talk about redistricting, reform, having instant runoff elections, there was just the op-ed in the "new york times" suggesting, that's just not going, because it doesn't deal with the underlying, that only causes other divisions that exist in the country. the countries are divided and the politicians are reflected in the divisions in the country. they are not creating them. they are there. >> by and large, most political scientists are not a big fan of term limits. i would simply point out a few factor in five forthcoming retirement, plus in all probability a couple of incumbent losses, you're really going to have 82% of the senate replaced. that's a substantial, a substantial turnover.

and the price you pay, we know it from state legislative analysis, particularly went term limits are fairly short, is the cost and expertise, the ability to really make the legislature work. as we've had a lesson in the last few weeks, it's difficult to make these legislators work. and that loss of expertise is probably far more serious than what you gain with some freshness. >> twenty years from now the only senator who will still be in the senate will be robert byrd. [laughter] >> another question? >> you've told us what's happened over the last 50 years. i mean, is there any hope going forward? >> a., brody, where are you?

>> , tomorrow. you know, i don't think it's all bad. my view is polarization has some very positive consequences. it gives voters clear choices. we have a much better idea as opposed to 40 or 50 years ago when we had these conservative democrats and moderate liberal republicans and party lines weren't as clear, now we have a better idea what the choices are. and the result is actually that it's rather than turning off people, it's energizing the electorate. we have higher turnouts. we have not only higher turnouts but more people participating in other ways, more people talk about politics, more people making phone calls. so in some ways it's really beneficial. i think there's some problems translating that into policy outcomes that have to do with the fact there are institutions were not designed to accommodate, you know, this type

of ideological politics. that we have today. but i do think there are some positive things that come from a. >> very quickly on that. and say there's an election in november 2008 that had a very strong result. you know, give or take joe lieberman, 60 votes, in the u.s. senate, and overwhelming majority in the u.s. house. and it strikes me that that election should have had some consequence. and i think in the last few weeks, with obama, pelosi, reid, whatever, i think what you're really seeing is a manifestation of what happened in november of 2008. and if things don't work out, you know who to blame.

there's no ambiguity here. so again, i think that with that kind of electoral result, to overwhelm the senate obstructionism, the electorate deserved, he seemed to be, i kind of response. and they got one. [inaudible] >> there has been, i mean, i would agree there's been significant policy change, not as much as some people would have expected in november 2000 a, but now with the health care, that i think change is the sort of general scoreboard, scorecard on the. i was a couple of things. i would say, i disagree a little bit in terms of the positive view of the polarization in terms of plural society. i think there's a difference

between intense policy disagreements and policy disagreement that are framed in terms of the legitimacy of the people in office, the fundamental legitimacy is of the president and other people, that i think is something that's happened before in american politics. it's not unprecedented, but i don't think it's necessary to have -- i don't think that's a particularly comment feature. i think you saw before the civil war. i think we saw at some point in the 1930s and 40s, but i don't think that's common. and i think that is something to be worried about. and i don't think viewing that as reflecting popular, its reflection very small portion of the public. and while the public is more polarized, it's not the case that the average voter, median voter is as polarized as the leaves are. -- elites are. so i think the real problem in terms of governance, and i saved

him from california because i see everyday in california, is can you have -- california's very polarized parties. a state constitution that says to pass a budget you need two-thirds. and what they found is the parties have polarized -- we can pass a budget. nobody is responsible, nobody is no who to blame. and there's an intense sense of cynicism in the state. the danger is take is polarization in the senate and congress, had his 60 vote acquire it, voters will then have a very difficult time knowing who to hold accountable when you do get gridlock and failure. and i think that is a recipe for real problems down the road. and i'm not sure whether they will solve it or not, but that's the core issue i think. >> i agree with your first point. absolutely. i think it can get carried too far, although i'm not sure how small minority it is a necessary

questions of legitimacy. you know, i think is a very large minority on certain questions. >> and a note of hope from history. with a preset extreme polarization in our nation's past, and they have passed. new coalitions and new issues will come along and form, and i don't think this is by any means permanent. >> we had a question in the back, i believe. >> since the '60s, we've had a revolution in the south. and i wonder if you've -- one of you have alerted to the polarization of the parties based on race. it seems to me that you haven't addressed efficiently the effect race has had, particularly in the house, but also in the senate. >> i try to. expect when strom thurmond switch parties, jesse helms came along. lee atwater came along. and the republicans took over the leadership of the congress,

and whether you agree or not, they had an implicit racial appeals. and that has had a major impact, it seems to me, in this whole question of the polarization. and it shows in the party bases. >> right. absolutely, and i wanted to make, emphasized that point. i think the changing racial composition of a party coalition, the democratic coalition now and nonwhites becoming very large share. the democratic party is very heavily dependent on nonwhite votes. and there's been a regional realignment where the south has become the most republican region of the country, and even the obama made some inroads there is still the most by far the most republican region of the country. and where as the northeast, which 50 years ago when bob dole was first elected to the senate, the northeast was the most

republican region of the country. and now it's by far the most, notwithstanding scott brown, it's the most by far the most democratic region of the country. so we've seen a regional realignment but again reflects underlying ideological realignment. races are a component but that's not the only issue that has produced that. but, yeah, living in georgia, believe me, i am well aware of that. spirit and i believe we have time for a final question. right there. >> will the voters, now six months later, respond by electing as the house minority leader asserted on the house bill? the health bill that he says would be repealed. i cannot believe that -- and i would like to put each other through you, what the result will be in terms of seats in the

house back the results of the campaign for repeal? >> yes. >> first of all i think the democrats are certain to lose seats in congress in both -- serving in the house and almost certainly in the senate. and they could suffer pretty large losses, but i don't personally think the health care bill is going to be the most important factor in that. i think that a big factor, it's a midterm election. regardless of what else is going on, and secondly, the democrats are at the high water point right now. they have gained over 50 seats in the last two election. they have democrats saying a lot of republican leaning districts. so they were bound to take some pretty big losses, are likely to take some pretty big losses in any event. i think secondly, the economy is likely to be much more important factor ultimately than the health care bill. now health care will definitely be a big issue in the midterm elections. but my guess is it's not going

to bruise a big shift one way or the other because, again, health care is an issue that divides along party lines. so i think is likely to reinforce the divisions that exist within the electorate. but you know there may be certain individual a number of individual races where it could make a difference one way or another where you have some of these democrats and republican districts. it will be interesting to see whether how they voted, how democrats voted on health care bill alternately makes a difference. in the outcomes of those individual races. >> and let's not forget president obama was to be president, and it's hard to imagine again by the house or senate republicans that would lead to a two-thirds in either chamber,. >> repeal is not going to have an. >> but you knows they have already started saying immediately again the republican leaders repeal and replace. something has to give. so i think that has often

already. we will see what the polls look like. we're just at the beginning of this. >> i'd like to thank again our speakers, the dole center, and thank you all for coming. we can do a final round of applause here. [applause] >> and i will invite you all back tomorrow for our sessions tomorrow as well. >> tomorrow, there is more tomorrow. smack the heavy hitters come tomorrow. [laughter] >> we are the warm-up act. >> the opening act here. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> more now from this week's conference on media regulation and the first amendment. posted by the federal communications bar association. this panel focuses on the future of journalism, and is a little less than an hour and a half. >> i am barbara cochran, president emeritus of the radio television digital news association. a hush fell over the rims off that you're you're probably ready to get going here. our topic today does sound rather daunting. the future of journalism, is it time for a bailout? journalists and news consumers alike recognize this is a time of tremendous change in how news is gathered and delivered. americans are getting more news from a wider varty of ses than ever before, but at the

same time the digital revolutiorevolution is demolishing some of the pillars of traditional news business models. than data, the former executive editor of the "washington post" and michael shifter, published a report last fall that said the economic foundation of the nation's newspapers is collapsing in newspapers themselves are shrinking. the knight foundation commission on information needs of local communities said, local journalistic institutions are themselves in crisis with financial, technological and behavioral changes taking place in our society. yet there's universal agreement that healthy journalism is a vital ingredient in a democratic society. citizens need trusted sources of information about how the government and major institutions function. only a thriving news media can serve as a check on a powerful government. at this moment of tremendous change, what course should

policy take? how can we guarantee the survival of an independent media serving the public interest? what role can government policy makers play that does not preach first amendment protections? to answer these and other questions, we have assembled a panel of experts who have different points of view that promise us a very lively discussion. so let me begin by introducing the panelists. first, if you raise your hand, susan desanti is the director of the office of policy planning at the federal trade commission where she previously served from 1995 to 2006. among her current projects is a study on changes to the news media, in the internet age. to her right is gene policinski, vice president and deputy director of the first amendment center, a program of the freedom forum. he is a veteran journalist who health news executive positions at u.s.a. today and was a correspondent covering

washington for gannett news services. in the middle, andrew schwartzman is senior vice president of policy director of immediate access project. and he has been with the media access project since 1978 represent citizen interest before the federal communications commission and congress. to andy the left is steve waldman. you senior adviser to the chairman of the federal communications commission, directing that agencies study of the state of media. he was cofounder, ceo and editor-in-chief of belief net, a leading website on religion and spirituality. and before that he was national editor of u.s. news & world report, national correspondent for newsweek. and, finally, right here is barbara wall, vice president and senior associate general counsel of in that country. where she advises and as newspapers, television stations and websites on issues including

intellectual property, rights, ethics, privacy and libel. she has been with gannett since 1985, and previous it was in private practice. please welcome a panel. [applause] >> and i make it by my count of three journalists versus three attorneys. so this should be interesting. we will save some time later on for two questions, but first i'd like to begin by asking susan and steve to tell us what they have learned so far from the studies that they're conducting on the state of immediate. and i like to start with susan.. i first want to emphasize that the views i express today are my own. they do not necessarily represent those of the commission or any individual commission, and this is especially important because the commission is still in a fact gathering phase.

as barbara mentioned, the ftc has a project on the future of journalism in the internet age. one of the first questions i often get is why is the federal trade commission involved in this. and so i want to share with you the facts which is not well known, that the ftc actually does have a special statutory authority to gather facts and issue reports on events or trends in the economy that have significance, and we have done this before. we have worked on a report on the radio industry in the 1920s. it was one of the events leading towards the formation of the federal communications commission and in the 2000s we did a report on patent law and innovation, so it's not something totally new that we're doing here. but it certainly is the case that when we love to see the situation in the news media, we see a lot financial difficulti

difficulties. and there are trends that have significance, not just for the economy, and also to whether we're going to have a future that includes the well-informed citizenry that we need for a well functioning democracy. so what has the ftc done with this project so far? we have two workshops, both of them today's. in the samba 2009, we had a workshop basically gathering the facts of the economics of the news industry. and we found at least three critical facts. the first is that there are certainly substantial financial difficulties that have been caused by an overleveraged purchases of newspapers in times when it was thought that margins of 20 or 30% would continue for a long time. and they obviously haven't. and it's important to note in that context that most

newspapers of a stand-alone enterprise in the united states, most of them are still profitable. but if you look at them on as a stand-alone enterprises, but you can't look at them only as stand-alone enterprises because they're part of much larger organizations that are still saddled from those overleveraged acquisitions. second, there have been significant reductions in advertising revenues to newspapers. why is that important? because newspapers traditionally got about 80% of the revenues, at least during the 20th century, from advertising. so what are the causes for that? there are two mainland. one is the great recession of 2007-2008-2009-2010. that recession has hit traditional advertisers for newspapers, particularly hard. that includes auto dealers, retail stores, housing sales, et

cetera. and then there's another cost, which is the developer to online advertising. and this is most striking if you look at classified advertising. it used to provide about 40% of newspapers revenues. it is now substantially reduced as a source of revenue for newspapers, and why is that? well, because you can put your classified ads on craigslist for free. so why would you list them in the newspapers necessary to? so let's take those three crucial facts and look at them in terms of the question for today's panel, which is is a time for a bailout for newspapers. well, in my view there is no reason why you would want to bail out newspaper owners who have made bad business decisions. i haven't even heard the newspaper owners asking for a bailout. and no one is suggesting that the financial world would tumble if newspaper owners didn't get a

bailout. second, in terms of the recession, well, there are many businesses that are having very hard times during this recession. there are many people who are being laid off, not just journalists there and eventually, we believe, the recession will lift gradually. you'll probably take much longer than any of us he would like you. but that is still a phenomenon that is a short-term phenomenon. finally, let's look at the online advertising. and this is the phenomenon that i think might justify some kind of shift in government policy to provide more support for news organizations in general, and i want to be clear that we're talking about news organizations, not just talking about newspapers. this has today across platforms, especially since almost all newspaper -- news organizations these days are online.

so the differences between platforms is getting blurred, to some extent. in any case, there is some evidence that this movement of advertising online can append the business model for news organizations, especially newspapers and broadcast news. there's a great deal of innovation going on with small online newsgathering organizations, but no sustainable new business model has arisen. there are reasons t believe that the free market for news, especially public affairs news, is potentially subject to market failure. and that means there is a possibility that a new business model will not emerge. and, finally, it would not be novel for the government to provide indirect support for news organizations, and i emphasized in direct.

so, what did we do? we had a workshop in march for two days to talk about gather experts and talk about what my some of these policy options be, that should be considered. that's where i will leave it i'm happy to elaborate if we have time or anybody is interested. >> we will defer a come back later and hear what comes next. steve, same question to you. where does your study stand and what do you think the next steps will be? >> the fcc's study is a couple months behind the ftc's study. we are looking at some of the same issues, but we also have a special emphasis. in addition to understanding what's happened with news business as a whole, the federal communications commission has direct regulatory authority over really every part of the media

industry other than newspapers. so local broadcast, cable, radio, wireless, et cetera. so we need to make recommendations, the plan is to make recommendations in general. for congress, but also specifically to make sure the fcc is in these issues in a wise way. some of the rules on the fcc's books were conceived before the was an internet. some of them were conceived before there was a tv. so to assume that the people who constructed these got it right back then is probably wishful thinking. obviously i agree with susan general assessment that there's a pretty serious potential problem going on in the news business. there is a drop of 44% in

revenue from newspapers since 2000. newsmagazines staff have been cut in half since their peak. local news has cut back across the board. you have some very serious contraction. now, a few points i want to make about what does that mean in terms of government intervention. first, the term bailout i think the term bailout got kind of put into the discussion about news because of a coin since, the contraction of journalism happened at the same time we are bailing out the auto industry. and the banking industry. i don't know of anyone who is advocating bailout of newspapers, or any part of the media for that matter in the same way that we've talked about with other institutions. so in that sense there's a simple answer to the question for this. it's a no. there isn't going to be a bailout of the newspaper

industry or something like that. now that's not to say, first of all, it's not to say that the crisis isn't just as severe as what's happening with autos or banks, though the banking system might not collapse as a result of newspapers declining. what they is potentially just as cities. the ability to hold public institutions, public leaders accountable, the ability for consumers to be protected, the ability for our basic ever crack institutions to function well. that's a big deal. is a big deal and that's why the fcc launched this project in the first place. it's not so much with a particular interest in the economic health of any one of these industries are it's what does this mean for democracy. there's a lot of different points that i think we could talk about. i think the two then been weighing on me most, one is the concept of unbundling and

bundling, which are probably talked about a lot in other contexts. but it basically is, refers in some sense to the ways that newspaper and other media institutions were able to cross subsidize different functions within the same operation. and people have their favorite example, whether it is for scopes were essentially subsidizing the city hall reporter, or the sports scores or subsidizing baghdad bureau, there is truth to the idea that one of the reasons that journalism that wasn't cost effective was subsidize is that newspapers were able to greatness overall bundle that worked in its totality. but if you break it apart and suddenly start applying straight supply and demand economics to each component, everything changes.