Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622 :

>> okay. >> i don't know if they're doing that feedback into pentagon. are you hearing that? you are not hearing that? it's done now. and gone do you got me? >> we got youth just fine. -- we got you just fine. >> someone hung up the phone. >> we hear you just fine. can you hear us? >> can they see me? >> hello hello? [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we will take anything. we will take audio only. >> hello hello? [inaudible] >> we are calling him back. >> okay. he had a hard stop time of right now. is still standing by bill. -- he is still standing by. [inaudible] >> can you hear us? spirit he may have dropped off. >> are they seeing me or was it never on -- >> we are seeing you. can you hear us? >> i have you. yeah, i have you. >> i know your time is short. do you have time for two more? >> yeah. let me just finish up on the last question on the targeting and the strikes. if you just submit that as an articulate i can look at the date and give you a better answer. let's start start to talk myself into an answer publisher just looked at the data for you. >> we are going to call on louis louis. >> luis martinez, abc news. i've had a couple of all a. we talked about the chemical investigation just adore the other ones ongoing. but there was an incident in syria two weeks prior to the one you mentioned there seems to been confirmed also. as if i'm some kind of blistering agent it was at the same kind that we found on august 11? there was also an incident two days later to the august 11, 1 that was reported allegedly involving, the weapons. >> -- involving chemical weapons. >> thanks for that question. the question that i received earlier was ongoing investigations. one in syria in june was completed so those tests came back and i don't have those results in front of me. i can get those to you on what that deduction was and what of all results came out to be. that was and, i think those in the third week of june. i am aware of reports of an additional allegation that there might be a chemical detection or a weapon of some sort that was found, but it'll have any details on that. to my knowledge that is not an ongoing investigation. so i can look in that to see if there's something there but i'm focus on what happened on the august 11 type because there again we had a field-tested came back with a positive indication. >> thank you. if i could follow up with one more. in order, they made about the anti-isf, is it capable of mounting an offensive against the city? >> i think the isf forces in iraq and the anti-isil forces in syria are on the aleutian air power, are capable of defeating isil overtime to i think the strategy is a sound one and i think it's yet to be seen how soon raqqah is taken but certainly that is a jewel for isil and will not go down easy. i of all the confidence in the anti-isil forces and coalition and airpower to defeat this threat that needs to be defeated. >> thank you, general, thanks for your patience. australian broadcasting corporation. further to the question earlier about australia's potential involvement in syria, could you talk to the differences between the air campaigns in iraq and syria? any particular the different risks of operating syrian airspace as opposed to iraqi airspace. >> those are great questions you know, they demand some detail with regard to how the feedback prosecutes. i would defer that question to get the proper people from the combined force component command at -- who control that had and to give you a proper answer on that. >> general, i know we have used other time. lucas has one follow up which he promises to be short and in one part. >> general, lucas thomas with fox news. did they just pick up these fragments with their bare hands and deliver them to the americans just announced? and is the u.s. doing the final test right now on these fragments? thank you. >> so i don't have the details on how they transported those fragments back to the site where we did the field testing. i can get that. the second part is a process to do the formal testing on these fragments is under way. >> general, thank you very much for your time today, and thank you, everybody, for coming. >> thank you. >> while congress is out on break we eventually booktv programs normally seen weekends on c-span2. >> also cover bobby jindal of louisiana will be tomorrow at 1 p.m. eastern at the iowa state fair. >> follow the c-span cities to her as a trouble outside the washington beltway to communities across america. >> the idea behind this is to take the programming for h. e. p., american history can be a booktv out on the road beyond the beltway to produce pieces that are more visual, that provide a window into these cities that viewers would not, go to that also have rich histories and original literary scene as well. >> people have heard a history of the big cities like new york and l.a., chicago but what about the smaller ones like albany new york? what's the history of them? >> we been to over 75 cities. we will have it 95 cities in april 2016. >> most of our coverage is event coverage. these are not event coverage type pieces. they are shorter and take you someplace, to a home a historic place. >> we partnered with our cable athletes to explore the history and literary culture varies cities. >> the key entry is the cable operator who then contacts the city. in essence that's the cable industry bringing us there. >> really looking for great characters. you really want your viewers to be able to identify with these people that we are talking about speed it's an experience i program where we're taking people on the road to places where they can touch and see things without, not just local issue because lot of the local history plays into the national story. >> if somebody is watching this they should be enticing enough that they can get the id of the story but also feel as if it's just in our backyard, let's go see get. >> we want viewers to get a sense that i know that place just from watching one of our pieces. >> the c-span mission as we do with all of our coverage bleeds into we do out on the road. >> you got to give to communicate a message about this network in order to do this job. so it's done the one thing that we wanted it to do which is build relationships with the city and our cable partners and gather some great programming for american history tv and booktv. >> watch a cities tour on the c-span networks to see where we're going next see our schedule at c-span.org/cities tour. >> now a look at a state of journalism, dartmouth college hosted a discussion by newspaper editors on the state of the missing a national news coverage topics included government nonstate threats to free expression, american news media coverage for the u.s. global power and the state of in depth news coverage. this is about two hours. >> i have to admit that this is a special treat for me today because in addition to being a news junkie, i am a former newspaper reporter, and i truly value great journalism. and this age of disruptive digital communication, it's gratifying to know that we still have some fascinating, fabulous newspapers like the "washington post," "the new york times," "the wall street journal," the valley news, among others. and so i am honored to introduce our first speaker. marty baron grew up in miami. and graduating from lehigh since then he's been a newspaperman. worked at "the miami herald," the "los angeles times," "the new york times," "the boston globe," and since 2012 2012 is the executive editor of the "washington post." as editor of some of these newspapers, particularly "the miami herald" and "boston globe" and the "washington post" his team at these newspapers have one, by my count 10 enterprises for excellence in journalism. the most recent one -- [applause] -- at the "washington post" was earlier this year when he and his team won the pulitzer for the series on the secret service lapses in protecting the president of the united states. great series of stories. marty is a fine journalist. he also has a keen interest in art, art museums collects art. and altogether i'm very proud to be able to present one of the best newspaper editors in the nation, marty baron. [applause] >> thank you very much tom for the very kind introduction. and i'm delighted to be up to speak with you all here today. i'm especially pleased to be able to share the stage today with transform. restored our careers together in the late 1970s at "the miami herald" as reporters there. so wonderful to be with her here today. the subject of want to discuss that is the subject that is close to my heart, critical to my profession. and i believe vital for democracy, human dignity and personal liberty. the subject is freedom of expression. the case for freedom of expression was made long ago and among the most eloquent proponents was john milton and his ideas helped set the course for own principles today. in 1644 milton wrote this. give me the liberty to know to either and to argue freely according to concepts. above all liberties. today in much of the world that liberty is either nonexistent or in jeopardy. and let me start by telling you about two recent encounters of mine. in january of last year i spoke with a defect in in the government of the internet. we talked about surveillance by the national security agency and now the agency -- into international data networks. this is a subject we covered intensely of the "washington post" and for which we along with the guardian in great britain had won a pulitzer prize in 2014. i was interested in what this is the official was hearing as he traveled the world in the aftermath of disclosures that originated with edward snowden. snowden's massive leaks of highly classified documents have revealed some of the nations most sensitive national security secrets. much of the worldwide reaction until the point have fallen into the category of outrage. rights activists and government officials have decried the use of governments aggressive intrusion into the privacy of citizens of other countries. foreign governments protested that even the privacy of presidents and prime ministers in countries that were our allies have been breached. the nsa had listened in on their phone conversations. but as this their official traveled asia outrage was not what he heard. what did he hear? jealousy. leaders told them we have excellent computer sciences at why haven't have we been able to do this? and they aspire to monitor their own citizens as skillfully as the u.s. government had. that story is number one, and now story number two. early this summer i was visited in washington by the owners, editors, and legal counsel of a leading newspaper in ecuador. they sought to bring attention to the ways in which the government of ecuador was strangling the press a dictating what it prints, threatening crippling fines. pressuring media outlets end of they would become gossip, deferential, compliant. is june they were fined $350,000 by the government on the grounds that it failed to satisfy all requirements for publishing a response either government to one of its stories. a two-year old communications law provides that individuals who feel the dignity or honor has been damaged i immediate report have the right to respond. in this case they have published a story about ecuador's health care system under the headline 1.7 billion in federal debt impairs health care system. that paper has sought to into the health care officials prior to publication even sent a list of questions. the request went on answered. when the story was published it was sharply criticized by ecuador's president. e. that question the statistics, statistics as it turned out came directly on the health care system itself. and in his secretary of communications ordered them to publish a rebuttal, which it did. but the rebuttal did not carry -- also written by the secretary of to communications. and it did not carry a headline crafted either secretary that accompanied its rebuttal. the secretary ordered the summary published and it ordered its headline published, and el universo then complain. so the headlines and then read the health care system has made progress that will improve even more in the coming years. on top of that the newspaper now have to pay a fine for alleged noncompliance with the law regarding rebuttal, a fine equivalent to 10% of its average revenue in the previous quarter. so the fine total $350,000. with each occurrence of a particular offense, a fine is doubled. it continues doubling without limits. defined and pressure are having what seems to be the intended effect. in 2014, four media outlets closed largely as a result of this so-called organic to communications law. in short in ecuador the press will either buckle to the government or the government will break it. "el universo" calls these legal maneuvers expropriation, and rightly so. the two stories i've told say something about free expression. can be threatened from many directions, and that is what is happening. not long ago the world hoped for better. we seem to be entering a new era of free expression brought about by the internet, social media and smart phones. some concluded that since mutation would flourish in a way previously unimagined. and that governments, even the most autocratic, would be denied a tight control that kept him in power. this idea took firm root during the arab spring which began at the tail end of 2010 with the tunisian revolution, and then spread to the arab world. with protest in egypt against the regime of mubarak the world marveled at the impact of social media. how can be used to organize and facilitate free expression, how it might overcome repression. it was a hopeful time for those who believed in the liberating power of technology over the traditional too often tyrannical powers of government. truth moves faster than lies and propaganda becomes flammable, wrote paul mason in 2011. he said that only this of the network more powerful than the hierarchy, but the ad hoc network it becomes easier to form. in a book digital media and the arab spring philip howard, professor at the university of washington and a doctoral student noted social media a little did not cause the people in north africa but information technology including mobile phones and the internet altered the capacity of citizens and civil society actors to affect domestic politics. to be fair hopefulness came with caution. the authors of those commentaries recognized that the technology also together with the opportunity to monitor citizens ultimately distinguish their voices and their movements. professor howard noted in one interview that authoritarian regimes have come to value digital media also executed services in bahrain iran, saudi arabia and syria observed how democracy advocates were using social media in egypt and tunisia, develop counterinsurgency strategies that allowed for them to surveil, mislead and entrap protesters. just the other week in the "washington post" we published a series of threats to press freedom and journalists worldwide. that document how the security associate of the arab world now exploits sophisticated surveillance technologies to suppress dissent. we wrote egypt is implement in a social network security hazard monitoring project that allows for keyword searching and trend analysis on facebook, twitter, instagram, google, and other such. at any time a minimum of 30 analyst to monitor huge streams of data in both classical and colloquial arabic, according to 2014 interior ministry request for proposal leaked to the egyptian media. the question now is this. and it is a big win. who will prevent any competition as each side deploying technology as tools and weapons. will be the ordinary citizens and activists who aimed to circumvent undermine it out with autocratic government? i will be the governments which possess the capacity to monitor communication as never before? in the book, the new digital age, failing for optimism. authoritarian government, they wrote, will find the newly connected population more difficult to control, suppressing influence what their critics this will be forced to include many more voices, individuals organizations and companies in their affairs. and yet they noted, how often authoritarian government will have powerful weapons of their own. the ride as they were from the position is the keeper in the world of conductivity. states had the enormous amount of power over the mechanics of the internet in their own countries. because states have power over the physical infrastructure connectivity requires. transmission power the routers switches, to control the entry, exit and waypoint for internet data. they can limit content control the hardware people are allowed to use even create separate internets. regimes may compromise the devices before they are ever sold they pointed out. and individuals who use encryption software to avoid censorship or surveillance or something to protect their most private information, will become objects of suspicion. authoritarian governments can apply enormous pressure. they noted states can set up random checkpoints or rate certain people's devices for encryption. the presence of which concerned in fines, jail time, or spot a government based of of interest. everyone who don't have downloaded a circumvention measure will suddenly find life more difficult. and they raised the prospect of countries will create their own domain name system the new government has yet succeeded in alternative system, they write, but if the government succeeds in doing so it would effectively unplug its population from the global internet, and instead offer only a close national internet. china, which by the way fails more shows than any other country, poverty blocks and filters information on sites with gusto. turkey has blocked thousands of sites, and its prime minister once ordered twitter shut down. youtube has been blocked in pakistan and the government has demanded many hundreds of times that facebook remove content. at google ideas, a company that exists to support free expression government attempts to censor the internet are seen as falling into basically three categories. one, what they call server-side such a ship. this consists of so-called distributed denial of service attacks. number two called censorship on the wire. is primarily consists of national firewalls that block access to undesirable foreign content. this could also include states leveraging their control of domain name internet service and providers to try to hide content. relatively few countries are doing this right now. and, third client-side censorship of this increase includes called phishing and malware attacks to monitor independent journalist and activists. this is becoming a very popular technique for national governments. at the core of the battle over the internet is a philosophical and legal dispute over who has dominion over the internet and those who should govern it and how. earlier this year a visiting law professor at ucla laid out the issue into "georgetown law journal." two competing visions of cyberspace has emerged so far. russia and china advocate for sovereignty base model of cyber governance. that prioritizes state control. while the united states united kingdom and their allies argue that cyberspace should be governed by state alone. in the early days of the internet the creators should not be governed by state so i should say. in the early days of the internet, it's craters advocates, protectors and many of the users argued with no small measure of bravado that the internet had superseded government. the internet belongs only to its users, they insisted, and government has no role. in 1996 john kerry barlow, cofounder of electronic freedom foundation issued a so-called a declaration of the independence of cyberspace. governments of the industrial world, he proclaimed, you weary giants of flesh and steel i come from cyberspace, the new home of mind and on behalf of the future i ask you of the past to leave us alone. you are not welcome among us. you have no sovereignty where we gather. division clyde it with some in continue physical facts. this was noted by some legal academics, including in the book who controls the internet illusions. they took on the notion of the internet as a place of its own. the internet after all relied on some fairly mundane things. underneath it all they wrote is an ugly physical transport infrastructure, copper wires fiber optic cables and a specialized routers that direct information from place to place. the fact is governments deregulate the internet and we are now faced with the question of how far they will go in asserting control. should internet be regarded like other domains that fall outside national boundaries, the high seas, outer space the antarctica? in other words, should the internet be regarded as a global comet, subject to international agreed upon norms? or instead she to be viewed as every nations own airspace, that would put the internet under each nations individual total control. in the absence of consensus some countries are not waiting for one. russia and china are the leaders, treating the internet more as an internal system that is affairs to rule. that is diplomatic of what has become a free expression in those countries. if there was once the spark of freedom, there was a lease that, it is now being snuffed out. today most russians get their information from state-controlled broadcasters, disseminating propaganda conspiracy in ways big and small. one example, after the shootout of the malaysian airline in ukraine intelligence pointed to rebel troops as the source of the missile that took the lives of 290 people. but in russian media alternative explanations proliferated. each one more far-fetched than the next. russian media claimed that the ukrainians shot down the plane. they claimed the cia provided health. they asserted that the plane might of been mistaken for vladimir putin's, making it a target. they claimed bodies on the ground were planted there. at the time the editor-in-chief of russia 24 said this. as state tv, our mission is to support the interests of the state. official opinions are determined to give -- determinative for our program, or channels. state control and manipulation of television stations and newspapers is one thing but the internet in russia has long been largely uncensored. that is no longer the case. early last year russian authorities were given the power to block websites without any official explanation. almost immediately more russian opposite websites were blocked. by the summer of last year, speech on the internet was constrained even further. new rules required anyone with a daily online audience of more than 3000 people to register with russia's internet oversight agency. names and contact details were to be provided. and bloggers would be held liable for anything deemed misinformation. including comments from members of the public. late last year a new russian law requires that data about russian users be stored on computer servers within the country. that way russia would have easy access to information about the use of facebook, twitter, google, and other services. the russian government already had an arsenal of lost they could use against those speaking for you. the new rules created additional risks. bloggers were more likely to muzzle themselves for fear of fines and criminal prosecution. many of the rules are considered vague and confusing. but ambiguity is often a weapon in the hands of government and that is the case in russia today. as george packer wrote in "the new yorker," in russia vladimir putin has been masterful at creating an atmosphere in which there are no clear rules so that intellectuals anarchists stifle themselves in order not to run afoul of vague laws and even vaguer social pressure. until this point i only talked about official suppression of free speech and a free press. but the threats are broader more menacing than that. nonstate actors can be and even greater danger. two images last year cannot be forgotten. those of the images of james foley and steven sotloff independent journalist executed by the islamic state. their faith made horrifyingly clear the risks that journalists have now faced and come in telling the world what they see. this year, islamist terrorists slaughtered staffers at "charlie hebdo," in reaction to caricatures of mohammed. and then there's what happened behind walls, unseen deliberately hidden from public view. and i think now for the "washington post" correspondent in tehran jason resigned held in iran's worst prism suffering physically and emotionally for more than a year or he has been targeted with phony charges of espionage and other supposed offenses for which there has been no evidence. and he has had to endure a sham trial were evidence and fairness and the basic principles of due process clearly do not matter. these are just the publicized incidents. the committee to protect journalists knows that while both coverage and attacks against the press our focus on well-connected journalists nine and 10 killed our local reporters covering local years violence against journalists has soared to record levels you can average of more than one journalist is killed every week. in places like mexico reporting on drug cartels, crime syndicates and corruption is a deadly business. and just week of june 28 this year, three journalists were killed there. rarely are killers found and prosecuted. much of the world rarely are they actively pursued. all of this imposes an obligation on journalists for news organizations in the united states where, despite our own concerns, we enjoy freedoms unimagined and the rest of the world. we are able to write what our professional colleagues in other countries cannot. their lives and those of their families would be at risk. by longtime china correspondent for "the new yorker" put it well recently, so in concluding, i will quote him. the correspondent which enjoy the freedom to write what we know, we have a responsibility to do it not only for the sake of our readers, but for the sake of reporters who don't enjoy the same privileges. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, marty. that was wonderful. the next speaker is also a very distinguished journalist. elisabeth bumiller was born in denmark, grew up in cincinnati northwestern columbia school of journalism, and then went on to a long career as a journalist. she has been a reporter and a correspondent for the new york for the "washington post," was in new delhi, tokyo, joined the new times i think it was in 1995. she's had many different assignments there, covering the white house during the period after 9/11 also covering the pentagon. she became the washington editor of "the new york times" in february of this year where she organizes and directs coverage from maybe 30 or so reporters in the washington bureau of the times. while doing all of this she also managed to write some books. in india, for example, she wrote a best selling story about women having sons exact title escapes me now. i wrote it down. [inaudible] >> you can do it later. and then in tokyo, she managed to write a book about family life in japan while being the mother of a four year old and an infant, and that was real juggling on her part. her book about condoleezza rice a biography, is available in the rear. no, and elisabeth will be available to sign copies for sale by the bookstore during the break. so please join me in welcoming elisabeth bumiller from "the new york times." [applause] >> thank you tom. the title of my book is a long one, is maybe the mother of 100 sons. it's an ironic title because it's about the kind of values that are placed expectations placed upon women ended the. anyway, thank you. it's wonderful to be here. it's a beautiful place to spend a day or two. and it's great to share the stage with marty is the preferred met at a miami herald. we cross paths at "the new york times," not the "washington post." you can see how small this fraternity as journalists in this country. we all know each other. a little more than 30 years ago can i read this without my glasses? i think i can. i arrived in the middle of the night in new delhi with my husband to get our first overseas assignment. i was a reporter for the "washington post" and my husband had just finished five years as a white house correspondent of "the new york times." i was 28 and could be no farther from the trinity in your. i still remember stepping out of the door of the plane. this was long before the completion of the modern endure county international ever, and being assaulted by the dense fog and the overpowering smoky sweet smell of burning cow dung fires people choose to cook and keep warm. at the house on pashtun the best address a lot of i wrote my us to do the washing post on a manual typewriter. active at an ibm selectric and certainly not the computer comes used to because of all the power failures. when i was done i took my copy to the local reuters office where it was punched out on a teletype and sent to washington. there was no internet in those days, not even seeming to defy that was going on even i would read the local indie papers the express, listen to the bbc world service. there was one television station in india, the government run which ran documentaries on fertilizer plants. and i she was completely unwatchable. [laughter] "the new york times" arrived in new york by mail in these late all world. in those days was not the economic powerhouse as it is now. so people back in the china india was an afterthought the if they thought about it at all. and get to a lot of americans newspaper correspondents covering it. times a day. as did the "washington post" "the wall street journal," the "los angeles times," the "baltimore sun" "the philadelphia inquirer" "time" magazine, ap and upi were there. wrote about the new prime minister, about politics, about culture, about poverty and about economics. debate ended that the situation is quite different. india has emerged as a major player on the world stage roughly china and the bigger story than it ever was, and yet "time" magazine, the "baltimore sun," "the philadelphia inquirer" for much the last few years the "los angeles times" are all gone. the larger picture if you look at traditional newspapers in foreign policy coverage is worse. in 2003 the "american journalism review" reported that 10 newspapers in one newspaper chain employed 307 full-time correspondent. in 2010 the last time they did the survey that number had fallen to 234 full-time correspondents. agr also found since 1998 20 newspapers shut their viewers overseas into the is is a grim situation? not exactly. not if you look more closely. to international news coverage is now concentrated in the hands of big papers, the times, "wall street journal," the post and in many places the "l.a. times" but the vast reach of the internet, the times has 16 million unique visitors each month. ensures that overseas coverage is seen by far more people than we ever imagined back in the 1980s. "the associated press" has gone to some 3700 employees working in 116 countries, many of them local hires. "bloomberg news" didn't exist was in india hasek global south of one-to-one foreign bureaus in 76 countries. national public radio has surely gone and now has 17 overseas bureaus. on top of that that the new entries to the scene like global post which james foley worked for, and which -- are covered you don't always see any major media. and 2012 global post won a peabody award for his videos on india, that's because the drug was, an epidemic of kidnappings in shanghai. then there's the hottest new entry on the scene. every young person wants to work for vice which new online financial proposition. last month they edited president obama in oklahoma. they take their video cameras some of the world's most dangerous places. they have a five part series on isis which they spent a lot of time in iraq and syria, very dangerous. but his feet and "huffington post" have also begun to form coverage. -- buzz feed it to my mind the report the death of four news coverage in this country are the exaggerated. it just comes in a different form. not in front of you in your daily newspaper unless it's the times or the post unavailable in depth and richness and in this quantity if you know where to look for it which is on the internet. let's look at these two for positions that you cover the world, specific topic america's power around around the world which is the topic was asked to speak about and whether that feeds the narrative of an america in decline. i don't expect you all to read because you go to college students right? it's okay if you didn't. first on the list with chapter two of my colleagues book obama's secret wars. chapter two is called afghan good enough. is a smart look at the review process but obama with your invite 2009 out of the afghan search to send 30,000 additional american troops to afghanistan. he had already sent that march the first batch of 70,000 troops to afghanistan shortly after he took office and he was loath to escalate the war and felt pressure from his military commanders. but the white house had come to the realization that the war was being lost. i think the title of -- how obama's afghan policy came to be known is that the governor afghan good enough. the administration would do just what it has to and no more. general mcchrystal who was then the top american commander in afghanistan had wanted far more troops, as they as 80000, but obama said less. there was no the projection of american power. no especially since obama said a withdrawal date for american forces at the same time he denounced the surge. the idea was the afghans can be better trained by the united states in the meantime and to have to learn how to defend their country on their own. i set my own small part and saw firsthand that in 2010 that the potential and great limits of american power in the world. in the spring and fall of 20 still a pentagon reporter i in bed with a group of female marines in helmand province in southern afghanistan which is a taliban stronghold women were not allowed in combat in the marines, but an experiment that your sort of regulation the marines to small groups of women held within two or three at a time out with all-male infantry foot patrols into remote and dangerous pockets of helmand. back in united states was to engage in those called the counterinsurgency strategy. that is trying to win over the local population by protecting them from holding schools and clinics and roads meeting with village elders. the thought was that it gets some women on the ground, female marines, they couldn't engage with afghan women after the population -- half of the population which was off limits to american men. so over two weeks in may, that year, two weeks later in september i was there with the marines. as we sat over endless cups of tea and also went on about danger because of doctor what the marines could do for various villages. a school a well a health care center jobs. it was the ultimate projection of america's soft power and he was very well-meaning. i am certain, i know some afghan women ended up with very good feelings about the marines. but it was a drop in the bucket the bringing the population over to the side of the united states and the afghan government was going to take a very very, very long time. decades that obama did not have. i next asked you don't have a chapter about condoleezza rice. this is what she said after she noted, while exercising at 5 a.m., news crawls across the bottom of the television screen she was watching said in wake of hamas, palestinian cabinet resigns. this was not what they expected or she decided the news had to be run so she kept exercising. a continued and continued her, she got off the machine and called the state department. she recalled what happened next inner editor i had with her for my book. she said, as the state department what happened to the palestinian election? they said hamas won. and i thought oh my goodness hamas won? with a she such a backwater into the cauldron and said i thought so phish exercising. this is going to be a really long day. that was a projection that was correct. the united states had pushed hard for the elections to consolidate power. and as a symbol of the new stirrings of democracy in the bush administration promised the middle is the they had not expected the wrong party to win. a year later when she found safety with this problem in the middle east, she thought again about the election and how it reflected a certain way of american power. i think they're plenty of things they could have done to help hamas but not every problem is amenable to u.s. solution she told them. that's one of the first inject realize, not everything that goes wrong is america's fault. which brings me to some of the new york times stories i include in the bibliography. in a story about saudi arabia's airstrikes against rebels in yemen, airstrikes were killing hundreds of civilians. it showed the limitations of american strategy. in other words, the obama administration has chosen to work with and help allies in west africa to the middle east rather than putting large groups of american troops on the ground that most americans would say that's a good idea but when one of your allies, in this case saudi arabia, these airstrikes you have a lot of -- control over them. in the same way you can't the distort the march but how american strategy in iraq increasingly relies on iran to the lead in her story says it all. at a time when president obama is under political pressure from congressional republicans over negotiations to rein in iran's nuclear ambitions, a startling paradox has emerged. mr. obama is becoming increasingly dependent on iranian fighters as he tries to maintain ice in iraq and syria without getting american ground troops. a former special adviser put it the only way in which the obama administration can credibly stick with its strategy is by implicitly assuming that the iranians would carry most of the weight and win the battles on the ground. i cite these examples, i know this has been long since the what not american power is america's in decline i cite these examples not as evidence of an american retreat but as an example to the purpose of journalism. people have often asked what i talked about political reporting if i think the press is biased. i replied that the press does have a bias a bias towards conflict and trouble. we focus on what's wrong, what needs fixing. that's our responsibility of our job, to fix those problems. this year alone he read in "the new york times" about the exploitation of male salon workers in new york, the lack of oversight of the seal team six, the shocking lawlessness on the high seas. and i think our foreign policy coverage and overseas coverage is much the same. judiciary to write about the big success at the we read a six column banner headlines and multiple stories today the iranian deal was announced in vienna. but since then of course, including on page one of the new york times today we focus on the resistance the deal is getting in congress and how obama is fighting hard to win democrats even democrats to his side. that as robert hagan says every failure of the united states to get its, every failure of the united states to get its way in the world tends to reinforce the impression of a nation in decline. arabs and israelis refused to make peace -- peace. isis on the the rise. china accented office of personnel management and exposes millions of personal records of federal workers. look at the numbers. the u.s. is to the richest economy in the world and is unmatched military strength. i know this from covering the pentagon. the pentagon budget is 600 billion, more than that of all the other great powers combined. to be sure china's economy is on the rise. but the idea that we now have less power in the world has been around for decades. the fear in the united states of the rising soviet union in the 1950s. after the american withdrawal in vietnam in the 1970s, the rise of opec the a ring hostage crisis in the late 1980s the incredible economic boom in japan which is going to take over the world. remember? i lived in tokyo in those years and i was there when president george h. to the bush camp over what three american automakers to try to convince the japanese to buy american cars. instead, they ended up getting sick in the lap of a japanese prime minister. terrible metaphor. and the japanese that fun of our cars and told me that the americans were lazy. that was a problem. we didn't work as hard as the japanese. naturally at the foreign correspondent in tokyo had days and days of page one stories after that disastrous. in conclusion, i think of immediate including the proliferation of new media has done a very good job of covering the day-to-day setbacks, crises and conflicts that reflect the state of america's power. often it is a dangerous awe-inspiring work. marty mentioned some of it. look at what he is now look at dexter that worked he did in iraq. john burns great correspondence correspondence. .. she's not the pentagon correspondent for the times. she has my old job. she's a very brave, courageous work in liberia, but also the stress of going back to her own country and having to see it through american eyes in a way. look at our coverage of kosovo in the late 1990s. i was there myself as well. kosovo called and obviously i look at the bigger picture. you can say the rise of the asian economy in the last 25 years means america has a smaller relative piece of the economic pie. i'm sure this came up in previous lectures. the u.s. economy is 19% compared to 25% 25 years ago. the result of the rise of the asian economies and also latin america is millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. it's not enough of course that's a lot of people and i don't see how that doesn't benefit the united states. and yet there's a story don't read about quite so often because it's actually harder to get a handle on and cover than the war you will be right in the middle of. you really conclude, it's important to step back and build beyond our comparative of the first chaotic draft of history and put all the conflict and resolution and context in the way that reflects as much as is possible in real time, which is america's larger place in the world. thank you. [applause] >> banks elisabeth. that was wonderful. we will take an early break now. don't forget to submit your question and when you return, we are going to sit on these chairs and start the process. what happened there. looks like our russian hacking coming up. anyway enjoy the break and we break and we'll see you soon. don't forget elizabeth spoke about condoleezza rice is in the atrium for sale and signing. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, i think we are ready to start. what i propose to do is to ask each of the speakers that question. we have so many questions here will take us until 3:00 to get finished. i will ask each one a question and then there may be some questions to respond to. the first one to elisabeth. your cover the white house. white house. as white house. is it true the obama administration is the most secretive administration in recent history of the most manipulative of the press? [laughter] >> i can tell you our previous executive editor, jill abramson said it's the most secretive in history. she's no longer with us maybe that's why. [laughter] i do think there are special challenges -- >> how is this? is that okay? >> over to you. anyway she quoted jill abramson, former executive editor of "the new york times" essay and not about the and frustration. >> is this any better? so i will say the obama administration has a lot of challenges. certainly if you look at -- is this better? let's get rid of this thing. if you look at the nsa -- [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] about drone strikes and made the decision, the executive editor made the decision to name the senior officers who were running the cia trained 10 program. there was controversy and criticism at the time but felt very strongly that since the pentagon program is public and the officers to write at our public and this was a huge part of american power and foreign policy that the officer should be named. the point is there's a great deal of secrecy in the administration and a challenge to cover. in terms of the white house, where for white house correspondents. peter baker will tell you how difficult it is because of the problem i had in the bush administration this outline secrecy for you is one way. the other problem is getting access to their thinking and the debate inside the white house about policy decisions. but it's really hard to get back in real time. i have a problem of finally getting in to see somebody and then you just get talking points. like you had no real conversation about why they were debating certain point because they don't want to have you write it as conflict. access to their thinking is important. it is getting easier now in the last 18 months because like an administration because i can administration bear this may not, and a cd end in sight. the president himself has certainly been much more open about his thinking. that is a long way of answering to say yes there are serious challenges in covering any white house but certainly this one. >> marty, do you have any observations about? here's a question for you. you've been an editor of important newspapers and have a lot of experience with different owners and publishers. can you give us insight on what it's like to be the editor under jeff bestows, the new editor of the "washington post"? >> sure. [laughter] over a year and a half ago he was unusual buyer obviously for an organization and it was fully annexed by it. nobody knew he had any interest in our field and nobody expected the family had been on such a long period of time. it's actually been a good experience because jeff brings to the post said things that we need. he brings questions about the way we do things in a different way of thinking about it certainly the hard questions about how we approach our work. number two, ideas for things we can do and an openness to our ideas but also his own ideas and we need fresh ideas in our field and the industry who understand particularly technology and the way information is communicated and shared. thirdly unfortunately that has been great. where do. where we have to make the transition to web is the digital society now. with that in a global society. we been willing to fund all sorts of experiments and try and work for a period of time and providing a runway where we can think before we take off. we are not supposed to land. but only take off on this runway. no landing allowed. so i think it has been a very good experience and we've grown very rapidly. we are growing more rapidly than anybody am for not standpoint it's been really terrific. >> can you give a specific example of an experiment that has worked and one that is failed? >> althoff about failures. especially since this is being televised and there's hundreds of people here. we've had a number in something called morning next in the enviable hours of 10:00 at night until 8:00 in the morning and they look all over the world all of the internet for stories that can be done. to develop stories in their own distinct way of the stories get posted at 5:00 in the morning or earlier. they deal with a lot of content in the morning, written in a way that is particularly suited to the web which is different from the way you would write the newspaper. has been quite successful. we also started something called loose everything more we invite outside writers to write for us and typically a lot of board or individuals write about their own personal experiences. they've done extremely well. but they are most popular was one they are to have good headlines and one was what happened when i drove my mercedes to pick up my food stamps. [laughter] very popular piece. people of different minds about this individual. it was widely shared. >> thinks. this is a question for both of you starting with the list a bit. how do you explain the success of fox news and related to god is what is your opinion about the future of print journalism? >> fox news appeals to a committed audience of people who believe who are the same -- on the television here who believe in much of the fox news point of view. it's not a surprise. it is lively, engaging and has a very strong point of view and confirms to a lot of people the political bullies who watch it. it's not a surprise. cnn is doing something very different which is being a straight news organization. what was the rest of the question? the future of print journalism. for now, i can tell you i talk about the times and the future of print journalism. for now we see a print in "the new york times" coming out for the foreseeable future. i can't predict how many more years that would be or if it's ever going to go away but certainly a daily circulation is something less than 700,000. our digital only subscribers are closed to a million. you can see what is happening and that is the pay wall. people are paying for the subscription. right now most of the revenue comes from print advertising. there's been an recent digital advertising revenue but it hasn't caught up with brains. right now we are still committed to the print newspaper but a huge amount of focus is on web especially on phones because that is where the readership is really going. the senior editors like to say we don't care how you get your news you can get it in a number of ways. we just want you to still get it. right now and marty can talk about this a huge huge push in the newsroom to get our stories out in front of people "-end-quotes editors to push out our stories in front of the right people. there's a lot of energy and optimism in the newsroom right now. print, i don't know. >> the future of journalism broadly as good. there's a lot of things we can do in terms of storytelling that we couldn't do before. we are reaching people all over the world and they can get information instantaneously and away they could not before. we can provide video that they would want to see. you name it. a lot of things we can do. it will be challenging. as far as print is concerned, i said this publicly in speeches that we have to move beyond the ideas that print will be a big part of what we do for a very long time. it won't. i don't know what the end it isn't probably won't come to a hard end. it will be a print product, but i don't think you'll be a big part of news organizations for much longer. it is a digital world we live in whether we like it or not. it's a mobile world. so many people are getting information on smartphones. "the new york times" as well as just about every consideration comes from mobile devices and a portion of the traffic from mobile devices is not directly to us but by facebook and other social media. so you have a huge younger audience reading their news via facebook getting a facebook feed and linking to a story that might come from "the new york times." a very different way of getting your news. people should go out and seek their news is the next big nation and what they are interested in should somehow magically appear in front of them and we will know what they're interested in or their friends will share with them but there's not an expectation to necessarily go to a destination and there they will find information. >> if i could follow-up on not with the question related to the economics. first the revenue stream for journalism. facebook is the prime window so to speak, where does the "washington post" give revenue from the business model? >> obviously we get digital revenue and there's two sources just as there were two primary sources of digital revenue just as two sources of print revenue. that is sort of the same we had before oddly enough. the problem with the advertising side is the rates are lower than they were before. we used to think we were in a competitive new sound. we talked about it as a competitive news talent. now we are competing with everybody. also it's a site. cnn, fox "huffington post." for advertising they compete with google, facebook. we compete with twitter and these behemoths much larger than we are. so the nonevent in tory online the more inventory you have to lower the advertising rates differently. so it's a hugely challenging environment for that. we are all struggling to figure out a sustainable economic model. the very important factor is elizabeth has mentioned our subscriptions. they've done better than anybody else. that is great. on the other hand, pretty much leveled out so that is now a challenge for how we generate growth if your overall description revenues have plateaued. >> as a result, there is a push for foreign subscription. there is a big push now. it not finished, but a big push to see how many english speakers we can get overseas and grow the international audience. there's also a chinese language which of course they say she is about but a lot of spare events going on with the translated versions. so there's a lot of english speakers all over the world and we think of them as potential readers and subscribers. >> elizabeth this is a question about the times coverage of hillary clinton. in the sunday edition, margaret sullivan took the time to task for its coverage of the alleged criminal action by hillary in the use of e-mails. she said her blog that she posted about this got more attention than anything she's ever written. do you have any views about how the times has covered clinton on this issue with the e-mails? >> well, the post ran a hillary clinton story this morning on e-mails. you might want to ask marty. >> come on marty. >> i'm not going to go beyond what our executive editor -- i'm not going to go beyond what our executive editor said about this in margaret sullivan's long column about this. just that this is a difficult question for me to answer with this large crowd. i just want to say you know the sourcing on this story, as dean said we had high-level sources across multiple layers of government. and they told us the wrong thing. they were still telling us the run in the next morning. so you can say we should've called this story well. it has been a difficult thing for the times. i think with daybreak this story originally. michael schmidt broke the story and the clinton administration -- the clinton campaign has pushed back very strongly. that's all i want to say about it. marty can talk about their e-mail story this morning, which broke some ground. and just one more thing. sometimes you know, margaret sullivan is our public editor. she is not an editor at "the new york times." although she is in the newsroom, she is an outside person who is hired to pass judgment on what the editors have reported in "the new york times" news. it is not an internal criticism. she's an outsized doors. some people sometimes get that confused understandably. if she criticizes a reporter the reporter was criticized by "the new york times" senior editor. she's an outside person hired specifically to critique the times every day basically. >> a couple questions for you relating to the "washington post" in iran. first, should the united states pay ransom to free captured journalists and show that issue has been much more of the next was a condition for the recently negotiated iran nuclear treaty? >> the administration asked a to pay ransom, so that is not really relevant for this situation. the issue has come up whether they happen to be journalists or other people and whether the families themselves should pay rent them and whether the united states should prohibit the pain of ransom as in the past. i'm not going to take a position on that. i am responsible for the news and features coverage of the posts. my job is to make sure we approach things in an objective way. i don't take a position on all the issues in front of people, including what should've been the terms of the nuclear deal the administration arrived at. we believe that he should be released immediately that he did absolutely nothing wrong. but as part of the nuclear deal or not, the reality is he did not engage in espionage. there's no evidence he had any other offense and no reason for him to have been arrested in the first place and no reason for him to have been an iranian prison, the worst prison now for a year and that has nothing -- that assorted independent of the nuclear agreement. >> turning to this country what if any threats to utc to the journalism and reporting in the united states? >> you know, i think freedom of journalists and reporting -- well financial. the financial difficulties have hit a lot of medium-size newspapers really hard and they've cut way back on staff, overseas reporting as they talk about. global coverage from the statehouse reporting all of the stories he used to see about corruption and state legislators. there is less and less of that in the country. i don't see any repression. maybe marty can come up with an end. in washington in the usual problem of background sources. it's hard to name sources of national security reporting in particular. i don't see any repression in this country in terms of the government. again you get the white house the obama administration will strenuously object to some stories. but no one orders us to stop publishing. >> i think the concern in washington is primarily this is also government levels and that is slow responses to freedom of information act requests, not responsive to freedom of information act request documents when they are finally released are heavily redacted that you waited years for her. those kinds of things. investigations have taken place in which "the new york times" has been central to that and face imprisonment for not disclosing source. those kind of investigation, the persistence of that approach and the number of people in government feel they shouldn't speak to the press. they fear that they would become objects of suspicion because there is evidence they communicated. if at some point you think that reporter might get access to information and you would become an object of suspicion and be subject to an investigation, have to hire a lawyer and have your entire career upended. in washington that is a serious concern. there were are people who responded they don't e-mail me and they send you back in e-mail and copy the press operation and say don't e-mail me. don't contact me ever again. here is the press contact and that's the end of it. another levels, the issue of the public records request is serious that the state and local level as well. you see a strong resistance on the part of state local governments to see information they are required under law. the greatest threat to the press in the united states comes from the press itself and that is sometimes a lack of courage to publish things. people are concerned about being accused of what the impact might be on the financial circumstances and organization at the time we are financially challenged. that is something we ourselves have to deal with and overcome many concerns and show the courage to publish what the facts are and what the public should know. >> this is a question about in-depth coverage. and in depth coverage provided by the site daily newspaper rather than a weekly such as the london economist. >> i will speak for my own organization. when i mentioned in my talk, you know, seal team six, the nail salon story, the violence and lawlessness in the shocking events on the high seas though so eight nine 10 11,000 words. people read them on their smartphones, believe it or not. there is a real place for that coverage in the daily newspaper like "the new york times" because those kind of stories run. there's much more available when you look on the web. so i don't think we would all retreat from that. the times never has. it's completely committed to what we call longform journalism multipart series. huge amount of commitment from the huge amount of resources reporters and editors and travel and graphic designers. >> we too are very committed to that. you can find that in depth reporting the major news organization today. we spent an enormous amount of resources understand the refugee crisis heading and landing in europe. we have looked in depth at isis what it's all about. in the midst of a major series looking to buy the internet is so vulnerable how it became that way and how it's been that way since the very beginning and that is an enormous expenditure of resources looking back at the history of the internet for the people who created it and whether they thought about security. the only security they thought about was a nuclear bomb. they didn't think about any other security to any great degree. we've embarked on a major series that i mentioned during my remarks about the threat around the world. did many others as well. we do it all the time. >> as the citizens united ruling support pete freedom of expression for most americans. >> one of the issues for this question and i think i speak for marty. you don't want -- we don't want to voice opinions here. i think obviously the stories we ran over the weekend in the last couple of days about the amount of money poured into these campaigns from a very small number of extremely rich people. this is not exactly what fred had an eye many years ago with campaign finance reform. i think we are covering it closely, but if you look at you can tell us what you think about a handful of extremely rich individuals being the main financiers of these campaigns, republican campaigns. ted cruz has a handful of people supporting my campaign. hardly what it's done is created to fill the 17 republican candidates. if you get a lot of money from a handful of people, you are on that stage tomorrow night. that is my answer. >> you know, i agree with elizabeth. i don't want to express a point of view of the supreme court decision. that is an opinion ordinary people can come to a conclusion on. >> what is your view about that donald trump phenomenon [laughter] frank bruni in "the new york times" on sunday suggested the media largely claims the phenomenon what he calls the of politics by innocuous stagecraft. >> frank, is a columnist because he has opinions. i can't imagine not covering donald trump right now. i will tell you what you have read everywhere which is right now trump is reaching into a very good amber group of americans who are tired of washington and points from politicians. i find it amazing and his income disclosures he was richer and perhaps that is. that is unheard of to have more money -- people think of more money than you do. it is really early. he hasn't been tested in a serious policy debate. right now it is the summer -- the real summer of the campaign and again he does appeal to a certain part of the united states. this morning that it's a wide range of people. i've got a look at that more closely. anyway he made the clinton campaign very happy. >> any views, marty? >> on frank's column i haven't read, for a while now i've been tempted to start a hash tag on twitter called blame the media. it must be the media's fault. it gets to be a little bit silly i think. as far as the concern we should draw from this if they have to be very skeptical of political pundits early on including people who specialize now in data specialists who are looking at the campaign and saying he was a serious candidate and who is not a serious candidate. we don't decide who the candidates are. we shouldn't predict who is going to be a serious candidate. we should take them all seriously and then the voters get to decide. this is clear evidence that the pundits don't always know what they're talking about. they can't predict who is going to be this serious candidate. no one did predict as far as i know. we have an honors someone who predicted donald trump would be the leader at this stage and look what is happening. >> this question relates to your comments marty although elizabeth could talk about this as well. however strictures on freedom of expression outside the united state? how are they likely to affect america's influence in power if at all? >> obviously the problem the times is facing in china are quite real. the website has been blocked from the chinese although they get around it. we've also had problems with getting correspondents into beijing because of the times coverage. that's a big problem. also now. so it is a significant problem. china comes to mind right away. you want to go on? go ahead. [laughter] i mean i think the blocking of access -- the united states is always generally maintained the free flow of information will accrue to its manifest, that what people will see how other people are living and other societies function, that accurate information will make its way into the information ecosystem and to the extent countries can control their internet. the theory begins to fall apart and the countries have greater control over what their citizens see a nausea probably make it more difficult for the united state to exercise its will in the world and people think that's a good thing for us to do. i think that would be the case and then for american journalists is extremely difficult to do their jobs. they can be arrested. they can be harassed. they can be prohibited at "the new york times" that has not been able to see receive visas. people with existing visas in china were there but they been denied visas because the chinese government is upset over some very good reporting in "the new york times" about corruption. that is true in other countries as well. >> there've been several questions about the fine line between reporting the news in shaping the news. when it comes to covering incidents relating to american power abroad fox news and msnbc tell different stories that seem to be trying to shape people's perception. is this right? >> yeah. it is what they see as their audience. msnbc on the left of box on the right. you can see it from the pic -- msnbc with rachel not out, especially in the evening very liberal. msnbc has always felt that works for them especially during political campaigns. if there is some debate about whether they want to do that. it certainly works as you go into a political campaign. again to watch programs that reinforce your beliefs that makes you feel good. cnn is right in the middle of his struggles at the knotty and although it's doing much better now because it presents as well straight nonreporting. that is the population. the senior people at both of the networks have made about appealing to a particular segment of the audience. whether it's right or wrong. >> i'm not sure whether it's right or wrong. and it is their business model and they recognize as is the case that many people if not most people go on to news organizations that affirm preexisting point of view. and so they feel more comfortable with it. they feel that their views are validated and they believe others are just wrong. it is not our business model for the two of us appear with your recommendations we represent. that's not what we want to be. people come to us for different reasons. >> related to.is a question about prominent journalists invited to go on talk shows. on one hand that helps brand the "washington post" and "the new york times." on the other hand when you get into a broadcast where there's a lot of opinions being formed to have nick brown rolls about what you tell the political reporter or someone like yourself elizabeth, going into situations , how do you tried that line between reporting and opinion for their byline is on these peacemakers? >> you know you stick on television a lot when i was covering the white house. other than inside the office all day quite a bit less so. the rules are you don't express opinions and you don't predict. you don't say so-and-so is going to win or whatever. you're also kind of boring. like today. you don't say -- marty and i both said things that were taken -- they were taken and people ran with them. it is an issue. you are on the shows because of their supposed expertise. god always asked the question that this is what my reporting has told me i guess i'm one hand democrats and republicans say it's trying to be measured. you've got george will and people who are opinion people expressing strong views and you are sitting there in the middle of a fight if you don't want to take sides, you can't take sides. so it is an issue. sometimes i would think no i'm not going to do that. it too hard. but we have colin cooper goes on "meet the press" all the time and is very careful. you are never as fiery or provocative or interesting as the opinion people on those shows. >> basically you can't say anything on the shows they were wednesday in the paper or on a website. those are the standards we use and those are the ones we try to enforce. it's a difficult environment. there is a risk of getting carried away but those are the ground rules. >> just to flip this debate should the press gives people time to climate change deniers, anti-abolitionists, et cetera. >> i want to answer the question because the great environmental writer -- you know, our public editor is big on this notion of false equivalency that to be an unbiased reporter, you have to say on one hand there's been a vast majority of science says there is clearly climate change caused by human. on the other hand other people say we don't know for sure and there's no real evidence. we don't do that anymore. we basically say because the established science of the human caused climate change, we don't do that. other issues we do that is one where we've kind of move beyond what i call the false equivalency. >> we treat climate change as serious. that is where, as elizabeth said the vast majority of the preponderance, almost a unanimous view of science is. so we treat science seriously and that is how we write about it. occasionally someone who has an alternative point of view and that message out to be open to all points of view. >> should the internet be governed by a global agreement among nations and if yes how can the united states inspires such a global agreement? >> what was that one again? >> should the internet recover a global agreement? >> well there's a lot of discussion as i said about whether this should be treated as standard rules and behavior for the internet and a way that we deal with space the way we deal with international these things like that. that would probably be certainly be a better system than having regimes pose off the internet, have their own roles for each of these individual states and where we see the consequences as they brutal repression in those countries and they deny citizens of those countries access to information available to millions and billions of people around the world. it is certainly better than country by country internet. >> 24 hour news channels, do they do more harm than good? >> well you talked about msnbc and fox. i think they are repetitive. you cannot watch -- i mean they chew over the same development every day over and over again. it's certainly not harmful at all. >> brain damage. >> you could go berserk watching them that long. i don't think they are harmful. i just think they're really hard to watch. especially sometimes cnn in the middle of the day with breaking news. they are developing now. we keep cnn and the washington bureau and the mr. men new york say we keep an eye on it and you can see it as an flow over the course of the day. it's a very big deal for many hours. [laughter] would have to watch for a while. >> here's a question for you. as a percentage of gross budget, please give her the dollars expended on international news by the "washington post" in 2014 a decade earlier. come on, mcnamara. >> i have no idea. we have about 30 people overseas in 15 bureaus. we spent an enormous amount of money. now that i think about a decade ago it is probably substantially more expensive to cover the wars in afghanistan and iraq would cost a fortune and a huge investment of resources of every type. you know, it is less but it is still substantial. >> a question for both of you that relates to the coverage of the presidential election 2016. the coverage of the kennedy election in 1960 was revealed through teddy white's book, than they can have a president and another book about how the press handle that. looking back at that were you both comment on how you see the coverage of this current election cycle premiere two perspectives. but the two newspapers face when dealing with it. >> i'm not responsible for the presidential campaign coverage but i will answer the question. when you look at teddy white's book and the boys on the bus that has changed obviously. there was a hilarious book. the difference now on the mccain campaign in 2008 and things have changed drastically since 08. first of all there's girls on the bus and there is just you know there's a thousand things different. back in those days there was a lot of middle-aged guys covering this campaign said they would file one story a day at 5:00 or 6:00 at night i think they would say we are filing typewriters. how did they file a copy? they dictated at the "washington post" inuit read your copy. i actually did that to the early days of the "washington post." you had read your copy to somebody. that is how you got your stories then. the main thing was there was one story a day in one deadline how these campaigns are brutal. it is way worse now in terms of constantly filing to retain constantly, feeding the web, feeding a first draft which is our early-morning newsletter but also all day long with the campaign of 17 candidates. so i look at how reporters work now and again you are filing all day long. and then at the end of the day you have to come up after all of this an intelligent, thoughtful "new york times" story or the later editions, for the web in the later editions of the paper. basically it's 24 hours and it never stops. it is getting to me on the mccain campaign. it's very hard, you know it's hard to find time to think i think in this kind of process to step back and write bigger stories. reporters do it. they're quite good at it. to it. the demands on them are way beyond what it ever was with boys on the bus. >> actually liked the direction not the day-to-day reporting we all have to do now which we do not have to do in the past. by the way the times had a dictation room with people taking the patients in there at to eliminate. i find his organizations like ours have decided a lot of resources should be dedicated to candidates as they move around, but we should stand back and pursue the stories we think not to be pursued. there's a lot more investigative reporting that goes on. candidates are much more aggressively validate than they were in the past. we go deep into their backgrounds in the deep into their financial connections. in a way that we should and what we call enterprise reporting for us not just daily reporting. we are actually enterprising about it and finding deeper stories that require more time, but actually break news when they come out. not news that the candidate said this is a part of this candidate or whatever it might be, but actually much deeper stories than we've had in the past and i'm pleased with that. >> a couple questions about radio. his radio still vital in global? there used to be a voice of america which reported america's stories and values abroad. does this exist anymore? >> well, yes. npr is bigger than ever and has a much stronger presence overseas. it is also very big in the united states. i'm sure many of you listen and pr. voice of america has had its ups and downs. constant debate in congress about what the boy should be. they want to keep it completely separate objective news organization and they're serving congress to make it as the united states is coming under siege from all of this isis propaganda to make it more reflective of american lives and american foreign policy. journalists at voa are totally opposed to that. npr has a really strong presence here overseas and continues to grow and flourish. >> npr is a very large organization. they have a bit of a difficult relationship with affiliates around the country about who should be covering what. some affiliates feel may be at their expense. they are really working through that situation right now. there are various potential news organization. they are very dependent on other news organizations like us. if you listen to npr you will hear as their guests regularly, reporters and the "washington post," reporters from "the new york times" and "the wall street journal," reporters and "the boston globe." very dependent on the original reporting done by other news organizations. as large as they are committed not have staff as substantial as sars to the original reporting we do. they do very good work and a fair amount of original reporting as well. to fill their hours of reporting they are highly dependent on others and we are part of that ecosystem. >> this question relates to elisabeth's comments about the "baltimore sun" closing its foreign bureau and a few other newspapers doing the same. the question relates to what they call second-tier newspapers and that's in the "wall street journal." you have any views about these newspapers? these kinds of things. >> they. >> they are like all the newspapers. they are edition and tried to get digital editions profitable. they've had a harder and they've cut back their newsrooms quite a day. the times has the advantage because of its size and reach around the country. i think they are moving along. my hometown paper you know when i was growing up we had to study proposed a member of bacon and you go up now at the end of the drive way and it's like a little tiny tabloid, what books i cannot for tasman. they have all shown. i do know what the future is. what has changed locally and i don't know about this in great detail, but a lot of local websites have really sprung up and i sort of hyper local coverage of cities around the country. what paper was it. i was at a seminar that fastball and one of the people who have fair was from a paper that reporters were doing -- self editing. they had no editing staff. and i thought zero my gosh. that's what happens. reporters are editing themselves. as a reporter i can't imagine that. as an editor i can't imagine any day. >> at least one other question someone had about the vetting. newspapers like the times and the post have good sub editors to check the back and whatnot. is there any betting on the web and the news outlets that people read these days online that you know about? >> there's a lot of different people on the web and different policies. we have the policy of trying to read everything, at least one other person and i'm sure the times is something very similar. it is certainly not reviewed as closely as it was in the past because we had to move things very swiftly and you do not get the same level that you had in the past. no one said a newspaper or a tri-city newspaper. now we talk about is being posted 24 hours a day including at night, all the time seven days a week. if you're not the first with the story, there's a good chance you're not going to get press. >> for web editing posting it online appears to pray. you know i'm sure they posted the same where you have -- we have two to three editors look at it before it goes up. what we call a backfield editor, which is somebody who looks at it for substance and is the lead okay and then there is a copy editor who looks at it and maybe another editor with an important story. a lot of pressure to get things up quickly. huge amounts of pressure. there's this constant tension between this got to get this up in the gut to make sure it's right. ..

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Louisiana , United States , Australia , Shanghai , China , New Delhi , Delhi , India , Helmand , Afghanistan , Turkey , Antarctica , Beijing , Kosovo , Syria , Phish , Punjab , Pakistan , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Bahrain , Ukraine , Mexico , Egypt , Tehran , Iran , Iowa , Ecuador , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Malaysia , Tokyo , Japan , Columbia School , Ohio , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Boston , Massachusetts , Liberia , Cincinnati , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Tunisia , Oklahoma , Iraq , Denmark , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Yemen , Americans , Australian , America , Ukrainians , Turkish , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , Afghan , Iraqi , Malaysian , Russians , Japanese , American , Chinese , Russian , Afghans , Egyptian , New Yorker , Britain , Soviet , Syrian , Palestinian , Tunisian , Charlie Hebdo , James Foley , George Packer , Bobby Jindal , Margaret Sullivan , Philip Howard , Los Angeles , Nick Brown , Vladimir Putin , Luis Martinez , Robert Hagan , Lucas Thomas , Louis , Edward Snowden , Peter Baker , A Miami Herald , John Milton , John Kerry Barlow , Hillary Clinton , Jill Abramson , Michael Schmidt , Ted Cruz , David Alexander , Marty Baron , Paul Mason ,