they didn't even exist ten years ago? >> brookings is right. but it's interesting to watch the evolutionary examiner now as it was won't exist very soon. this summer they'll switch -- toying with a new format. politico changing a lot since it began. media bistro. hard to remain the same. but the future of blogs is up for debate. but just in the, i don't know in the seven years i've been doing it even with the job they've been out there, a lot of transformation. >> what is fish bowl. why did you work there? >> fish bowl is out of new york. they cover the media world. they have specific blogs in some of the top cities. new york, l.a., and d.c. fish bowl l.a. and fish bowl new york and cover the media fish bowl as it were in those cities. so a bit of it is gossip. a bit of it is ascribing personalities to a lot of the media folks. they covered the news, got a story right, wrong. politico obsessed with politics, fish bowl covered washington journalism for better or worse. >> does fish bowl and media bistro make money? >> they do. i can't say i knew a ton about their business operations, but i believe it was a while i was there, they were sold. i want to say jupiter media, if i'm not mistaken, for lot of money. they made the owner, founder laurel toby a lot of dough. for that reason they did make money. they paid fairly well for me as a salaried employee. but the saying about fish bowl and any niche site is that even if you don't have the largest audience, fish bowl you didn't say the largest audience in the world, but it was the right audience and it was a smart audience and you had everybody from d.c. bureau chiefs to teds of the president of cnn to lowly cub reporters. they're a smart focussed set of readers. from an advertisement point of view, they're good. >> talking about the fact that at age 35 you look at the media a lot differently than i do. how do you look at it? how do you define journalism from your perspective? >> as a business, it's -- you know, it's a -- it's a struggling business in the sense that we've seen a lot of movement and a lot of layouts and a lot of closing and bureaus. what's struggling about it now is trying to figure out for the most part people kind of know what the future of journalism is. they know that we went through this wave of everything is free and now organizations and politico are starting to explore the paid subscription models. so people are realizing that the newspapers can be given away. but the question is how do you make money off of it. so as a result, i think that survey is trying to figure out and some people say, well, some people don't, some people go into it. but i don't think anybody knowles how to make a lot of money off of internet journalism. but we're a lot better off than we were maybe ten years ago. nobody had the courage to charge. and that was what we were seeing people have the courage to charge and where that product is worth it. >> we have a list here, all kinds of clips that we put together for the purpose of talking about the use of television in the new media or, for that matter, in the old media. this is a clip from gwenaifel's, "washington week." get you to where these things are mattering. i'm joined by beth bernheight, and cbs news nia malikia henderson of "the washington post." pete, let's start by talking about one of the stories we didn't get to on the broadcasts which is a $25 billion, $26 billion mortgage fraud settlement that the white house announced yesterday. whether that's a contributing factor and they'll look at that as they go forward and try to fix this problem. senator snow is sticking around to answer your questions for the web extra. >> hello. abc news chief global affairs correspondent and i'm joined by former maine senator, olympia snowe. thank you for joining us this morning. because we believe all politics is social at this week, we're going to ask senator snow some questions submitted on facebook. the first question comes from carolyn howell nugent -- "are you happier since you left the senate and what can we do to make sure our representatives will pay heed to what we expect them to do while in office". >> the first part from pbs, the second from abc. why do those organizations feel the need to extend the programs to the web? >> a couple of reasons, one, is they're experimenting. can we track eyeballs, can we make money off of it. for a lot, though, it's the argument for why not do it is very small. you and i went to film a 60-second add-on. essentially cost us 60 seconds of our time, maybe a little money on the electricity bill. but when you have these things set up for the programs, i think to tack on an extra 60 seconds, two minutes, there's no harm in it. from a toil perspective what you can occasionally find is that it gives the news organization a chance to do things that they want to do on the broadcast. so this frequency on abc this week or "meet the press" where they do a video extra. a lot sillier than what they would do in the hour-long broadcast. that means they'll interview pat leahy for the hour on "meet the press," but then they'll interview george clooney about the celebrity advocacy. it gives them a chance to explore the web video but allows them to protect the main brand. gives service to what they might have thought otherwise. >> the nbc news, talk about what you see here? >> yes. >> thank you for joining us on our nbc news hangout. i'm here social media and we'll be joining up with pete williams and kerry sanders in new york. kerry, pete, welcome? thank you. let's start out give us the latest news, the moral obligation and then we'll go from there. >> the parents of the tsarnaevs, the suspects they believe committed the bombing spoke today in tajikistan. they both say their children can't be involve in this. >> call this a hangout. that's a google hangout. so obviously run by google. it's something that using either smart phone or just a camera that most people have on their lap tops or desk top computer. it's basically higher tech video conferencing. politico explored it as well. using google hangout or skype. it's the -- the quality is not terribly great, but it's cheap, easy. you could be walking down the street. going back to what we said earlier, it's a question of what they're wrestling with, am i adding, contributing? putting more noise on to the internet or -- if you want a reporter on the scene with your cell phone calling in to one of the google hangouts, that's added value. if you're pontificating the way we zealots of folks in political journalism pontificate, then the question is am i adding value or doing what everybody else is doing. >> here's a "washington post" website thing called mt. piece theater. >> now defunct. >> yeah. >> a whole new take. >> dennis kucinich would be in bad health. waxman would drink grubby lagger and senator robert bird would have the old peculiar. rahm emmanuel would drink a bad assale. we won't tell you who's getting a bottle of mad pitch. this could work for summits too. call it the british, russians, chinese, canadians could have arrogant brit, bad frog, red menace big amber and doostral. mahmud ahmadinejad has one made for him, serious madness. >> these two guys are serious journalists. why didn't they make it? >> the comment about hillary clinton is what sunk that operation. think he apologized in the "post." what that illustrates is a couple of things. one what video allows them to do them. that's good. there's season professionals of clear track record of knowing how to do the job and what the founders are. the web video is opening the pool of people which is great. people who may not know what the boundaries are and may not have power to edit that. people may not have the bound ripples and they may not have the staff power to have somebody edit that. that could have gone up on the web through no fault of anybody that didn't get edited by anybody. just slap it on-line. but that's part of the problem. web video allows a lot of journalists, many of whom can be ambitious and self-centered at times and it allows them to want to be television personalities. with that comes great risk as that video proved occasionally you might get a success story of the most part a lot of the production quality or humor quality is not as good as you would like for them to be. >> how many kids do you have? >> two. >> how old? >> 2-year-old and 3-month-old daughter. >> they're not in the video yet? >> no, we've kept them away from youtube so far. >> what are your own habits. how do you use it -- do you watch any of this stuff? >> i'm obsessive about consuming news and knowing what's going on out there. so my internet diet is heavy and extensive, which i'm probably not terribly proud about. but i watch a lot of this stuff. and a lot of it is not terribly compelling. but to a certain extent, that's kind of as a washington observer, that's your job to maybe realize a lot of this stuff is compelling. you see everybody -- it's like throwing spaghetti on the wall for a lot of these organizations and hoping that something sticks. for the journalists, they, you know, they hope they can turn this segue into a greater exposure when for them. >> i remember 30 something years ago we started and asked to take our cameras into newspaper editorial meetings. they were aghast. why would you want to do that. and some said absolutely not. but this is how far it's travelled and "the wall street journal" has been cooperative. here's "wall street journal" video with their top editor of the editorial page. >> the obama administration suggested over the weekend it's willing to talk directly with north korea. so is washington moving again down the road of appeasement? editorial staying with me now. two pieces of news out of the weekend. the tentative author of direct talks and also an offer to cut back on our ballistic mist sills back on our ballistic missiles deployment. what do you make of these developments? >> well, first of all, i don't much like them. i think the timing was bad. i see a rub coming at some point where news organizations will say, is this worth our time and effort and money? if so, great. they'll be mia. and some will say it's not worth our time or money. making phone calls to do web video that only 50 people are watching. the workload issue is something we have to address. reporters are overworked and underpaid. not only will they be more stresdsed but the editors could be more annoyed. >> what do you get the most reaction out of? >> television, if you do msnbc or c-span or others, if you do "morning joe," you get a good reaction from that in terms of people e-mailing you and things like that. certainly more than i would to do a home video and post it on politico or something. i think having a good story, be it web video or print article, you get the most reaction to a story that's good. >> going to show you a clip of you and dylan byers. it's called "odd media". what is this? where does this fit in on everything. >> a new program about the great media report, a blog for us. >> this is "on media." >> what is the story with rush in the future radio for him? >> his contract is up at the end of this year. every since this he referred to as a slug. advertisers have been pulling back, right? either because they were spurred on by a boycott effort by rush limbaugh or because they were uncomfortable with being associated with his brand. now, the question that nobody really knows the answer to is how much damage limbaugh actually did to -- >> put it in perspective. people are saying, in fact, no, the losses and -- grossly exaggerated. >> cumulus, carries the show on 40 stations in important places like chicago, washington, the ceo of qume lugs comes out on the earnings shows and said because of this issue, we took significant losses. from where limbaugh is saying, listen, stop -- i'm getting tired of you blaming this on me and criticizing me. if you keep doing it, i'm going to leave. how much did the public care about the media stuff? >> i think the media reads itself obsess i havely enough that you could justify just having media reporter. that said, i don't think the average american cares about me getting promoted to deputy assistant editor, whatever. but i think the public cares about when the press gets it right, they don't. they care about what stories are being covered and not being covered. those stories are more up, down, but also more macro. of sort of where media coverage doesn't do so well. >> what's the top five list. we have a clip of alexander trobridge. >> young reporter that's multimedia savvy. top five celebrities to see at the democratic convention. top five people to look for in 2016. it's whatever he has that week. a great way to show that how someone who's young and tech savvy can create a hangout. >> related to cabinet secretary years ago ing? >> no, i don't think so, no. okay, here it is. >> all so they can manage risk and move forward. it's a matter of following the signs. they all leave here. cme group, how the world advances. >> if hillary clinton decides to run, she'll have a lot on the nation. >> i want to see the glass ceiling shattered. it doesn't have to be any particular person. >> what if she doesn't run? top five democratic women to watch in 2016 who aren't. the secretary of health and human services is the former two-term governor of the very red state of kansas and the daughter of swing state ohio. she was vetted to be barack obama's running mate in 2008. the des moines register rounded up the wish list for 2016. she was number four on that list, clinton, of course, was number one. that's our lilles of the top five democratic women to watch in 2016 who aren't hillary clinton. >> we cut it short because it's longer than that. we could not get rid of that ad which was an interesting thing that you find both places where you can get rid of it, you can't tell us the philosophy. >> that's called -- it's called preroll in the business and it's an ad that you sell to advertisers saying on original contents, we'll run this before the ad. it is about web video. users hate them. i can't stand them. a number of people will walk away from it. when it comes to web video, how else do you make money on it. that's your version of advertising. maybe there's not a big dropoff on them. but every website from youtube on down has that stuff. youtube brags on statistic blog. >> a 60-second ad. they skip a blog for five seconds. great thing for them. you go to another browser tab and do something. so i'm hearing the whole 60 seconds in my head not knowing that i can skip it. but, no, that's sort of a nice feature they've been able to pull off. >> "the new york times" on their website doing a lot of video and they call something an opt dock which is something that i assume is the opposite -- the op-ed page. here's something we found on "the new york times" site. >> we need to talk about drugs. >> we need to repeal the whole war on drugs. this has to change this has to change ♪ ♪ prohibition and work prohibition on drugs doesn't work ♪ over $400 pent million ♪ ♪ it's a waste of money >> 60,000 arrested, 82% are black and hispanic. these arrests stigmatize, criminalize, making it harder to find a job, making it harder to get into schools, making it harder to turn their lives around and it must end -- and it must end now. ♪ the war on drugs while well intentioned has been failing ♪ give them a treatment send them back on the street ♪ and wonder why they don't get better why they commit crimes together ♪ ♪ but that's part of the addiction ♪ addiction!!!! ♪ the war on drugs is a failure ♪ >> what do you think? they take our video, others' video. there's a lot of interchange from different networks. not like it used to be. what do you think of this development? >> well, i think technically they can get away under the satire use. >> and fair use. >> fair use, yeah. that line has been exploited and pushed back. a great example of -- first of all, people have a ton of free time on their hands. the amount of work to put these videos together is amazing. two, what they've been able to do is find a sweet spot of original content, original prose and they're getting a lot of views. original content, original prose but the reality is the nature of the web is contrary so i could be wrong, but i think that the gregory brothers schtick is going to be -- they can't keep on doing that exact thing forever because people are used to it and doing the next best thing. but for a moment in time, they've been able to capture, i mean, millions of viewers on a lot of their -- a lot of their -- a lot of their hits but the reality is the number of times people can find that sweet spot is pretty small. it's helpful to do it in politics and news media. it's prepressed because if you do something on chris christie. you do something on c-span, c-span is going to cover it. poke fun at themselves or draw attention to themselves. free publicity with a project that you're dealing with people. >> when you were at trinity college in connecticut, what did you think you would be doing with your life? >> that's a question. i wrote -- i did a lot of fiction, a bit of nonfiction. so i thought i would always be writing and then as soon as i -- for the battle of the college, you quickly realize there are no jobs for writing really. or accessible ones for college graduates. so i had experience working with kids teaching in college. i got writing clips and got an entree to washington, d.c. >> how long did you teach? >> 7th and 8th english and history in new jersey three years -- one year longer. the third year was exhausting. i try to tell people trying to be a reporter that you need credibility. no one is going to publish a op-ed by you saying i'm bryan lam, citizen. i have to say i'm a history teacher. so they cared about my thoughts about current events because i had that quote/unquote credibility. so i was able to build up a portfolio to bring down to a prestigious place like d.c. and say here's some clips that i had. in that regard, it worked out nicely. >> whey did you come to the brookings institute? what drew you there? >> i knew i wanted to get into political journalism. and everybody said there are two approaches. one is b go out to chattanooga and work for a local small paper with a great editor, get your clips and experience and bring that to d.c. and say, you know, here i am. or, the other argument was just come to dc and make it happen. i was more compelled to come to dc and make it happen. even though brookings wasn't a political journalism job. i did journalism there in terms of going to brookings evens and cover them like a reporter covered them. so you have -- it's hard to break into journalism. it's doable. >> you're sending messages to people listening. brookings is known to be liberal. >> yeah. >> examiner is known to be conservative. >> yeah. >> politico, i don't know what the profile is on it. so where are you? >> to be honest, i know every reporter has to say this, i'm fairly nonpartisan in the sense that my time in dc -- there are a couple of issues which i won't alert the american public to that i feel are black and white. that, no, this is the way it should be. i don't get bull riding. that's my argument for bias. most things are black and white. being at brookings is a great education on this. even if you disagree with one side, you don't think they're mean spirited or fundamentally dishonest or wrong, it's just people operating on two different viewpoints. so maybe it was my time in dc, but i'm less certain than before. that guy has a great point or that woman has a great point. a couple of issues in my personal life i think is black and white. very valid points. they come at it very differently. >> you don't know that politico is a part of channel 7, channel 8, local owned by local the all britton family and you do the hard copy, website, and television and here you are interviewing a familiar face on politico television. >> i'm joined by donald rumsfeld, the author of the new book, "rumsfeld rules," former everything. your resume is every job except for the presidency. >> lived a long time. >> yeah. >> when i first came to washington in 1957 out of the navy this, is a farm. >> yeah. >> in off key bridge. it's rural. >> called in reporters now a days. you have in here, 380, right, rules? >> one of which is if you have rules, never have more than ten. >> you took my punch line and i appreciate you violating one of your rules which is you never get in trouble the things that you don't say. but you're still honoring us by talking to the press anyway. >> well, thank you. >> the other rule is, of course, never say never. >> that is -- >> because all general inflations are wrong. even this one. >> when you know when he was secretary of defense, he would no more come to that studio. >> he's got a book to sell now. >> were you surprised that he would come? >> to his credit, he's one of the politicians or politico's that isn't press averse. when he was at the pentagon, he took on the press conferences and took on a lot of questions. in the last book tour, he went on "the daily show," no easy interview for a gentleman like rumsfeld. he went on "opie and anthony," a lewd radio show, "the view." so he's not adverse to going on to outlets that everybody knows won't agree with them. >> how many cameras are there where you were? and how many people were working on that? >> i think that one is that we graduated to a three camera shot, which is big for us. those things are a great example of web video and what it can do. in the sense that it takes a little more manpower. behind there, we had probably two cameramen, maybe out of a photographer taking pictures that we then used for the website. myself, a small operation. what is nice about that -- why his is back to what we were saying earlier about why not do this? take the web video. put it on the web. get it on that, that's great. and then the text can be a web article. we can put some of that. we do some of that on the newspaper. the paper obligation gets in front of more people. so if you have a lot of plants with those, nice exposure when for myself. nice exposure for mr. rumsfeld. it sort of brands our headquarters as a destination for the people to come. they have to do places like c-span as well. so who knows if this is ever going to make a ton of money. but you're able to plot a lot about that strategy. >> we're going to part from the establishment using television to a group that a lot of people watching will know about. a lot of people will not. this is from info wars.com. >> it's tuesday, may 7, 201. i'm alex jones. get ready for another original edition of "info wars" nightly news, straight ahead. news, straight ahead.1 tonight. danger, google tells internet users that the drudge report and infowars.com websites contain malicious software. i don't think so. plus, more information has emerged about google's relationship with the government and spook agencies. as they group calls for hearings into google's ties to the cia and nsa. and the professor griff says obama is a mass media deception. the info wars' exclusive interview premieres tonight on "infowars" nightly news. >> thank you for joining us. all of the subscribers and viewers that make "info wars" possible as we fight the globalist plan to construct a prison planet on the ashes of our once free republic and world. thank you for joining us. >> you watch alex jones, to you listen to him? >> no insult to him, it's just not on my daily diet of things to check out. but he's a great success story and a great example of how you're able to use, you know, cheap accessible technology to get yourself and get your message out there. looks close. looks like "nbc nightly news." were watching that clip from college a few minutes ago, one i my first thoughts was when started politico four years ago, i was using these clip cams time, you know, cutting edge. not a lot of people use them before. they're grainy, not so nice if you look at the clips. now the same amount of money, you can get an hd picture. people like mr. jones can benefit from that in a basement or a farmhouse or an actual office studio into professional grade television. >> what's p.j.-tv. >> pajama's media, i believe, run by a conservative blogger, glen reynolds. >> this is somebody named alfonso rachael. let's watch it. >> they're the ones always keeping people angry about the past, falsely accusing republicans of what the democrats have done. >> they're going put y'all back in chains. >> the guilty past and punish republicans for the past they're not guilty of, all part of democrat characteristics of covering up slavery for fighting to keep slavery evil to benghazi. i reckon syria can hide wmds, and just like charles ramsey was able to stumble over and discover the truth about his nasty neighbor, the truth will be uncovered with the failure of the obama administration in benghazi. >> you got some big testicles to pull this off, bro. >> your reaction? >> i think something web video lot of is duced a humorist. i don't know if he's going for humor. he's going for a colorful personality. we tried it at politico. the comedy world has seen this as well. with youtube, you can just vote a video of yourself. you're a comedian. i think in politics to produce daily show type of political humor or parody or sarcasm. occasionally you see it. but, again, it comes down to the idea that when you give everybody a camera, not everybody is camera quality. that gentleman is good in front of the camera. but the next generation of jon stewart or the five on fox news, i don't know -- sometimes the barrier to entry could be a good thing in terms of separating the talent from the nontalented. >> what about the old timers saying this is bad, the video of the nonjournalists getting into it. >> there's a case for that. sure. there are a lot of people given a public forum who in journalism and not in journalism who don't depp serve it. at the same time, a lot of people in media who rose to a certain rank who may not have deserved to be there. i know in my small experience, you see older journalists who would not cut it today. that doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. that means the demands of their generation and our generation are very different. i think that older people who decry what this media saturation is doing to us in terms of be constantly be updated in the constant news stream, there's a valid complaint and the argument that take your time, get your facts right, that's always going to be true. we saw it -- we saw it on the health care ruling. we saw it in the boston marathon bombing. and i think that pendulum swings back and forth and now we're in a time where people are reconsidering how important it is to get your facts right, double source things. >> the first fellow, alex young operates out of texas, glen reynolds operates out of tennessee. the next person moved from the east coast where he was successful on fox news to create his own web internet. net glenn beck called "the blade". >> the media is so far gone it cannot be revived. "the washington post" out of all of the updates yesterday, actually said this -- they said, who's tweeting about benghazi, rich middle aged men and chick-fil-a lovers. what are they saying? white, tea party members. see what they've just done? the president used the film in the filmmaker and american rights in benghazi. trying to say that american rights or americans using the first amendment right in such a way killed the ambassador. that the ambassador and three others were actually killed because of american freedoms. that wasn't true at all. that's what they did. now "the washington post" is responding. if i may translate what they said -- no one cares about white christians. america, please, wake up. that's the most racist, bigoted statement i have ever heard. >> what sense do you have about his success? >> he's a huge success stofrry. a huge success at fox news. since he left fox news, he might not be on the -- on the tip of everybody's tongue anymore but he's doing quite well. he has a lot of subscribers, tells a lot of ads. he's a multimillionaire. he's a great example of an interesting dynamic of quote/unquote in the media where they're less beholden to the news organizations than they previously were which is that you used to -- what mattered used to be calling up and saying i'm patrick atwood with the new york times. if you had the second part, "the new york times" part, no one wanted to listen to you, you can say i'm patrick abbott if it means something to you. mike allen writes "the morning playbook," he's a great reporter. he could leave politico tomorrow, go somewhere else, and it wouldn't change his value. he could start his own venture, probably, and have a lot of people come with him and we see this all the time that if you are a -- if you're good at what you do, be it what mike allen does and you do and glen beck does, you can take that away from more traditional news organizations and become your own independent person and viewers will come with you because they can because the internet allows them to. >> what are patrick gavin's 2012 viral political videos? the list we have, the top ten videos that became a viral sensation. an offhanded comment, something somebody turned into something funny. could be a clip from a celebrity. but something that caught the attention from the worldwide web and went on to millions and millions of views. >> 50 seconds of it. >> okay. >> skin showing -- wind blowing where do you think you're going baby. ♪ hey i just met yeah ♪ and this is crazy ♪ but here's my number ♪ so call me maybe ♪ hey i just met you and this is crazy but here's my number so call me maybe ♪ ♪ hey i just met you and this is crazy ♪ ♪ but here's my number so call me lately ♪ ♪ hey i just met you and this is crazy ♪ ♪ so here's my number so call me maybe ♪ ♪ do you remember who did that video? i don't remember who did that one. a clip in there of congressman linda sanchez having her staffers doing in her office which made me realize what's interesting about viral video is it provided another outlet for politicians to not look at the message out there but to show the humanity and show their sense of humor. they're doing it quite frequently. they're not -- they're all of a sudden realizing they don't have to sit down with "the new york times" and "the washington post." that they can do a sitdown on the view and do a funny video with a blogger on youtube. that's a way to get the message out. they know that "the new york times" is going to get grilled to sit down with "the new york times" and "the washington post." that they can do a sitdown on but they might get more viewers in "the new york times" interview. >> speaking of the government video, the white house has quite an extensive look at the president. here's the clip. the president -- he's in austin, texas. he has a camera crew following him. and then they edit it. and put it on the web. let's watch it. >> incredible stuff going on all across america and right here in austin that i think can be good models for the rest of america to follow. this is a new tech high school where students are learning high-tech skills that companies are looking for right now. they are getting excited. >> welcome, mr. president. we're going highlight it. we're going let the country know what's going on. >> we're excited to be here but we want to show the whole country. >> what do they have to show me, come on. looking forward to seeing it. >> done. >> oh. >> this is all solar powered? >> yeah. >> you guys have some contraptions. that's what these are. that's the technical name for it. >> there's one over there. saw the light going. and how about this one? wh.gov which anybody can get to free of charge. who pays for all of that? >> that's the white house's press conference. they're popular. they're well done and polished. but a huge source of controversy in the sense that the president the has been able to circumvent the -- all of the shots there, that's a huge source of contention there. any administration going forward realizes they can have their own videographer and photographer and put together their own -- i mean, it's propaganda, but their own news package. >> they go live with their speeches -- his speeches. >> yeah. and a lot of times it's in ways that's access where the state is not -- it's not given access to it that the photograph gerts a lot of access. the white house photographers are like -- it's sort of -- it's hard to blame them from their perspective. their job is not to help the press. you saw what 60 minutes is trying to do. >> what's your guess as to what's going to happen over time. >> journalists hate when they don't get access to the press and hate it when they don't get the questions answered. i get that. i get the white house perspective that they don't get the press. jay karney's job is not to help reporters, its's to help the administration. that's a long-growing tension. it's never going to go away. >> the press secretary is to say my job is to help the president and the press. >> at the end of the day, he's being paid by the white house. >> being paid by the taxpayers. >> the end of the day it shall person who hireled him and fired him is the president. he's beholden to a lot of people. but his job is to do the present bidding and they do it very well. its's a huge source of consternation. >> one of patrick from 2006. >> oh, it can't be good. >> i feel bad saying this in front of c-span. the fact that they're here filming me is great. it's a good promotion for the city and for the event. first -- i don't know. at the least i thought we would get pbs. i don't know. npr, maybe. none of us are that camera friendly. so audio is great. it's a bit offensive that the best we can do is a network that defines highlighting newspapers must-see tv. before i start c-span -- steve skullley told me to tell c-span viewers please don't call more than once every 30 days. >> that is so insulting. >> were you married ten years ago? >> no. was not married. i didn't know how to dress clearly. think i had an extra ten pounds on there. i was a little bratty. >> that's the comedy competition which is a huge oxymoron. i didn't win, as you can tell. but they invited largely reporters or occasionally politicians to do standup for a night to support charity. i'm trying to figure out who won? grover nordquist may have won that night? i've done it twice. >> how much of a competition are you in in politico with "huffington post." >> everybody is in competition with politico at everybody's time. they do have political coverage. we compete with them on that. the primary difference is no newspaper covers everything. they cover health, divorce people, environmental issues, comedy, entertainment, politics, sports, everything. they have a lot of coals in the fire. politico covers one thing. they do that on purpose and they try to do the best at that one thing. so our politics competes with any politicings. including the huffington post. their job as a news organization is much broader than ours which has advantage so they're going to get people interested in reading about divorces on divorce page, we're not. we're able to dedicate more resources to one niche. >> named after huffing ton, sold to aol. they're now doing 12 hours a day of live video from 10:00 to 10:00 at night east coast time. lets's watch a little bit of their coverage. >> the internal revenue service has publicly apologized for targeting tea party groups with increased scrutiny looking into the tax exempt status in 2010 12 election. president obama vowed to hold the irs accountable if the facts are true. the members first raised suspicion of the activity over a year ago. could this attention be just what the tea party needs to reenergize their base ahead of the 2014 elections. we have a great group. the republican strad jips. sam stein, huff post politics reporter. the strategist at gray bender cox. scotty hughes, news director and member of the tea partynet. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having us. >> you know how it works. jump in if you have anything to add. start with you. >> this program is 25 years old. it's always one person for an hour. this is how far it's swung in 25 years. you had five guest there is on a huffington post website encouraged to interrupt. >> on a hangout. using the google hangout. >> yeah. for where web video is, they do a good job at it. that is that is certainly one approach, kind of hyperactive, lots of guests, tweet us your comments. we're going to read tweets on air. interrupt, interject, it's lively and dynamic. i do think, though, i think the media world has to offer a lots of different plays for people. so you have that, your show. you have espn which is also hyperle active. charlie rose. i think people gravitate towards what they like. it's geared towards a younger more news junkie individual. and then inthink that -- you know, huffington post and other organizations also offer more in depth stuff as well. but it's kind of -- whatever we're trying to do is offer everybody what they want and hope that somehow that yields. >> in the end, what do you think is going to last? >> you have to assume everything will be internet at one point, even if it just means your old school broadcasting on the internet. i think mobile devices, portable devices. we're hearing now in d.c., senator mccain trying to get rid of cable bundling and all these kind of, you know, old forms of doing business. and i think that the future would be portable. you could see -- you do sort of see these things happening where there'll be an explosion and blogs and all of these things and all of a sudden people will return to long form journalism. but it will be huff post live and people will turn to shows like yours. some things will stick but as people get older, they're going to want a lot more long form stuff. >> it's by google. they baupgt them for almost $2 billion. one billion unique users visit youtube each month. over 4 billion hours of video are watched each month on youtube. 72 hours of video are uploaded to youtube every minute. >> amazing. >> how much do you use youtube? >> i use it a lot. not a ton. there are things -- i think even youtube trying to figure out profit mod else. they're scoring subscription channels for a fee. so you tube will get some of that and you'll get some of that. so they're exploring new things as well. that's a lot of bandwidth. a lot of hard drive space they're hosting the videos on. youtube is the biggest success story in terms of video hosting. but they're going to continue to find ways to be able to justify the amount of free stuff that they're hosting on their servers. >> what does patrick gavin want do in the future of journalism? >> i don't know. i like my job. i will say this for myself and on what have of a lot of reporters young or old. it could be wrong. but it seems that journalism is more exhausting than ever before. you see even with young reporters, especially in campaign season, griping about their twitter feed just being almost unreadable because of the sheer volume of things or the amount of e-mails they're getting be it from the buses or from campaign offices, press releases. the facebook page that demands on their journalism to constantly update stuff. so if i had a -- it depends on how the pendulum is going swing for reporters. reporters burn out quickly. i have not burned out yet. but you can see that with every news organization in town, the sheer amount, that's not even the workload, but the amount of information you have to consumer and you have to be up to speed on television shows and twitter and everything. it's exhausting. i think that's a choice for the reporters to make as you enter into the 30s as i am with families. how can i dial down the noise and do my job as best as i can. >> what is home? >> new york city -- >> manhattan? >> born and move to wes chicago. all over the place. >> how many work in politico? >> north of 200 at this point. >> if people want to get on-line, what's the address. >> politico.com. >> patrick gavin, reporter, politico. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts tore give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are also available at c-span podcasts. >> next, live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on journal."n then live at noon eastern, the .s. house gavel for general speeches with legislative business scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. in fact, going as far back as abigail adams and martha wa, you ladies played an active role in the white house and in the campaigns that it get there. abigail adams was basically a ampaign strategist for her husband. but she helped advise him on who election.order to win he had to keep in his coalition. they had to talk incessantly of the day litics and the legislation that needed to be passed. which senators and congressmen you could count on, which ones you couldn't. needed to do to win more support ochlt. the we continue authorization on "first ladies. he women who informed the presidency takes a look at their al partners with husbands rather than wives and mothers. tonight on c-span. >> this morning, a reporter's swanson at with ian the helm and rebecca politico.nd of hen the advisor for counterterrorism discusses rams.llance 57bd later, daniel wise talks group's review of ederal disaster relief spending. ♪ host: good morning, it is monday, june 17, 2013. congress is in session this week. on to continue debate immigration overhaul measures, the house is ready to take up a five-year farm funding measure on tuesday. --nwhile, president of president obama is in ireland for the group of 8 summit. we want to hear from you this morning about the american standing in the world community. what issues do you think are the