>> although the city was the nation's capital for only a short time, from those early days, the eyes of the world have continued beyond new york. one year ago, this great center of history enterprise and creativity suffered the greatest of cruelties and showed itself to be a place of valor and generosity and grace. here where so many innocent lives were suddenly taken, the world of small acts of kindness

and heroism that will be remembered forever. >> c-span, powered by cable. investigative journalist cheryl adkisson and former cbs news correspondent kathryn were among the witnesses testifying before lawmakers regarding the importance of a free press and what congress can do to protect the identity of confidential sources. in february a federal judge held her in civil contempt for refusing to divulge her sources in relation to a 2017 investigation she was working on. the house judiciary subcommittee hearing is just over 90 minutes. .. authorized to declare a recess at anytime. we welcome everybody to today's hearing on a free press and protecting journalists. i'll remind everybody the guests in the chamber are guests and you're free to be here, but this is no audience

participation in the hearing. this is a hearing and we're going to conduct it accordingly. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. our liberty depends on the freedom of the press. and that cannot be limited without being lost. those words were true when thomas jefferson wrote them in 1786 and they're still true today. first amendment guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the government from making any law to that freedom. just the founding fathers gave protection it must have a essential role in our democracy. of the governors. concerts held the freedom of te frost most important political liberty and the keystone upon kn which all our other freedoms rely. was the case today personal

freedoms we hold dear. sadly freedom of the press is under attack in our country. activist judges, mainstream media networks. jfor example sharyl attkisson bite hacking into her cell phone and computer to determine the identity of a confidential source. we also saw the obama administration take an adversarial position regarding freedom of the president sought to silence anyone blowing the whistle on the federal government waste and abuse by seizing the phonorecords of associated press reporters and editors you source materials to write stories. phone records these are not just those owned by the associate oppressed by personal home and cell phones. the caesar of these records was alarmed the coalition of 58 news organizations including abc, cnn, "new york times" and the "washington post" submitted a letter of protest to then c,attorney general about the ra.

which stated the administration action called into question the very integrity of the department of justice policies toward the president's ability to balance on its own it's a police to power since he first member right of the news media at the public's interest in reporting on all manner of conduct. the obama administration were in a free press showed us executive interference is a chilling effect that this incentivizes whistleblowers and sources from coming forward with critical information. the chilling eventually freezing out effect harms meanwhile, we have seen biden garland dresses apartment arrest and prosecute journalist steve baker who is reporting from the u.s. capitol building and said the capitol. we recently saw a federal court order investigative journalist catherine to identify a confidential source and hold her in contempt when she exercised a first amendment right to maintain the sources

confidentiality. first amendment advocates on both side without warning the government action such as this could have devastating consequences for free press .around that same time cbsbs nes quote including source material cbs news officials reportedly boxed up s and seized some of te materials in her office including her investigative files on laptop computer. with the intent to search through items to segregate materials worked on were cbs news. first amendment rights could have doubled confidential sources stemming from previousnd work with other networks. along the same lines we've also seen federal government social media companies to censor and remove content. of platforms with the president

and his family. the fundamental liberty protecting journals and their sources and examine prospects the house committed judiciary 2. it not often happen. twenty-three -- zero. of reports of exploitation of states spying or press act. general at this your full house to pass the press act by a voice vote. press act was written toss prohibit compelling journalists as well as in the records content of communication documents or information obtained or created by journalists in the course of their work. it ensures a free press

independent from executive branches seeks to attack or harass journalists in order to identify their confidential sources. stood up to fight for the freedom of the press protecting the fundamental freedoms. it is our job to stand up for that rights protect journalists and their sources. bring a unique professional perspectives to this important issue. please add notes a joint schedule of congress is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. the committee will recess for the duration of that session and gavel back in shortly thereafter. i don't yield to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the necessity for guarantee of a free press is one of the fundamental pillars of her democratic republic.

pre-dating and inspiring both anour constitution and the first amendment. we all know a democracy only truly works when it's citizens are properly stock formed. free press contributes to this theschool by ensuring truth and accountability for those in power but free press informs the american people the important policy issues government actions that may impact their lives and crucially reveal confidence, corruption, fraud or bad state by political candidates and government officials. attempts byy government actors and would-be leaders to undermine the press promoting conspiracy theories and lies before attacking members of the press which whom they disagree undermine the press' ability to obtain vital information are an assault on the pillars of our democratic foundation. the way this occurs the government seeks to compel journalist to disclose the identity of confidential sources.

it is important the outset to it the ways the government can compel. it is one thing for the government to seek access to confidential sources. it is another when a court is enforcing the law that is written because congress has not acted to create a shieldo law. confidential sources provide crucial information that helps them to share and impactful stores with the public government attempts to undermine thett confidentiality of the sources and erodes the presses ability to perform that function. if the press cannot protect it sources important truths may never come to light. americans in our democracy suffer. unfortunately under both republican and democratic administrations going back decades we have seen the government in attempts to crack down on leaks sees phone and e-mail records from journalists or seek to compel them to reveal the identities of their sources. for example trump menstruation department of justice seized

phone records from three "washington post" reported try to obtain their e-mails and an attempt to identify confidential sources. trump d.o.j. similarly attempted to obtain these and reporters at cnn and the "new york times." that is on top of administrations other troubling threat tracking, detaining and interrogating reporting on conditions at the u.s./mexico border in response to these and other instances the house for time f since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support of the shield law. legislation to protect journals prevent the government from compelling them to reveal confidential sources with certainev exceptions. first introduced legislation in 2005. more recently representative kevin kiley protect reporters

from exploitation of spying act or press act. as mentioned unanimously by voice vote under suspension of the rules. the chairman noted after this committee reported it favorably a bipartisan 23 -- zero votes. but among other things qualified federal statutoryqu privilege. protects journalist been compelled federal entity to reveal confidential sources of information. protects third-party service providers such as munication carriers interactive computer services from being compelled by the government to reveal information on a journalists account or device. unfortunately strong bipartisan support passing some form of federal reporter shield legislation the senate has yet to act. today's hearing should be an opportunity to spur the senate toto action.

we are concerned republican colleagues the preacher squandered that chance but a substantive hearing and insteadd are trying to crank up right wing conspiracy theories. but make no mistake, we intend to move forward and try to promote both the press act and constitutional reaction. as has been suggested previous allegations were true congress are at risk exceeding its constitutional authority by intervening. private news organizations cbs, msnbc or fox speak to the journal's employees free of be f congress had to punish or shape coveragesh through directly or indirectlytl through a pressure campaign, it would run a foul of the spirit if not the letter of the first amendment. potentially violate the news organizations free-speech rights and its right to editorial control over its own content. so today further from our

witnesses about the importance of a federal shield act and what it is long past time for congress to enact it. our democracy is already under assault on numerous fronts. we should not be adding fuel to the fire. let's focus instead on something that would actually protect a fresh freedom. would be completely within our article one authority and duties. let's talk about the critical need for federal shield legislationld but i think our witnesses are being here in the yieldd back. [inaudible] [inaudible] we will be in order. i think the ranking member of the gentle lady from pennsylvania for opening statement i not recognize a charmer of the full committee mr. jordan for his opening statement. >> i think the chairman is not just the press under attack every single liberty would

enjoin the first amendment is been assaulted in the last couple years. when you think about e your rigt to practice your faith, right to assemble, right to petition the government free press, free speech. a couple years ago americans were told they could not go to church on sunday. think about that. to have years ago i spoke to the new mexico republican party in amarillo, texas that go to texas to the freedom to assemble they cannot do it in their own garden state the governor would not let them edition the government to petition you remember of congress? you cannot do it in congress. the speaker would not let you in. your own darn capitol you pay for. the most important to free press and free speech going here at the press event what happened to two of our witnesses. how freedom of the press this is scary. and just a couple weeks ago i went to the argument. this should frighten us all. we went to the supreme court

read justice of the united states approved this is a big censorship case something this committee spent a lot of time on big government pressure in big academia to censor speech for it not just conservative speech, all speech. that is frightening. we went to the argument in front of the supreme court in one of the justices said to the solicitor general from louisiana counselor, your position has the first amendment hamstringing the government. that is exactly what it is supposed to do for goodness sake. this is about the first amendment. free press is essential to having a robust first amendment first amendmentand free debate . you cannot settle your disputes by arguing and debating the alternative is frightening. there is no more important hearing than those i want to thank our chairman and i reallyy want to thank her for witnesses for being here. this is of critical importance. this is what we've got to pass the precious shield act with the

houses got it let's hope the senate and white house can figure it out. we passes were on this thing happened this happening right now. we actually had a situation in this committee room we have members of the committee there were there that day but recall it's on the other side we had met on the witness emma collins on the other side pressured him to divulge his sources. in a hearing in congress. to me that is scary as well. this is a critically important hearing with great witnesses i look forward to hear their testimony and the questions that follow with that i yield back. >> i think the chairman for i will not recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, over the course of the last two decades repeated overzealous prosecution leaks to the press have made it clear congress needs to enact the shield law. congress must protect journalists from being compelled

to reveal their confidential sources in order to ensure the free flow of information related to the public interest. during the 117 congress was chairman of the committee, we came together to bipartisan vote to pass the press act which would protect journals in the confidential sources from compelled disclosure. except in certain rare circumstances. later past the e house a similar bipartisan fashion. unfortunately the senate did not act on the bill.di i was pleased however when they committee, under chairman jordon's leadership built on the strong action and move the press act once again in this congress. in the unanimous vote 23 -- nothing. again pass the house by voice vote. i think even a casual observer of the water 18 congress understands just how rare it is for me, chairman jordan, and practically the entire house all to agree on the need for the same piece of legislation but they repeatedly come together to advance an important bill and a bipartisan basis we continue to show the goal of seeing this

legislation become law. that is why it's disappointing according to the news reports this hearing has not been called to serve as a form to build support for the build title of the hearing might suggest. instead it appears it is to purpose is to provide a forum to discuss allegations that chairman jordan has made starting the determination of one of our witnesses by a news organization. and to advance the false narrative about media bias. i am sympathetic to anyone is been abruptly laid off from a job and i understand resentment someone can feel against their former employer. in fact cbs laid off 800 people one of whom happened to be a close personal friend of mine. but even allegations of so-called political bias made today are true, to be clear i have no reason to believe that they are. congress is not the proper form for these personal grievances to be aired or resolved. as we listen to the testimony

today we should remember it news media organizations have their own first amendment rights. which include the right to exercise editorial judgment about what does and does not get reported as news. news media organizations also open ultimately speak or act to their employees. barring some other unlawful reason for determination like race or discrimination congress does not have the authority to meddle in their relationship for junioret porters and their news organizations. especially if it is to intervene in a conflict over what story to investigate or not investigate. to do so wouldn't my view run a foul of the first amendment. indeed some might even say this very hearing as an example of a government job noting the news media over its coverage or lack of coverage of a particular subject improper intrusion into the affairs of the press. the history of over one bipartisan support is any

indication i would hope we have universal agreement that government should respect the independence of the free press. we should continue our work to protect journals to being compelled to reveal their sources. that is where our focus should properly labor it we should be job owning the real barrier for important protection for product fresh freedom the united states senate for the fourth time under federal reporters legislation the house passed overwhelmingly in bipartisan fashion. thank you, mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the ranking member for his opening statement. without objection all other opening statements will be included in the record. will now introduce today's witnesses. ms. catherine is an award-winning journalist the most recently served as senior investigative correspondent for cbs news from 2019 until 2024.

previously she served chief intelligence correspondent for fox news from 1996 until 2019. ms. mary is the chief broadcast officer for the news and broadcast department a position she has held since 2010. she is responsible for overseeing negotiation and administration over 250 labor agreements with network mode nationwide. miss sharyl attkisson is a five-time emmy award-winning journalist recipient of the edwardhe r murrow award for investigative reporting she has been a journalist for 30 years. it is currently the managing editor and host a full measure. ms. nadine johnson is the policy director of the night first amendment institute at columbia university but she previously worked at penn america and the state department and a private practice as a patent litigator.

we'll begin by swearing you in. would you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony or about to give is a true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god? let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. please know your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes. you mayhe begin. >> good morning. chairman jordan, ranking member nadler and ranking member scanlon and members of the subcommittee. i am here to date withmi a deep sense of gratitude and humility. i appreciate the subcommittee taking the time to focus again on the importance of protecting reporters sources and the vital safeguards provided by the press act.

as you know in favor i was held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose my confidential sources national security story. i think my current situation can help put the importance of the press act into context. one of our children recently asked me if i would go to jail, if we would lose our house and lose our family savings to protect my reporting sources. i wanted to answer that in this united states were we say we value democracy and the rule of a vibrant and free press it was impossible but i could not offer that assurance. the bipartisan press act which came out of this house committee would put an end to this legal jeopardy that i have experienced firsthand in the federal courts. without the legislation more journalists will run the uncertainty of the contempt gauntlet in the future. this legislation will provide protections for every working journalist in the united states now and for the next generation.

that legislation provides strong protections at the federal level for reporters and their sources. it would block litigants and federal government from prying into a reporters files except when there's an imminent threat enof violence including terrorim and defamation cases. at the state level similar rules are already in place to protect press freedom itit is my sincere hope the passage of the press act will provide similar protections at the federal level. i hope i am the last journalist who has to spend two years in the federal courts fighting to protect my confidential sources. my current situation arises from a privacy act lawsuit i am only a witness in the case. is not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. when such cases happen they have profound consequences. impacting every journalist in the united states.

forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism. because without reliablef insurances of confidentiality sources will not come forward. the first amendment provides protection for the press because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. forces are nots protected by fer investigative journalism is dead. each day i feel the weight of that responsibility. as you know i was held in contempt of court for holding the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources i have complete respect for the federal court in the judicial process i am not here to litigate the case. it will play out before the appellate court in washington d.c. the fact i've been fighting in the courts for two years i am now facing potentially crippling fines up $800 a day to protect

my reporting sources underscores the vital importance of the press act. when you go through major as i have in recent weeks losing your job, losing your company health insurance, having the reportingd files seized by your former employer being held in contempt of court gives you clarity. the first amendment to the protection of confidential sources and a free press are my guiding principles they might northstar. when i was laid off in february an incident reinforced in my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. cbs news locked me out of the building seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files including confidential source information. multiple sources said they were concerned that by working with me too expose a government corruption and misconduct theyie would be identified and exposed. i pushed back with the public support of my union the records

were returned cbs decision to seize my reporting records prostate red line i believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future. the litigation and being held in contempt have taken a tool on me and my career. this is not a battle you can fight alone. i am grateful for the support of fellow journalists multiplent first amendment organizations including reporters committee for press freedom. the freedom of the press foundation. the coalition for women in journalism. the first amendment institute the society of professional journalists as well as columbia journalism school of which i am a graduate. i've also beenn fortunate to hae the support for my former employer as i f continue to figt this case. not many journalist could count on a former employer in this case, fox news to support a

constantly vigorous defense of the first amendment. that is why the press act comes at the right time with independent journalism and news platforms are expanding opportunities for reporting diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. i know i joined many journalists who were encouraged by the recent comments of the senate majority leader chuck schumer who hopes to have legislation through the senate and on the president's desk this year. in holding this public hearing thankk you. >> you may begin. >> good morning britt thank you committee chairman jordan, subcommittee roi, committee ranking member nadler subcommittee ranking member scanlon distinguished members of this subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on fighting for a free press protecting journalists and their sources. my name is mary on national

union of over 160,000 members that represents professionals in the entertainment and media industry. i am i was invited here today for the purpose of providing testimony in support of the most basic of first amendment principles. protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources in the critical nature of the confidential source t relationship. government intrusion on the relationship between a reporter and their sources undermine the foundation of the freedom of the press for free press is essential to our democracy to quote walter cronkite freedom of the press fit is democracy. while court responsibility is to negotiate, administer and enforce a collective bargaining

agreements under which our members work the union is also charged with advocating on behalf of our members for legislations that directly impacts their work in their profession. legislative work has recently focused on artificial intelligence, protecting intellectual property restricting noncompete clauses in employment contracts all of which are important initiatives. for decades the union has enthusiastically supported the passage of a federal reporter shield law we think the house judiciary committee ford's leadership on this issue it's in by partisan unanimous passage of the press act at the committee level. we also thank the entire united states house of representatives were unanimous passage of this vital legislation in january of 2024. call upon united states to expeditiously pass this legislation send it to president

biden for signature. if signed into law the press act would establish the first federal press shield law in united states history. significantly strengthen press freedom and their confidential sources. the press act creates a federal statutory privilege to shield journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources and prevent federal law enforcement agencies from abusing subpoena power to access journalists e-mail and phone nerecords. long overdue legislation represents a significant leap forward. not just for journalist but for the sanctity of journalism itself. for theor right to freedom of te press. journalist, therern employer and advocacy groups that share the common goal of the federal shield law for journalists. press act is a bipartisan legislation that guarantees and

protects our most basic first amendment principles the freedom of the press to disseminate information to the public free from government interference of any kind is essential to our democracy. protecting a journalist relationship with a source is critical to allow stories to be told essential to holding our elected officials and others to account for their actions. the press is america's watchdog responsible for serving the public interest by working to uncover and investigate. potential source to come forward and tell their stories to journalists. depriving the american people of critical information and the ability to hold t those in power publicly accountable. recent events in ongoing litigation involving journalists and their employers in their shared concern for protecting

sources have created renewed interest in energy around this issue. it is helpful the interested energy will be used in a productive and nonpartisan way to move the press act forward. thank you again for this opportunity to speak before the subcommittee today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you ms. cavallaro. ms. attkisson you may begin progress good morning it's an honor to be here in get to meet catherine filing decades are reporting national at cnn, cbs, pbs for the last nine years on my tv show full measure countless new stories i broke or facets of them could not have beenof reported without sources whose identities need to be protected to name just a few, enron, bp oil spill, bank bailout the money investigations on taxpayers spend in congressional oversight, congressional fundraising, prescription drug vaccine dangers, earthquake aid, lobbying, green energy failures,

waste and fraud at the red cross, firestone tires, benghazi and fast and serious. plus 12 stories i mentioned thanks to some information provided by sources this would not be quoted by name, received recognition from the emmy mawards. multiply that by thousands of reporters and countless stories and it is fair to argue a lot of important facts would never have been exposed if journalists could not ensure protection of her sensitive sources identities. managed information landscapes make it difficult for journalists ands sources to report on ethical lapses, wrongdoing and crime rate more often than not the truth teller if name is smeared and ruined the wrongdoers carry-on. they escape accountability may even get promoted. they've seen what's happened the inearth shattering revelation quickly eclipsed by organized efforts to distract controversial is in them. it makes sense to ask what is the impact if we could no longer

assure our sources we can protect her identities? it is not a new concern. after court decisions are coming down on this front i was at cbs we began having to consider source of aidential story would be okay with ultimately having his identity revealed if a judge ordered it. obviously the answer was often know i could no longer provide assurances to a whistleblower who feared for his career or six could guarantee protection of his identity. once someti stories still got de but many became known starters there's no way to quantify with any certainty what we have lost but i don't think there are very many investigative reporters who would say it's not having an impact. the press act would generally bar federal agencies from forcing telecommunications to turn over records belonging to journalists is important to note press freedoms do not happen that way. our intelligence agencies and

support the need to clear my throat. our intelligence agencies have been working hand in hand with telecommunications firms for decades with the billions of dollars in dark contracts and secretive arrangements. they do not need to ask for permission to access journalists records are those of congress are regular citizens. current efforts to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign act relates that the lengthy record of government surveillance abuse to be found just the little webeen able to learn about. intelligence officials have misled congress surveilling u.s. citizens. even spying on journalists and political figures their staff and allies it's a known problem for decades respect or general l report in 2020 they violated procedure iteg safeguards everyy single wiretap audited. pardon me.

just 29 applications reviewed there were 409 errors, even when caught and pressed fbi only fessed up to half of them. it was all brushed off as innocent mistakes and poor training as usual. it's been 11 years cbs news newsofficially now those targety an authorized intrusions to work computer forensic and government controlled ip addresses used in thedr intrusions not only did te guilty party monitor my work in real time they also accessed my fast and furious files, got into the largest system plastic classified documents deep in myc operating system are able to listen in on conversations by activating skype audio. it's clear the department of justice would not hold us own accountable. the case ofnt the first manova journalists bite him by the government received clerks default against an agent working for government parties in a surveillance operation. it is a small victory he was

soon reported dead which means we cannot access potential information leading to the larger players. wrongdoers the federal government have their own shield laws to protect them from accountability. making sure journalist can protect their sources into the constitution protected job we do is critical new laws will not impact the dishonest players and government who have proven more than capable of and willing to skirt laws to access the information they want. new laws will not impact dishonest players and government who have proven more than capable of and willing to skirt laws to access the information they want. you may begin. >> thank you chairman jordan. members of the subcommittee for convening today's hearing's honor and privilege for their testimony. the night institute service policy director is to defend the digital age. artwork is concentrated intersection of first amendmentt freedoms and new technology and dedicated to protecting and

promoting a system of free expression that serves contemporary democracies. our press freedom project like all of our work focus on fortifying infrastructure first amendment law and values to meet 21st century pressures. for journalists and media organizations as pressures are formidable they stem from surveillance tools and government private hands and create new vulnerabilities for reporters. powerful government private entities are fiercely resistant to public oversight and accountability the capacity of machines to generate andnd disseminate creation. the institute is a leading voice for the first member rights of journalists and news organizations to publish vital information in the public interest. to strengthen the constitutional protections that will minimize threats in short journalist and news organizations can carry out the vital work. no single piece of legislation is a strongly correlated with these efforts is the bipartisan state spying or press act introduced representative currently of past and the house.

modern newsgathering requires reporters are able to give assurance of the confidentiality of their sources. protections for drones are essential to core first amendment values supreme court on the protection of source matures in is ambiguous 1972 the court note acknowledged gathering is not without first met protections but did not delineate with the protections mightt be. that murkiness of the decision has led to confusion about holding inconsistency in its application. illustrating is the patchwork the circuit court has emerged in 52 years in the course decision. the difference in approach result in unpredictability inconsistency ultimately to dorn the work we need them to do. without strong first member protection journalists are less likely to be able to engage confidential sources if you are it will come forward. that means the american public

is less informed. despite widespread court across the state precarious landscape with the federal level remain congressional action is urgently needed. for these reasons the night institute supports the act it's critical to pre-free press and reaffirming the first amendment rights. pass in the press act is a important because of the changing nature of what it means to be a journalist today. we know in the digital age significant amount of important reporting some by journalists who do not fit a traditional mold running for the "washington post" offering the should be afforded a clear consistent predictable protection policies account for range of legitimate meet federal shield is critical to preventing misguided attempts by the government to compel but

also ensure durability across administration lesson certainty for journalists and media outlets across the country. the press act addresses this issue offering definitions the broad landscape better protecting appropriately wide swath of reporters and reportin activity. the act commendably protects journalist communications ensuring information held by third-party own internet providers is not secretly seized by the government. these are critical to protecting journalists first amendment rights. there are of course situations competing interests will be at play in the determination of whether that compelling disclosure date in the course of the investigation or under the dirt act is warranted it addressess these concerns as wel the series of exceptions. into law would provide critical support to the free press thereby benefiting all americans thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you. will now proceed with question 35 minute rule. the chair will recognize the

gentleman from california. >> we have seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive acts by the federal government and its agencies to suppress debate in many different forms. the irs intimidation of the tea party activists the use of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to suppress vital information the content of the hunter bidenr laptop. dissenting views on covid it turned out to be factual and correct. the beating heart of democracy is freedom of speech that's the right of every citizen to express their opinions freely. it is by this discussion we have the tools to sort out fact from fiction. or right from wrong that is how a free society finds its way.

and free press is fundamental to that process. without it the people cannot make informed decisions or hold the government accountable for itsth actions. human nature being what it is the most closely guarded secrets of the government are not those marked top-secret it is those that's marked embarrassing. it is precisely those embarrassing facts that are most important for the public to know. i agree with the ranking members cbs shape its own coverage and matter how biased it might be. when the government pressures any news outlet or any private party to suppress or shape its coverage that crosses a break and dangerous line. do you know of cbs actions were influenced by the government in any way? >> part of me. pardon me.

congressman, i am not someone who is known to offer speculation so i cannot really answer that question directly. >> okay, fair enough. all that you've been dragged through by the government is anyone within the government been held accountable for these acts against you in your freedom? >> congressman based on my experience i feel we are in a very dangerous place as journalists. i am facing crippling fines up to $800 a day for protecting the confidential sources. i am fortunate that stayed pending the appeal for cooks who is responsible for that? who are the t actors within the government waging war of journalists like yourself to report the facts that the up eric and people need to form their own opinions pursue referring to my case the only to be respect of the ongoing

litigation in front of the appellate court. i want to emphasize i am only a witness in that case but. >> has anyone been held accountable for these acts against you? >> no. >> okay ms. attkisson what is your experience question requestedd its interest in the government should not be intervening in news coverage mike sprints at cbs that happens every day. admin numbers of the committee's heads of committees members of congress call the bureau in washington d.c. contacts that they t have. editors and managers up in newag york to try to shape our coverage. >> i do not find objectionable. as long as there's no force or threat of force behind that. she find that to be the case? >> i don't know what was said i know there's no physical force threats and there's a great deap cof pressure weighing on the w networks in terms of their coverage.

>> what about government acts directly? you encountered such intimidation yourself directly from the government or sent channel to yourou employers? great deal of pressure channeled through my employer's prize told certain stories were not going to air because we were getting phone calls. even though there's something wrong with w these stories, lets let it rest for a day but let's pick it up another time. they are really mad this time there's no objection of the content as i was told they didn't like it or they felt it was unfavorable at times. >> if they were offering additional facts that might have been ignored if they were offering different opinions that is freedom of speech. but behind those was the threat of force. that's a completely different matter do you agree? >> my position was political officials call into the newsroom there should be n a policy if ty

object to something or have a factual issue they should put it in writing and send it in. there are extensive conversations that go on behind the scene. i only know about a few of them are relative few of them i'm sure they happen in other as well. >> site now recognize the ranking member for any questions he might have under the five minute rule. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. attkisson the question of pfizer a site you note the renewal is currently controversial before the congress. should i hear your testimony to psay the press act would not be sufficient? >> in my view to handle some of the problems we have discussed ,i'm not saying it should not be passed too. >> is not sufficient? >> what else should we i do? >> it is a global problem that

has to do with sending a message of oversight to the intelligence agencies we know for h decades violated rights and made policies contrary to constitution and so on. i do not think there's been an effort they think is serious i feel like the intelligence agencies feel they are running the committees here rather than committees conducting oversight of them. there needs to be -- they understand they woulde be held accountable when they do things. i don't know what that looks like in practice but i do not think the law. >> thank youou mr. johnson and e brands of birdcage supreme court declined to recognize the first amendment privilege for news gatherers. why does the source of congress authority to provide such a privilege by statute? >> congress is authorized under the constitution to provide -- to create legislation by statute to ensure these rights in effect my understanding is the court invited congress to do so.

we are pleased the houses acted in this regard we look forward to the senate doingar so as wel. >> ms. johnson according to written testimony of the decade since the supreme court decided manyan circuit courts have recognized some form of qualified privilege. in that case why is it important with statutory? >> that is right. it's because the law is unsettled. you have different landscape across the country different circuit courts have different interpretations. there is a decision at one point the case is clear as mud. it has not allowed for a clear understanding of that landscape. with congressional action the press act would reduce on sources it would help journalists to the work we need than ton provide clarity and tht landscape that is not muddled and uncertain. >> thank you. ms. johnson as we have heard is currently subject indicates she

has refused to provide testimony regarding her confidential sources. it may be relevant to the private litigant case against the got it so happens accuse the wrongdoing including the fbi. the press act were law what it have applied under the current circumstances and is it important reporters brought by a party other than the government also receive protection for their first amendment interest? >> i do believe the press act had not been enacted at the time of litigation would have played a role in this for the most important thing the press act does is it forecloses the government from compelling journalists disclose their sources yes, i do believe it is important for there to be this protection for journalists across the board requests you believe it would stop the litigation? >> i believe these are compelling sources. it would have a played a role, yes for. >> thank you yelled back.

i reckon it's a gentle lady from wyoming for questions and the five minute rule. >> good morning ladies and thank you for being here to address such an incredibly important issue. i would like to start withh you. about two months but held in contempt levied daily fines of $800 per day for your refusal to disclose resources. deeply concerning in what is more concerning you are not the first in an article related to your case the washington post in 20055 national reporters were held in contempt and levied fives $500 per day. 2008 usa today reporters held in contempt face daily fines of $5000. all of these instances reporters upheld their journalistic integrity only to face rebuke and heavy-handed enforcement by the courts which are intended to

protect the first amendments. how fundamental to reporting is the protection of your sources? >> congresswoman i have not lost a nights sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. that is the core of who i am as a journalist. i am facing contempt defines because i am upholding the most basic principle of journalism. you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality as a journalist your toolbox is empty. no whistleblower is coming for break note government official with evidence of misconduct or corruption. what that means it interrupts the fleet free flow of information to the public we all recognize journalism is about an informed electorate which is the bedrock of our democracy. if you had asked me 37 years ago when i started working that i would be in the federal courts living a legal nightmare i would

never have believed it. i told you a story about my son, i like to finish it. at the end of the conversation he said mom, you do what it takes. i've got your back. i thought of a teenager understands how sacred this pledgeow is for every journaliss certainly congress can pass the press act and codify these guarantees that would prevent cases like mine in the future. thank you for that. you think heavy-handed nature of these finds is to compel quick disclosure of sources and not give reporters a a choice eight similar choice the way you have exercised yours? >> ycongressman just ask yoursf how many journalists can withstand the fines in my case of $800 a day. mine being pending the appeal another case cited $5000 a day. these are designed you have to disclosure sources. you have to burn them.

in a marketplace where we have this explosion of independent journalism and smaller outfits they cannot withstand these fines they cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense of the first amendment. that is why think this is such a dangerous time and why the press act can codify these guarantees. it can happen with a very strong in fact the strongest bipartisan message about the importance of the freedom of the o press. >> it is not just apply in your industry. we have other agencies. it's a sign of a tyrannical government and we give them the ability to levy fines like this. an example i will use is epa has the authority to levy fines of $59000 a day. they do so. t'that is how they will force people into settlements and consent decrees evennd if they e not necessarily guilty. but they cannot withstand the

pressure they bring to bear would have a government that has that kind of authority. i think it applies in the first amendment context with her journalist. i think it is a bigger issue we as congress need to address across the board. again i will use the word they result in tierney you give agencies or officials that kind of authority. one thing that has been mentioned 32 states and washington d.c. have lost however not do there is no federal shield law as each of you have described. submit your case in the case of others this has resulted in the courts being enlisted to compel disclosure of your sources. in instances such as your case what is a hostile court system do for the protection of the free press? >> i think it presents another very significant challenge for journalism. as my colleague ms. attkisson said if your work with the whistleblower governmenthe soure to us access to real

information. what i mean is information that is so important to get to the public so they can make up their own mind especially about controversial issues. a few can't offer that insurance know is playing ball with you. you're always asking your self in the marketplace where we are today what kind of assurances can i provide can i go to the mat for this person? i've always believed and willing to go to the mat i think i have shown that in this contempt case but not everyone is going to be able to have that opportunity. >> say thank you pretty thank you for your bravery pretty thank you for what you been willing to expose i thank you all for being willing to stand up to the purity we are w seeing but the attack on the first of its critical for the freedom of every single person in this room so thank you without a yelled back. >> think the gentle lady from wyoming i now don't recognize a gentle lady from vermont.

correct thank you mr. chair. oneng of the things i have notid in this committee and inmate subcommittees i colleagues on aisleher side of the often overpromise and under deliver. we are told repeatedly there are conspiracy theories. we have a government that is going after individual private citizens.ti this is the narrative over and over and over again. as a new into this committee i am always soo disappointed i fel like there's actually a lot we agree on. press freedoms and the press act is something that we were able to all come together on. that is where our attention should be. you should always be making sure we have ae free and protected

press. now what i am hearing is about employment disputes with news agencies that are now being conflated into some kind of conspiracy theory. once again of the government going after, in this case not just private individuals but the press.. personal grievances witnesses personal grievances are not a tax on the first amendments in the free press. from what i have heard from this hearing so far and the materials we were given ine preparation of this. it seems pretty clear to me most of the allegations that have been made so far involved disputes over what are employment an editorial decisiol

decision-making by private news organizations. in the context of newsgathering publicbl reporting which we all desperately need in this country.n and as i said we came together to support the press act. we all agree it is an important piece of legislation to protect it. i wish we spent more time in this committee really talking about important issues and not once again having colleagues over promise and under deliver. if i believed every single time of the conspiracy theories that are polled before this committee i would have to believe there was a bogeyman behind every corner. under every rock. it is absurd. it is absolutely absurd and it prevents us from doing the real

work we need to do to protect a free press. which we desperately need. now j could you explain to us wt is jawboning? could you explain that to us? >> yes jawboning is the act of coercion by the government to an entity to get it insofar to get it to change that named programming what it would have you in the public. >> do you have. concerns about congressional hearings such as this one or statements officeholders make that could be intended to influence editorial decisions at news organizations?

works news organizations are entitled to decide for themselves what subjects to cover. the first amendment protects the editorial decision they make about their news a e coverage. it would be unconstitutional for any government official to attempt to coerce a news organization. an exercise the course of power. >> could jawboning be considered unconstitutional we filed an amicus brief in the murphy's case before the supreme court. what we talked about there is we have said publicly the government has an important role toto play. recite for example, social media platforms to change the policies. but that engage in coercion to do so. there is a line and outlined is critically important. >> and ms. farid johnson, what does it mean for free public discourse it public officials can informally intimidate or

influence editorial decision-making such as in a hearing such as this and? >> the critical thing is that it cannot be coercion. we want to ensure the first amendment protections that are afforded to news workstations, for example, are maintained and so that would mean that there cannot be that level of influence can go but again, we believe the government has an important role to play in terms of public discourse. >> thank you so much, ms. johnson, i appreciate your time. i yield back. >> we will do one more round of questions before we break. recognized the gentleman fromi' north carolina. >> thank you,ck mr. chairman. i don't think i people go into investigative reporting to get rich. i think it's an incredibly importantt service. i don't think being held in on tempt civilly or criminally is either a a conspiracy theory or b part of an employment. you're either civilly in --

that's what the contempt mean. if there's more chilling effect on right for north dakota citizens to be informed of what's going on, i would like to know. ms. harris, you have been held in contempt, do you think it's part of the -- >> my case is being litigated. these are separate matters congressman. >> i'm hopeful soon that the president will take act for reporter revealing confidential sources. >> i know in north dakota we have the shield law and a lot of different states they do. in 2011 you reported on the

obama -- i want to back up just a second. we like this is new stuff but this has been going on for a long time. we had a lot of talks of doj, twitter and section 230 and liability and immunity and all of those things n.2011 you reported on the obama administration fast andba furios operation in which they allowed dealers to sell weapons to illegal -- >> yes. >> would you have been able to shed light on the federal government selling weapons including grenade launchers to drug cartels without guarantying sources? >> it would have been tough. you think you would have been able to shed light on maintaining embassy security

without maintaining confidentiality or sources? >> some of it yes and some of it no. even if that includes members of congress? >> right? >> equate to a functional sensible system? >> no, and one quick example a lot of time doesn't end up going on the record which is preferable but you can't begin the conversation if you can't start out by telling them as you begin to talk that he's not going to be identified yet. >> if we pass press act, can you talk about the press act and where you think it's deficient but you would agree it would be

helpful. >> seems like it would be helpful. >> i think we can -- i think there are certain things that we have to recognize. i'm a former criminal defense attorney confidentiality with my clients is absolutely essential in order to deal with those things. i think there are a lot of different similarities but you have to be as mentally tough as anybody to be investigativeto reporter and we are sitting here right now talking about these things at the same time we got a letter from the doj saying that they can't release an audiotape after they've already given usft the transcript from a computer where it was -- where it was tried to be erased but only found later because it would have a chilling effect on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime. that's what the letter said and at the same time we have a doj going to investigative reporters saying i know you guarantied these people confidentiality to report against their government doing something bad against the u.s. citizen but i am going to

force you to expose that or i'm going to hold you in civil contempt or all of those things. >> there are many things that seem to be double standish one way for them and a way for us. >> they are literally saying we can't release something because otherwise we won't be able to investigate again. by the way, patently false and they don't like anything that you are right right, left, r center conservative liberal, they say i want to know who your source is.>> >> i get it. >> with that i yield >> chairman roy i'm grate back s committee. to the ranking member, courtesies to ms. scanlon. good news that i heard as we were concluding your last question was that the press act

does help. >> seems like it would, ms. lee. >> yes, so we need the word investigative i hope you want us as members of congress to investigate so we get it right. so that this very hallowed amendment or bill of rights in the first amendment is taken says later i take it very seriously and i appreciate the work that all of you do, in spite of the obstacles that you face this is america and we have mountains and valleys. i would like to get a sense from all of you where we are in the comfort level of your protection. i'm going to start, ms. johnson, i appreciate the institute at columbia i believe, and i want to make sure we got the press act that may be needing to be reimagined. we look at other legislation

that allows investigative reporters to work but not, i think there's a fine line between, i want use the term abuse on both sides, but there's a fine labor cybele start with you, ms. johnson. what more care do we need to give to have the work and investigative reporter work? i am going to ask you that question. i think that will help us, i will be finished and him had to get another drink at another time to go into more deeply concerned issues but miss johnson if you would quickly. >> the first thing we needed to do is enter the press act gets passed into law and science. but i think it's important to remember and recognize this is a fraught time for journalists. we have new surveillance technology spirit we have a question of funding for journalism itself. so it's really important to do what congress can do in the immediate term to protect information that is vital to our democracy which is to protect journalists and often to the job we need them to do. >> and are you concluding your testimony by saying i would be

passed the press act and have funding? >> the first thing congress to do is just is to pass the press act and sure it is signed into law and order to protect journalists and allow them to be able to give assurance to the sources that there will not be revealed. there is across the bigger question about funding for journalism as a profession, as a whole. >> are right. ms. attkisson, where do we need to go with the? >> one asked any issues regarding laws are passed, we know from the factual record that are bad actors in setter agencies that will violate law. so ally doesn't necessarily provide full protection. and number two, when a citizen tries to get redress or something like that as in civil courts is under i found the federal government has in order protections from their own shield laws i will call them. they have immunity. we have to get permission from them, the alleged guilty party, to get depositions and information. and i think this is something that needs to be fixed by

congress to broad immunity granted to people. >> this or any detriment to the ie, i'm on another, on the ai, is there another detriment to this act that i exist amongst the. >> us i'll bet there is but i'm not an expert on that. >> all right. we were back-to-back hearings. and if you would, ms. cavallaro. thank you, ms. keller. >> what more do we need to do? >> so sag-aftra has for decades supported a federal shield law, and we would first hope that the press act passes. i think that's the priority. i think we need to take that first step. i do think there are other challenges facing journalism and journalists that we would love

to use our voice as as a labr union representing journalists to advocate for. but it do think that as as a, i think the idea that this passed unanimously and there is bipartisan support should mean that something we should be able to move forward quickly and expeditiously. >> were going to do deep dive on that. what to quickly finished i think with ms. attkisson -- >> ms. herridge. >> i'm looking at ms. herridge. if you would. >> thanks for the question. i agree with my colleagues. i think the imperative is to get the press act through the senate and on the president does. it's going to close a gap in the federal courts. it's going to bring consistency between the state shield and the federal shield laws. just think a lot of good will follow from that. >> mr. chairman, i'm grateful for the time given. i think we are committed to doing a deep dive on this important issue, first amendment

rights, i want to be part of helping as opposed to undermining them. thank you so very much and i yield back. >> thank the gelid from texas i will now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you wrote stories critical of the obama administration, it's a packet? >> yes, but may i point out it wasn't put in a political light? there were also stories some would consider critical of the bush spit you wrote stories critical of the government. >> yes. >> and then you did a fast and furs, other issues. even before on the bush of administration. and then strange things are happening to you, right? >> yes. >> like computer, your phone gets bugged and things happened your computer. after you wrote stories critical of the government. >> bright. >> that's scary, right? >> it's not a good thing. >> ms. herridge you wrote stories critical of the by administration, is that true? >> that's fair. >> give it a number things about the laptop pc, hunter biden, come all things wrote, critical

of the biden come, biden business, , biden brendel said. >> i reported the facts of the story. >> you sure did you reported the facts. cbs fired you, is that right? >> my position was terminated. >> and you and award-winning journalist. how long did you were gets to get? >> i worked at cbs news four and half years. during that time we one major awards. i was part of an emmy-winning team. i was nominated for investigative enemies. i think the most important projects or projects that drove legislation here on the hill. the positively impacted 1 million veterans award-winning journals, won all kinds of awards, what they're almost five years, has extensive experience, given major network prior to that were you also an award-winning journalist and all kinds of reporting critical of the government. there as well and then you get fired it's worse than i come is in a? they didn't just by you. what else did they do?

>> on february 13 when i was told on a soon call that my employment was terminated, i s locked out of my fingernails -- soon call that an osaka office. cbs news sees hundreds of pages of my reporting files including confidential source information. >> that's not normal, is it. >> no, that's not my experience in the other networks i worked at her with my colleagues at cbs news. when the network of walter cronkite sees the reporting files including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism. >> yes, it sure is. i'm just trying and seems there's a pattern developing. critical of the government. mr. pak in the situation and then they start doing all kinds of strange things to your phone lines come to your computer. your critical of the government at a major news organization and you are an award-winning journals, you get fired but not just yet fired. fact we can maybe there's

nothing to that but what we do know is the seizure documents. that's scary as well. you talk about a chilling effect on the first amendment, i don't know how we could be more chilly. they could is the lady sitting beside you stepped in because they're stepping in and helping. then stepping it helps because you got your files back finally, did you? >> i did get the files back. if i didn't have the support of sag-aftra, really publicly standing up for journalism, i don't believe that they would have received the files and it would've been returned to practice want to be clear, congressman, wherever you work if this happened to you, it's an attack on free press. it's an attack on the first amendment. it makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future. that, the free flow of information to the public, they call it journalism profession for a reason. because it's about and informed

electorate, and the cornerstone of our democracy. i cannot speak for myself when my records were seized, i felt it was a journalistic rate. >> ms. cavallaro have you ever seen that before when someone is leaving employment at a major news organization they sees the documents? >> i can't say that sag-aftra is familiar with every single case of termination or departure where speed is i'm not ask you to pick have you ever seen anything like this? >> i have no recollection of seeing speeders that is scary, too. first am at a rapid and it an award-winning journalist who's been in his profession for number of years, note all across the profession, and that have fun heels of what happened to miss accident because both were critical of government. that's what journalism is about, being critical of the government when the governor is doing things wrong and have news or decision of the government itself do this. your testimony, ms. herridge, yet a very important line produces is confidential source

or not protected, journalism is dead. and i agree but he seems me if retaliation is allowed by the cabal by some major media outlet, journalism is dead as well. that's what this unit is about. i want to thank you all for coming and sharing your important testimony. i yield back. >> i think the chairman. i would like recognize the ranking member. >> i just have unanimous consent request to enter into the record hereabouts response to chairman jordan fibber 23rd letter regarding ms. herridge of termination. it corrects the record some of the wild speculation and mischaracterization with it from the other side as it describes ms. herridge is not the only person who was let go at that time and certain procedure followed. >> with the chairman joe? >> yes. >> i didn't have always was it happened. what happened afterwards is what is scary when he sees your files. that is scary. that is the point i speedy

unanimous consent to introduce the letter. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> suspend for one second. [inaudible conversations] >> i will not recognize the recommender for questions. >> thank you. and i want to thank all of our way decision today. appreciate ms. herridge repeater acknowledgment that are employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit in which she was held in contempt for refusing to disclose the confidential source come despite the confusion of some of my colleagues conflated those matters. ..

federal law in readiness and confusion versus decision over the state years ago it really is incumbent upon congress to take action to make sure courts are not put in a position where they were cap possible jail time because i don't think have the authority not to the court explicitly invited congress, quote, required statutory news man and woman's privilege is necessary and desirable. so if you could just take us through why should congress step in and actually take up this invitation particularly in the context to have recent first amendment and freedom of the press in our modern world.

>> congress should actually take this up because it is confusion and leads journalists in alert where they are subject or have been subject to different interpretations of this seminole case as you note is over 50 year's old but with the definitions it provides and with the comprehension with which it addresses the issue it is really an opportunity for congress to clarify as my colleagues today are going to beless and less likely to come forward and that harms americans because when americans can note access information they don't know what they are doing. >> and i appreciate that. i think it harms our court system when we put the courts in a position where they are doing something that is undermining first amendment and free press rights. we've noted, i think, that

dozens of our states. i've seen 49 states, i've seen 32 states so the majority of states in dc have enacted but they are not in uniform and we have interpretations of what's required and what is not required. how does that impact journalism in -- in this modern wage so much of it is digital and online platforms and we are not talking about the mom and pop paper down the street anymore but we are talking about wider distribution sources.ow how does the lack of a more uniformed impact journalism? >> it impacts in a few ways eitr court recognition and there's no distinction the. the d.o.j. recently had media guidelines the talked about news

media center in terms of limitations for what government can do to help sources. >> the internal criteria in the agency when it comes to defining what the new speaker is. we have a number of individuals engaging in these acts in terms of being a "wall street journal" report. because they are not empty a new age of innovation of journalism, having is act to protect paternalist of all different. >> i want to thank all our witnesses the importance of the present act in the editorial calling get with us again a gun so thank you again, we healed back.

>> i want to thank her in my garlic are trying to move this along. i believe we are quite you try to finish this hearing so we are going to receipt and hope we don't have to break and come back. can you quickly for the committee, articulate their words and first perceived in carrying out your profession? >> i'm so proud of the work we did. as part of an emmy-winning team and nominated for primarily revealing toxic exposure for veterans from a they were based in watching these operations and

reporting account for legislation justice act which opened new opportunities and for veterans interest accountability reporting on the left and the right. chicken cacciatore quite higher call you been giving awards and nothing would indicate these failures could you drop probably, correct? >> i think what you are asking is that i was terminated for, i don't believe my record what like that. i don't know what it is considered when they terminated my position, there was tension over the hunter biden reporting and i can't speak for sure why i

was like zero. >> you mentioned tension, one reporter mainstream media focusing on the hunter biden laptop in fact rounding the biden family, correct? >> is correct the full picture i was author who obtained the audiotaped for former president trump that i exposed how soldiers were denied the problem part and a ballistic missile attack and karen. i follow the facts. >> was around the time of calling out the trump administration for the times you pursued? >> was like a few days after two

president biden's information. >> at the same time that's going on your managing the issue with fox and the reality you are held in contempt. it's important for the record your house in contempt by court to the tune of $800 a day which thankfully has stayed, correct? >> it is correct and i like to emphasize my case is that the appellate court in the characterization court being hinted at discretion and i was thinking journalists and they

have to make the choice of these sources. >> can you raise the extent on what you believe this means? a corporate structure from your previous reporting. >> i just don't think any journalist significant proven financial sanctions are current employer in position for this costly fence. rest act most legal cap and i want to emphasize not a single journalist or single-story from it's not about the network. what happened in my case is

going to impact every journalist and impact every journalist in the united states for the next generation to come anything i can accomplish my career as a journalist is going to get this. i feel this with every fiber of my being. >> i want to acknowledge moment will be closed before we adjourn. >> it's purpose and privilege on the part of journalists. i appreciate the fact, right appreciate your position in your

republicans, i get that. as a matter think with the presence of shellenberger right observation, i think cbs news, all of which are captured like you work for one of maybe large there's is from "wall street journal", washington post and new york times all rock big media captured on one side. he worked for the same period of

time for one of those. what is that? the hunter biden story or whatever but how does a journalist and an environment where they are kept on one side of the political spectrum ask. >> voice tried to be respectful of former employers cbs news in the same approach, it's about accountability journalism representing the city. it is so important in a civil debate to settle these issues and i feel team with protection

courses helps grow the voices and that's the bottom line. >> and i understand you want to take on and emphasize this to cover new ground is act as were you decided to focused. you're one of the admirable confessional but also the you are on air, not wanting your applicant image and decided, is that not true? >> you investigated to bring and diverse voices and i did my best to do that. i can't explain all of the decisions that in some cases i felt like submitted was

uncomfortable with journalism. >> professional ethical list, want to go but i have great respect for the your profession has about a little how they will be solved but i do believe it will be in bits and pieces. i do think it is a great tragedy media but everyone probably recognize where the overall trend has grown in at least professional journalists and hopeless situations.

if you have one decided to go one way entirely as a mechanism for what professional journalism ought to be. >> this concludes today's hearing and we think the witnesses before hearing. questions to the witnesses or additional record. without objection, when hearing is adjourned. the losing and radiant.

[background noises] [background noises]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]