this better where it is going to be a little more open . Well there are some written rules. The house for instance, there is rule that you cant wear a hat in the chamber. And a poor clerk of the house had to tell bell abzug couldnt wear her trademark hat and got an earful. On senate side, most dress codes are informal. Senior senators would take jon i junior senators aside to say that a yellow suit is not appropriate for a senator, things like that. There used to be a rule about, unwritten rule about women not wearing pantsuits in the chamber. And in the women that worked at the desk complained. Only twome they were women senators. And on the days when senators senators wore clothes appropriate on golf course they arranged for one nancyrday and barbara and wore pants on the floor. No man had any nerve to suggest this was not appropriate. Many of written rules are as potent as unwritten ones. Depends where they enforce them, and they enforce them after everybody has forgotten what is the pattern on the hill. Go ahead. I did not mean to suggest the reporter was wrong in questioning the rules. In fact we followed up a week , later and changed the rules. That is not my point. My point was that people took what they saw and suggested that this was a rule that paul ryan had written and was now enforcing it in an unprecedented way. It would be wrong to suggest it wasnt always enforced. I dont challenge anybody for questioning the rules and to continue the story the rules , were changed as a result of that. And thats fine. I just wish people would take a little more time in this day and age to put things in a little more perspective, and not make everything out to be an unprecedented attack. Its not. Lets Work Together. We work really closely with the galleries, despite what you may hear, you know, we work really closely with billys gallery. We work really closely with the radiotv gallery. We want to be partners. We want to be evil to have sober conversations about what are rules that make sense for everybody. We have no interest in blocking access to anyone. That would be counter to way things work on the hill. We want there to be a vibrant press corps there. We do. We just want to make sure it is safe. That someone will not get a concussion by camera running down the hallway and things like that. There have been, it would, there have never been, in my experience in my seven or eight , years in Speakers Office, never been any effort to curtail media access. If anything, we have liberalized the rules. Now there are issues that rise up. And we have to sit down with the galleries, we talk things out with everybody we never do , anything without that input. That is important part of the how we do things is working together, talking together. You know, sitting down and understanding where everybody is coming from. Do people think that the the speed of information traveling now has altered the equation at all . And is is there any way to cope with that . I mean, do you find people are working under such Competitive Pressure that its changed the relationship between reporters and people they cover . Kathy, i would like to take that. And i would also like to take about the senate rule you are talking about, the incident in the senate. I think the rule was about the, there is a standing rule having cameras in the hallway. You are supposed to have permission and cameras can only be placed in certain places in the Senate Office buildings. I think that the issue that came up in that incident was that it was a rule that had basically been bent most of the time, and reporters had shaped the way they were doing business based on the way the rule had been interpreted and enforced. And and then you were having a situation, i believe part of the concern, and i never, i did inquire with the rules committee and i never heard back why that rule suddenly had been enforced, but my understanding there was a concern about outside cameras and question of who is a journalist and who is not. What are they using video for, and is it legitimate journalism purpose or not. That is good question for billy to start bringing up. I believe that the rule enforcement was dropped by the middle of the day. And things went back to the way they normally had been. But i think it is right for journalists, my senator udall was among other senators who raised questions about why is that rule suddenly selectively enforced . And if it is being selectively enforced, what information is it that you are trying to hide exactly . So i think it is a healthy thing for journalists to question, to ask about rules, why they are enforced and when they are enforced and dress code in speakers lobby. To get the questions you were asking, i would have to say that is one of my biggest frustrations. Asa generalist that comes a journalist that comes to you in a hurry on complicated issue, i certainly have been in a ok,ation and i have said, you are have understanding the issue youre writing about. I would like to spend time with you explaining what you it is that youre writing about. In one particular case i can think of, there was a lost context i wanted to share would shape the end reporting and even question whether the person had a story or not. The person was on a deadline. And whether they wanted to go home or not i will not make a , judgment but they definitely didnt sit and take the time to understand the story. I felt like the story was wholly inaccurate. I think that happens quite a bit. There is a rush for to be first over and i think that sometimes takes precedent over being right. I think that is an issue that journalists have always had to struggle with, but in the days of breaking news by twitter, it is a much more serious issue now. Kathy . Yes. May i comment on that because i think it is very fundamentally important point. There is so much news and information in washington that needs to get to the the public , but we constantly see our daily diet of news hijacked by whatever the breaking news crawl is that is on cable television, and that is driven by this Competition Model that says weve got to beat the competition to the the story, it is getting the scoop, getting the headline first. That is an economic model does that does not serve journalism particularly well. We are talking about the decline in the number of regional bureaus here in washington, the number of newspapers that maintain washington euros that have sharply bureaus that has sharply declined. One concern i have is, when i first came to washington in the 1970s, most of our major federal Labor Department hhs, had full , time reporters covering agencies there on the premises. That is by and large continued because the storyline has to go through either capitol hill or the white house. So i dont know what can be done about it but if there was an economic model for the news enterprise that was based on substance and thoroughness, rather than speed, i think the public would be better served. And if it takes the New York Times or the Washington Post an extra day or two to get that thorough story everyone relies upon, but the public knows, great, now i have gotten a source that i know i can trust, carolyn made a very good point, only 24 of the American People trust the government in washington to get it right. And the number that trusts the media is even lower than that. It is probably about half that. And i think that is because people know that theyre not being served information they can use and act upon. They are getting those psychodrama stories that are titillating, i have experience with that [laughter] and they are not getting the deep reporting that is really about things that affect their lives. There are regulatory agencies, many getting blown up now by the current administration, there is severe consequences in the daily lives of the American People. There is probably very little journalism in and around that subject taking place in the city today. So i think maybe we have to look more deeply at what the economic model is that will sustain viable profitmaking news organizations. John . Real quick. I think mike is right, there are far too many titillating and too many stories of possibly questionable veracity. On other hand, i think most of the news youre seeing is accurate. Maybe it is not complete, but most of it is accurate. But we are definitely not talking about a lot of important issues we should be talking about. Were about to have a holocaust in africa. Nobody is asking with the American Government is going to do about that. One thing i do not think has been brought up that i have noticed here is the rise of ideological news outlets, you know who they are, interested in pushing a certain agenda. And if they happen to tell the truth in the process, that is great. And that is a huge problem not , only for democracy, but for this is also a problem for democracy, the trust that people have in journalism. One of the reasons people dont trust news organizations, is trust theey do not tainted information, not all the time. So you have a substantial portion of the population the at believes the news media is too leftwing and a substantial portion that believes it is too rightwing. That is a large reason why we are called low esteem. We see in terms of the public dealing with each other on these issues. Because they are dealing with different sets of facts, and it becomes difficult to have a civil conversation between people on different sides of an issue. We are focusing, as we should be, on the terms of the relationship between journalists and government but something to Pay Attention to that is equally important, is a threat to our democracy. Not since reconstruction have we seen the kind of judgment from one american about another american. The flashpoint was who voted for , trump . Who voted for hillary . This is almost nine months after that election and americans are still vilifying and demonizing each other for the differences in their vote or the differences on immigration and differences on health care. And there is a direct link on where they get their facts. So when we work with the public, we have to do a tremendous amount of work to introduce enough information that is actually shared information that everyone present will agree is factual. I may not agree with it, but it is factual. That is getting tougher to do with the public. I am going to turn to just next, but i want to remind everybody that we are going toward the home stretch, if you have questions, do not be shy. You do not look like shy people. We want to hear from you as well is from the panelists. We are ready to accept them if you are ready to pass them up on the cards. Touch upono another data point, in terms of shifts between the public and the press, one thing my organization tracks are new defamation cases. And i particularly against the media, although in broader context as well, and one thing we see is a spike in more defamation cases with the press. And it is too early to say there is a causal relationship but it is something we are concerned about and worried this is a side effect of worsening relations between the press and the public. And it is something that we are looking at in different ways of addressing, and trying to heal the rift to the extent we can. I want to introduce an elephant in the room or not in the room but nearby, don talked a lot about technology and we talked about how technology has changed relations between the press and the people we cover. But what about trump . I think jennifer alluded to the fact and brendan alluded to the fact that reporters tend to be on a hair trigger now. We see things as a direct threat to our First Amendment rights and our ability to get information to the public, but onw much of that, and d maybe you can talk about it and , billy can talk about this phenomenon of an ideological press. How different is this . Have we been through anything like this before and is history tell us anything about how we might get through this . There are president s who disliked the press more than other president s. In the 19th century grover , cleveland hated the press so much the cabinet offices would officers would not be seen walking with a reporter. He was followed by william mckinley, the first to open the white house and have a space for reporters to gather. Herbert hoover despised the press and made it extremely difficult, he actually got some reporters fired during his presidency. He was followed by Franklin Roosevelt who opened everything up to the press and was beloved by the press. Richard nixon hated the press with a passion. In some respects he was followed by Ronald Reagan who figured out how to being ideologically thanther to the right Richard Nixon being sort of , liberal at the time, reagan figured a way to be a sunnier president to some degree then nixon. We have these sort of actions and reactions. And right now we are back in a presidency that really hates the Mainstream Press. So one can only assume, whoever runs to succeed him is going to try to do the opposite of whatever this administration is doing. You agree with that . Yes, i think every president gets frustrated and exasperated with the press corps, but the belligerency we see this president and his attitudes towards the press is rather unprecedented, certainly in the modern era and it really the press is unprecedented certainly in the modern era and it really is fundamentally dangerous. The reaction from the press corps has been justifiable. During the campaign period, when the press got mesmerized early by just how frankly strange some of the things were donald trump was saying, they extended enormous amounts of coverage to him, but gave him an audience of probably helped him secure the base vote he needed to win the primaries and the general election. But i think there has been a counter reaction to that. I have never seen the Mainstream Press collectively seem to make a judgment the current sitting president is not qualified to be in office, and i think that is what they have done. Their coverage everyday reflects and will continue to reflect the general attitude in newsrooms in cities around the country that we dont have the president that this nation needs. And that is wildly different from the way things have worked in the past. I throw that out knowing that is fairly provocative, but i would be interested if anyone else senses that. That is provocative. I want to ask brendan, what does that do in terms of your members of the president s party, how does that affect their view of the reporters who cover them, and as that poisoned the well . I go back to what i said at the beginning, coverage and relations between members of the media on capitol hill are still largely pretty good. I think what you see, the house, as it has always been, members are a reflection of the country and a crosssection and you will have members who dislike the media more than others and that is not necessarily new, either, but generally when you are confronted with people and work closely with people you get along with them because you know them better. So i think relations are still pretty good. Probably ae that little uptick in media hostility among members in general, not in an unprecedented way in my experience, as mike alluded to, theres a lot of attacks on republicans in general feeding frustration, but generally guys , get along pretty well with the press. For the most part, i agree with brendan. On the whole, good. If you are talking about individuals, individual members of congress with individual reporters, i think there is mostly everybody recognizes everybody has a job to do, we try to accommodate each other and make the daytoday work. Ould also say, sen. Udall the reason i am here, senator udall got involved in this. In march, starting in march, after hearing the number, we put together a list of incidents could combine with constant fake news attacks and culminating in the media as the enemy of the people. Sat down with us and said, look, if i dont stand up and speak out on behalf of the media to do its job, i wont feel good about myself as somebody who values public access, and and as a and as a public servant, i am not going to go through the entire list, i did it with you, bring it with me, it included incidents where reporters were physically manhandled, thrown out of meetings they had normally been allowed access to, that is a really concerning thing. I looked at don to tell us if it is a new thing, it is a more hostile environment. There have certainly been. Periods of hostility, only two occasions, and the source of the leaks. They leaked treaties that had not been realeased yet. And in neither case did the reporters admit in fact, their newspapers doubled their salaries for every day they were in captivity. There was really no incentive. [laughter] where did they hold them . They took over a committee room. Wow, dont give brendan any ideas. Interesting event. Matters at various times, the senate fired the executive , wednesday clerk, they thought the secrets of executive sessions were leaking, the senators where the source, members beat up reporters on there have been. Periods where members beat up reporters on capitol grounds. That was a century ago. That is not the normal group. The tendency has always been to cool things down. Once the relationship gets as hostile as it is. It is a nobodys interest, politicians or the press to have perpetual hostility. Yodo you what about this point about an ideological press. The same number of credentials and more people on the hill, thats where the news is. We heard mike make a good point that we are not at the Labor Department or environmental and protection agency, or at the Agriculture Department, like we used to be. I had a friend who won two Pulitzer Prizes covering ag issues in the Agriculture Department for the des moines register, that would be hard to imagine now. Are we seeing billy, are these people who are credentialed, are they ideological credentials . Are these activists getting a press pass . How do you police them . Police that . All, with regard to credentialing, we dont look at content. It may be surprising but we dont. We look at there is a pay wall between attempts to raise money or advertising revenue and their editorial content, so we dont tell them dont delve into their slant. But there has been an increase niche websites, organizations that have a slant one way or the other. We dont, as the committee, have never in the decades looked into content. This is an issue, i think, it is important for people to understand how difficult the rise of Digital Media has made it because as don said the rules have changed, and the technology has changed and i remember when i was on the Standing Committee people were saying, well, it was just the dawn of the internet age and people were saying how do we decide of someone get the credential . Someone said it will have to be someone already affiliated with an established organization and i said, why dont want to be the person that stand in the way of the next i f stone which really dates me, but he was an independent journalist who cranked out his own newsletter. He was a blogger before blogs existed. So i think it makes it very difficult trying to determine who gets a credential, dont you think . Absolutely, and there is a lot of crosspollination, a lot of movement between various new entities. Reporters moved around quite a lot. Do you agree with brendans point . You and i and John Donnelly covered capitol hill for a long time but we may be exceptions. Are you seeing a turnover . Do you think that has affected the way capitol hill is covered . I dont want to sound like about when ice cream was a nickel and that sort of thing but that is definitely true. Whether or not in the long run that is a good or bad thing or we see more fresh eyes, what we are doing, that is a good thing, or whether lack of experience or lack of acumen, even the rules of the processes kind of hinder some of the reporting. Certainly it does at some point. I am not going to sit here and say the young whippersnappers dont have a kenai on some things, i may not. Do you have any observation about this tendency in the press that the more ideological tendency, is there historical precedent for that . Observation about this tendency in the press that the more ideological tendencies is there historical precedents for that . There is always the precedents for advocacy. The presidency of doing things. For a long time, the black press was the only press talking about civil rights because the white Mainstream Press was addressing these issues. And you see that, the alternative press that started in the 1960s, it was a left press that objected to the establishment. The alternative press in the current period came from the internet which is a right leaning press. So we have seen patterns of that over time. Organizations newspapers that were started because they were abolitionist newspapers. Proslaverythey were newspapers, or whatever the particular newspapers were of the day. And the end, the press that gets the most credibility if the is the press that attempts to reports the news objectively. And that is always been the balance, the counterbalance, to the advocates in the press. You want to believe what you are reading. It is the question of credibility that is really the bottom line. Jeffrey, do you have any thoughts on the legalities of this . How this has changed and do you find people pushing and saying, im not getting the access i need because i am not in the press, whatever that means now . Well, the issue of who is a journalist from a legal perspective has been one that has been floating around pretty much for a long time but it definitely came more to focus with the dawn of the internet in particularly with the dawn of the social media era in terms of Getting Press credentials and being allowed access to journalistic events and this kind of thing. You know, that issue, it came up when congress was debating a federal shield law and it was a significant Sticking Point in terms of whether or not such a bill could pass, define the range of people that could be protect did. Protected. As a First Amendment lawyer, i try to take a broad view of journalism, realizing it might have practical limitations. The broader the rights that we can fight for, the better we protect the core of journalistic activity. So if we can protect the fringe, to make sure they had First Amendment rights, the people in this room will certainly have them. So i guess what i would say is it is an ongoing issue, something we have been trying to push rights outward as far as possible but you do get to practical considerations when it comes to things like who gets access to a small room, who gets to be a member of a pool. You allowed are you allowed to take into account for example the size of an audience when determining who is allowed into a pool. Taking account of the nature of the medium. There was a court case where a Federal District court ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude i believe it was unconstitutional to exclude all Television Broadcasters from a particular press conference and only allow in print journalism, because that would have a restrictive effect on the reach and government shouldnt be making those choices. You know, these are so heavily context dependent. It is difficult to creating broader rules. When it comes to legal issues, legal remedies should was always should almost always be be a backstop to informal remedies and negotiations between journalists and those they cover. We are a little like surgeons. We come in and you never want to need us. But when you do, you really do need us. So, when we take a look at the kinds of issues that we are facing now, ordinarily, things like relationships between the press and the hill, we are not particularly concerned we are always concerned that journalists are getting the access they need but we dont have any real red flags right now around congress. The nature of the hostility between the white house and the press is such that organizations like mine are marshaling resources for legal challenges in a number of different forums. So in terms of going back to an earlier point in this conversation, talking about what have the relationships with the white house done, to a certain extent it has escalated the level of preparation that we are undertaking with media lawyers as media lawyers for fights that may come up. And that is little bit ironic because the white house, which you mentioned, is the Vice President mike pence was a sponsor, the lead sponsor of the reporter shield bill in congress. So i just want to reiterate here that mike pence, like president trump, is invited to come to the National Press conference the National Press club anytime. We would be very interested to hear from him. And now we hear from the audience. Barbara, will you ask some of their questions . Barbara yes, thank you. Can pick out the people who can respond to these and also, please keep your cards coming up in this direction. I dont have all that many questions so far. But the first one that we will go to is this many congressional offices for force reporters to go through pr offices before they can talk to anyone. How about can we get a response to that . And also, are members of congress concerned that federal agencies are also forcing reporters to go through Communications Offices or pr offices only . And that this is, perhaps, impeding the flow of information . I would like to ask all the press secretaries to respond to that, starting with mike perry we hear with mike. We had a forum about this at the National Press club organized by who is in the audience, a member of the society of professional journalists. This has been a big point of theirs. Is there such a thing as censorship by Public Information officer, and why is it how do you calibrate that . When is it ok . For people to talk directly to reporters and why should there ever be a filter between expert and reporters . Let me start by just describing a little bit of the geography of the white house. The office of the press secretary in the west wing has got a back door to it which is helpful sometimes if the reporters are at the front door. If you got the back door and you turn right, 50 feet away you are in the oval office. You turn left 50 feet away and you are in the Briefing Room, where the press briefing happens every day and that is metaphorically what the role of the press secretary is, to be halfway between that adversarial relationship between the politician, the president and the press corps who hold him accountable. And you need someone who will be a bridge builder. Now the role of the press secretary is also within the organization to try and help colleagues appreciate what the role of the free press is. And what you do have to be responsive and accountable. So without that kind of bridge builder, between the two points of this necessary adversarial relationship, things break down, and most organizations and congressional offices want someone to be the person who fields the inquiries from the media, who is the right person to respond to search out the information that a reporter legitimately wants access to. You know, it is supposed to be a relationship of trust. Onepoint carolyn made, not that is a relationship of dueling barriers. That is the way best press secretaries do the job. Kathy let me push back on that. What about people these are folks who, whether they work for the fda, or the Agriculture Department or the energy department, they are paid by the taxpayers. They are underutilized, that is my point. Some of the finest people i work with work career Civil Servant Public Information officers and they were a rich source of information. They had histories and they knew issues inside and out that, frankly, one of the best White House Press secretaries in history was a Public Information officer as a career Civil Servant and i think their role needs to be elevated. I think we need to get the more engaged and producing more information. They should not be throttled by clinical tease. Jennifer when i was reporter, i ask this question and i think it is a standing frustration by reporters that they want to go to the person who is the decider and they dont want to go through the pil pio or the press secretary or whatever context it is. I am not in the same situation as mike or brendan in that the person that i work for, he is not the speaker. We are not trying to rally several hundred people together at the same time and drive them to a boat without them jumping out. But i think i agree with mike on side. I am your in a lot of cases i am your advocate and your scheduler. So if you come to me as a journalist and say you want to talk to senator tom udall, i say, what is your deadline and kathy is a good example of someone who i would set up an interview for. Senator tom udall has a standing policy that he does every local interview that is possible in the schedule. I think it is important for reporters to understand that a senator or a lawmakers senator udall has a standing policy that he does every local thats possible in the schedule. I think its important for reporters to understand that a lawmakers schedule or anyone, any cabinet secretary, their schedule is importantl of very things, all of them as important almost allccess or of them. And so coming to the pio, the person is going to in most cases best to earnestly get you what you know. If its not in a direct interview with the person that to reach, at least some sort of response. But i also want to say that i youre asking the completelys asking a legitimate question. Is there censorship by pio . Always ask that question. I dont know how it could work any differently in my situation. Could havew how you the speaker of the house just available 24 7 to answer questions. But i think both of them raised a good point and i dont think you probably dont believe us, but the press secretary is always probably the presss biggest advocate in all of this. Our press secretary is always pushing for the speaker to be more available, to do an interview. You dont see that because you hear no or i cant help you but secretary iss going to be your biggest advocate and a good press secretary, they are a scheduler are sometimes forced to say i cant help you with something, but a good press coms person inod general should be a resource, they should be there to help you. Their job andf the culture that we have in our office and every office that ive really been in is to make sure that you are trying to be thatlpful as you can to person. Not necessarily always out of just the kindness of our heart, but it benefits us. Hill whereon the theres so many places you can go. Youre going to have to go to somebody to get a question answered. Youre going to have to get somebodys take on an issue. Ours. As well be might as well come to us. Might as well be as helpful as we possibly can to you. It right, weo get want you to hear our side so we want to be open, and sometimes, helps something we cant you with and thats just how it is sometimes. But we are there to help you as can, hopefully. And just know that were more press access internally. Question can i ask one other thing, when youre talking about congress, you do have an ability to stop a member of congress in hallway and ask a question. The problem, though, is if youre asking them something complex, you have about a minute your question out, to get their answer back, to ask them question. And then hopefully, you got all the context but then if you come back to me and you say hey, i really want to understand water policy in new mexico. Ill spend the six hours that it takes to help you understand that. More. Im exaggerating. But, you know, you can get your fleshed out through the communications office. We can find you experts on staff, we can and we want to do that. And to what extent can they the record . Because i think thats a for many reporters that if you even get to talk to the actual staff expert on an thee, its always off record and that becomes very difficult and problematic because your editors, and i your readers for the reasons of credibility want to are. Who those people for me, just, you know, we love connecting people with experts. Sometimes, its mostly just a matter of theyre not trained arenteople and they necessarily, you know, as articulate as they may need to be on a certain issue and it can as that, but i think the point is we want to do what we can to get the to them and thats as important as having the quote and if you need an on the record comment, hopefully, we can provide that, but hopefully, the most important thing is that youre talking to somebody who actually knows what theyre about and we can connect you with those people. John . Since basically spokespeople have answered this question so throw in the reporters perspective. Number one, we absolutely love Public Affairs people and press secretaries. Theyre absolutely critical. Help us so much every day. However, i dont agree with the proposition that the press secretaries and the reporters are always aiming for the same matterve and its just a of how to go about doing it. There are a lot of times where get at a storyto that either a lawmaker or, you executivebody in the branch either doesnt want them to be dealing with at all and is block to thwart them, them from getting or they just dont have time for somebody because this reporter only has a and theyreation not interested in it. And so there are plenty of times directlyneed to talk to people and there are plenty of times where its not just a difference of how to go about a difference, fundamentally opposing objectives. Thatld hasten to add capitol hill is a great place for access. With accessoblems on capitol hill. I dont actually have a big problem, talking to staffers on of understoodind that thats the way it goes. But especially in the executive branch and particularly when you cover the National Security agencies, its a big problem where if you want to talk to somebody directly about something and you have to go through the Public Affairs to givent, you have them written questions in advance, it absolutely does throttle the flow of information. And its a huge problem. Mike, do you want to jump in . Understand the frustration. And i think brendan made a good point. Somepolicy experts, staffers are comfortable dealing with the press, others simply arent. To try to find the right kind of balance. The one thing i would agree with about is there has been a tendency in the executive branch to overuse the background where you bring in someone in front of a room of reporters and you dont let them be quoted as anything other than a Senior Administration official. And that gets to be a little bit ridiculous, because everyone is in on the secret of who the person is except the people who right to know, which is the public. Was at they when i white house, we did try to bring in government who knew the most about a given subject to come into the Briefing Room and answer press. Ns from the that gets tricky because sometimes, frankly, their superiors, maybe the secretary, would rather be the one getting the quotes. Littleou had to walk a delicate balance sometimes. More people came out and spoke on the record so that they would be held the information that they give and i will say whosi think anyone covering the white house, correct me if im wrong, i think the Current Trump administration has actually been better on that than the previous democratic administrations, including clinton and obama. So i give them at least a little that. For and what do you think about via skype org other methods sort of broadening who gets into the press briefing . Is that a good thing or is that cherry picking who gets to ask questions . If its done authentically with the desire to get different voices from other parts of the country that might raise questions that would not otherwise come from the captive press corps at the white house i think its legitimate, but im a skeptical that that was the purpose. Okay. Yes, next question. We ready to move on . Okay. Good. Earlier, the panel talked about fascination sometimes for the bright shiny object or the less important more trivial story, we have a couple of questions related to that. One is do you believe journalistic intgry is becoming increasingly compromised for the ratings. Licks and and the second is what role into journalists and elected play in selfpolicing against the reality tv environment the trump created . Ation has anyone want to jump in . Journalists . Todays clicks are yesterdays circulation figures. Know if theres that much of a difference to tell you the truth. To arguments. But reporters have always wanted to write news that people would to news thated they wont read. But let me just let me say i do think theres a difference now. Think when we were writing for newspapers, we always knew that more people would read the juicy divorce would read the subcommittee hearing on the education bill. Put the subcommittee hearing story in the paper, it b3, and the juicy divorce story would have been fold, but ite would have been on page one. Now, i think the juicy divorce top of the the website and the subcommittee there atight not be all because one of the technical charting. Everybody can look and even might have had some general idea that the divorce story would get more readers than the story but now, we can see that in real time and how do we guard against that . Leaving oneere group of people out of the equation and thats the editors. There was a slogan on capitol years that reporters love congress because you cant withoutough Congress Picking up a couple of stories. Hate congress because most of the stories they get are what they call Railroad Time table stories. Left the subcommittee on its way to the full committee before it gets to the floor and of those stories would be filed and get on the cutting room floor. Editors for centuries have not to write that sort of story. And so reporters on capitol hill often, you know knew a lot more than they were reporting in the process and oft of it is the question are you part of an institution and how does this news get filtered or in the modern day with the internet, are you now the sole support of your particular news agency online, and, you know, are you putting things on without editors . But the editor is part of this process that ought to be considered. Pointhink thats a great and i would ask the folks, maybe brendan and jennifer to talk it. T how frustrating is it, it seems was and that certainly my experience when i was covering congress that People Institution that has one face. Faces, and i535 think some of them are pretty interesting, but its hard to compete with the white house and aw do you is that frustration to you and do you have any thoughts about how be better informed, obviously, if the first time you hear about a bill is a vote onmes up for the floor, you dont have much of a chance to influence it. Agree with you more. The reporters who cover the hill are awesome. I mean, they kick butt, theyre all all the time, late at night, they are devoted to what they do. Think more of a larger journalism how does survive, what we do is seen as too boring to be featured anywhere. Not a reporter issue. I mean, the folks who are there are doing the boring work of sitting outside a hearing room or whatever it may be to get the story. Us yes, thating to the kind of stuff we care about is less important, but im a little bit sympathetic to it know you guys are trying to figure out how does journalism survive and make dies. These i think theres a lot of interesting characters, theres a lot of interesting stories, and i think what we do matters people, but, you know, again i think its an editors thing,its a publishers i think its a revenue thing and i understand that and i dont know what the answer to that is, getting certainly not any better for us. Incarolyn, your experience ohio. Were people surprised, did writing about more substantive stories, was it successful commercially, did makingfeel that, are we a wrong assumption when we think mow people want that juicy and not theory whole grain nutritious story about the piece of legislation thats going to affect their lives . Think thectually i story isnt in yet about whether it will be fully commercially successful, but in terms of the publics response to that particularly actually seeing someone on a sunday Morning Television show the candidate, but what the people of ohio want to is x. Rom you it got very positive response. On one part ofp the question as it was worded ofut selfpiecing in terms we seem to be normalizing Reality Television as part of administration is covered, we actually hear back thatthe public a lot about and actually we get asked questions of what can we do . Isnt right. This this isnt good in a democracy. So i think there is a way for journalists to link with the backc in terms of pushing on what everybody understands is unprecedented ways we are receiving information as if its news. Barbara. A provocative question here. Politicians and the public trust a president who encourages and facilitates leaks, some of them felonies, and how does the of classified material differ from conspiring a fel felony . Theres been a lot of talk the leaks of the transcripts of president trumps conversations with foreign leaders. Is that beyond the pale . I will be very careful here. Felony. Is, yes, it is a when you take an oath of office to serve in our government, you to uphold laws and it is breaking the law to take a turnified document and to it over to someone whos not authorized to receive it. Punished. Hould be it is also fundamentally corrosive to the ability of a conduct diplomacy, foreign meetings if he cannot trust people to keep confidential things that are necessary for him to do work. Now, that said, theres a caveat. When things are so broken and so dysfunctional that people of good will who serve this country that same oath of office believe the whistle has then sometimes, youre going to get what weve recently. E newspapers leaks, you know, every white house leaks. We made it a business of leaking leak is abouthe trying to extend the length of in somethingest that the white house is working on. So you leak it to maybe try to of usaon the front page today, other newspapers and then up by television so you get more things. But those are controlled leaks. Of leaks were seeing are evidence of maladministration and dysfunction because thats when you see unauthorized leaks of classified material when people do not believe there is an internal process that arrives at rational, legitimate decisions. That usually starts as someone famously said just thently, the fish rots from head. And i think thats true. In nybody else want to weigh in . Ive read the two books on the history of the press corps the 19th and the 20th century and i looked at the index the other day and both sectionsave very long under the word leaks, the leaks have been going on for a very long time. One of my favorite examples, the treaty that ended the Mexican Press andaked to the there was great hue and cry about it and it was the itretary of state who leaked at the time. For everybody who has a reason to keep something secret in washington, theres usually somebody else who has a reason to open it up and its very hard administration to get complete control over it. Thats nothing really new. Communications director said that a century ago, people would have been hung for this. And i have absolutely no evidence that any reporter was ever hung or any source was ever hung for leaking. Some people went to jail, but nobody was ever hung. Sure. Just from the legal perspective, there is a very significant positione between the of a reporter and a leaker from within the government in terms of agreements they have signed but alsoole they play, with respect to the First Amendment. Its important to remember that doesssification decision constituteby itself an exception to the First Amendment right of the press to convey information of public public. Ce to the and so there are very complex that come into play when theres a decision to publish that kind of information. Whether or not the espionage act could constitutionally be applied to a journalist is a question of significant and onetional dimension that were very concerned about from the perspective that the amendment must be respected in that context. Barbara. Can thequestion, what press club do to bring Diverse Voices into this conversation, race, age, and type of journalism, including nontraditional forms . Have had a number of included journalists and i think its very important that journalists, there be diversity on panels and that there be diversity in our are ions because we extirpate isias to the one that you dont know is there because its easy to say oh, im going to get both sides this story three sides of this story, but its hard to what youre not seeing because of where you grew up, that is why voicesto bring diverse into newsrooms representing different points of view, representing different demographies. People who are here today are experts on this particular topic, and i think the power structure of the United States becomes diverse, there will be people in those positions representing that diversity. We make an effort to include that. Include wanted to people who have real expertise on the field, in the field and experience in the field and im really grateful that theyre here. Also, as we said earlier, just the beginning of a of discussions that we have been convening, will wetinue to convene, so expect that over time well be able to get to lots of different in this particular area. But its a great question and point. So we talked also about who is coming to the capitol, who is covering congress. Is aboute questions the explosion of paywall newsletters with niche audiences. Publishers im not reading everything. Many staffers are covering agencies and departments because main stream media has left specialty coverage behind. Good question. I think this is i guess this billyuestion, too, for just getting back to the point. Do you think theres more focus on capitol hill because thats where the news is, or do you arek its because people not covering other beats that we you seeinger and are a lot more trade publications . Day when ik in the was on the Standing Committee, probablyhe people who the predominant number of people credentialed covered for mass media publications. Can you talk about the rise of publications that are quite expensive for people to subscribe to and are we getting a world of news haves and havenots where some people are going to get very detailed information about legislation a five they can afford or six figure annual subscription and others arent . Forf course, i work bloomberg. Verticals in the hill in politico that focus on areas. C there are reporters and armies of reporters still doing the markups on legislation. Theyre there late at night. Readersproviding their that detailed, luscious, rich information on that topic or that area that theyre searching. Some of it is may be expensive, some of it on the hill eventually becomes outside the pay wall, and its available to others. I think one thing i would want mention in terms of the overall topic were talking about, too, is a lot of these work late at night in the house office buildings, lateing meetings that go a rayburnnd they use press room to do a lot of their filings so they can go back and forth through the building and about access,king theust got information that house leadership wants to shut that down because of a need for for members. Pace but thats another thing that be cautious at going at the press, but its another thing thats kind of undermining or would undermine the ability of some of these reporters to do that late night the, to hang with committees as they do markups perhaps 24 hours long. Its out there, its being provided. How available it is to everybody, i really dont have that answer. Just renovating the Kennedy Building and many members are being displaced and committees are being displaced in one of the press offices one of the buildings is being displaced as well, but its a matter of renovating a 100yearold building. The head off here the photographers press gallery and one of my former colleagues tim dylan served in the same capacity that billy does for the press photographers and the press photographers have off theic space, right senate right where a lot of the Senate Leaders like to have offices and tim told me that one time, chris dodd, who democratic leader of the rules committee, right, came and said we want your to take ite going away and tim went into the files old letter andan said senator, your father gave this space. [laughter] senator thomas dodd and chris dodd deflated and said i give up. Its always a fight for reporters to have that prime space, which is important because theres nothing like fresh hot quote before the members have a chance to go back and vet it with all of your people. So do we have time for one more question from the audience . Yes. I was going to ask how much up. You needed to wrap so we have some students as you pointed out here in the audience, and two questions. We are about to unleash our of journalism students on official washington, fromcomes from amy American University. What tone is most important for them . They be respectful, aggressive, pushy, and then the and along the same lines is is there anything would likenelists young journalists just starting out here as they embark on this and reporting sector to know . Why doesnt everybody take a shot at that and then use this, too, if you have any closing remarks, anything you want to your chest. Remember, you can leave things on the table because we hope here for moreack conversations. Ill start and go down the line. Should you be aggressive, respectful and pushy . Yes. Be should absolutely respectful all the time. And its really its not only thing to do, but it will help you professionally, but yeah, dont be afraid to keep askingand them. That would be my main advice to any young journalist. Can, Read Everything you so you know the subject and know whats news and what isnt. Up. Show just show up. Its amazing what you find out just being there. The hallways. So that would be my advice. That. Gree with i would be a little more on the kinder, gentler side and a aggressive,on the pushy side. I would also say keep a sense of humor. Enough opportunity to laugh at the ridiculousness of some of the things that in washington so look for funny, interesting moments that something of the human character. And then the last piece of write,i would have is write, perfect your writing, hug your editor when they make you rewrite and understand that important thoughts take more than 140 characters. Im going to take a little different tack, being from the civilal institute for discourse. Given how important the American Public currently thinks civility is and how angry, frustrated, ashamed, those are all words we time, they are at how members of congress treat each other disrespectfully, congress treat people who are at public hearings disrespectfully, and this kind theame to a head with shooting of representative scalise, where we suddenly saw hats off toongress, the op ed he did in Time Magazine three weeks ago said civility is essential to democracy and the public is intuitively knowing yet its not a topic that gets covered sufficiently so i would invite all of you to a serious look at and it is civility amongst the public themselves. Initiative to an revive civility, the website is nicd. Arizona. Edu. Were doing as much as we can to elected public and officials and journalists to accountability in terms of bringing back social norms that essential to a healthy democracy. I endorse that sentiment. One piece of advice i would give is remember that everybody is a real person in these jobs. I think a big part of the breakdown that we see right now is people dont know each other enough. That extends to members of congress, that extends to the media and public official relationships. I think there tends to be its easy to assume the worst know somebody if you dont them. Its easy to take a shot at somebody if you dont know them. Understand that especially on capitol hill its just a collection of lots of people who are all trying to do what they think is best, get to know them, understand where theyre coming from and i think that will make everything work better for all of us. Just speaking from the perspective of somebody who have to defend what you do in court later [laughter] i would say professionalism and perspective are critical for precisely that reason. If something goes wrong, and you likeup needing somebody me, you want to be in a position who looksre the one like youre basic well. Good notes if something goes wrong. Note down who was there, what happened, anybody else that somebody else like me might want to. Alk make sure your record is clean and current so that when youre trying to explain what happened set of factse best available to please member that although i am a lawyer, although evil like me are lawyers, we are there to help you. We serve your goal to get information to the public and help you publish what you want to publish. Advice froms of your experience. These dont be afraid to ask a question. If you think this is a stupid question some of the questions i thought were the most stupid or ignorant, choose your own adjectives, have led to the best answers and the best information. Ive watched journalists ask questions and then not ask questions and wish that they would. So dont ever feel that your question is not good enough to ask. The second piece is a long the lines people think youre covering people. One of the things i was most surprised about, when i changed sides from journalism to pr, the amount of thought and earnest thought that goes into big decisions, people really want to make a right decision. They want to serve the public space to give them the make those decisions straight if theyre not answering your questions, if they say they want to give it more thought, they probably do. Paul andd agree with brad and jennifer. Think of yourself as an individual. Think of opportunities perhaps no one else is thinking of in terms of reporting, also that most lawmakers do want to talk to you. But theres a way to turn them off fast and when they think youre only aim is to quickly it so youe, and tweet have more followers, that gets old on them pretty fast. So all of the above. Be an individual, though. Find out where you can go thats not a scrum and find some news. I like to put in a plug for preparing yourself as fully as possible. Take as much history as you can and read some history. Andy story has a back story everything should be put into its larger context. I remember in 1998 when the house impeached the president getting a breathless call from a reporter telling me, who was Andrew Johnson and why was he impeached . At least she asked the question at that point. Theres a good, long story behind everything in the press. Not everything was created just now. Not everything is unique. Get yourself into the larger picture. Remarksnot add to those , i think youve gotten a terrific sense of how journalists approach their work, how newsmakers approach their work. I would echo what jennifer and brendan said, in the many years ive reported in washington, the most satisfying thing to me has been getting to know people as people. And the great thing about democracy is it allows greatly flawed people to do great things. Dont let the flaws get in the way of reporting the good news, which is that sometimes we managed to do great things. So, in the interest of getting to know each other as people, i want to thank on behalf of the National Press of Journalism Institute all of our panelists today, all of our audience members here today, and i want to thank cspan for bringing this to a wider audience. We hope as we said repeatedly that this is the beginning of a much longer conversation. Wed love to get more of our friends, including some of the elected officials, back to the press club for a deeper conversation that would be facilitated by carolyns team at the National Institute of civil discourse. To do that, we need to raise some money. So if you like what you heard here today, consider sending your taxdeductible contributions to the National Press Club Journalism institute. Or, you can support us by attending the Journalism Institutes next big fundraiser on september 26, the fabled National Press club spelling bee. It will be the press against the last years straight we had a great turnout of spellers. But, branden, we had no republicans among the competitors. I cant believe that your conference is not orthographically challenged. Brendon, tell your boss time asap. Ld a team with that, this episode of free speech is adjourned. Thank you all for participating. [applause] on the sunday morning talk shows, there was discussion about the Russian Investigation and recent media reports about the scope of special counsel Robert Muellers inquiry into possible collusion or other potential crimes. The Deputy Attorney general who mueller was asked about the topic. We also heard from senators tom tillerson, chris coons who introduced legislation that would present the president from hiring robert mueller. Firing robert mueller. Andou appointed mueller, you didnt you have the sign an order authorizing the appointment of special counsel and you said he was authorized to investigate any coordination with russia, and i want to put the words onscreen, any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. My question is, does that mean that there are no red line site mueller or any special counsel can investigate unr
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.