modem services and then later they said that telecommunications services that provided internet access were not telecommunication service, they were information services. many thought that was the wrong decision at the time, and a lot of the assumptions, the policy assumptions that led to that decision vice president panned out to be -- haven't panned out to be the case. so, for instance, in 2002 they thought, many policymakers, that by 2010 consumers have many more choices for internet access. there'd be much more intermodal competition. you'd have broadband over power lines and satellite and wireless. and what we've come to learn is that for the foreseeable future, most consumers will have one, maybe two choices for high-speed internet access. and so these companies are really the gate keepers and control the onramps to the internet which is a public forum. so because of their gatekeeper

role and because of the service they provide, they really ought to be considered essential communications platforms just like the telephone. and if you consider them to be essential commune cases flat -- communications platforms, then they ought to be treated as telecommunications providers. once the fcc does that which would be to reverse the 2002 decision, then they're on solid legal foundation, and then they can proceed forward against the very acts that comcast engaged in which caused this complaint to happen in the first place. >> host: is that the title ii reclassification? >> guest: that's the title ii reclassification issue. it's not that complicated a procedure. essentially, it happened in 2002 to declassify, and the commission can revisit that decision and reclassify into these services into title ii. it does not mean, however, that they're summit to the full --

subject to the full title ii regulations. we wouldn't be talking about reregulating these providers, we'd be talking about creating a solid legal foundation so that the sort of light-touched proposed rules that people are talking about to protect consumers from the most egregious behavior are in place. then, i think, it's all stakeholders. because you have certainty for innovators in silicon valley that they can come up with products that won't be blocked or interfered with, that cable and telephone companies have certainty because they know what the legal foundation is and the rules are, and consumers have certainty that their internet experiences aren't going to be messed with. so i think that benefits all stakeholders in this face. >> host: is airplane l decision to make at the commission, but what about the legal challenges that would ensue? do you think they would ensue and then what do you think of the difficulty as far as the legal fight this would produce if that reclassification took place? >> guest: the commission never does anything that doesn't

result in a legal challenge. [laughter] absolutely there'll be a lawsuit, but the reason this case was so helpful, it was a test case. the test that the fcc was proposing to build its legal foundation failed. so if they move this forward under the title ii scream, they'll be -- regime, they'll be challenged. but as long as in title ii they make a decision that's based on the facts and based on well-reasoned technical analyses, it's going to be very hard for an appellate court to overturn that. those are where agencies are in their strongest position, when a commission's making expert determination. it's very hard for a circuit court to second guess those kinds of decisions. so i think they have a much better chance, actually, in that situation of surviving a legal challenge. and once that happens, then i think we're moving forward with some certainty on how policymakers can treat the internet access providers. >> host: even during this process you had companies such

as a, the at&t, comcast saying y were still committed to the idea of an -- committed to the idea of an open internet. why not at least leave it at that with the idea that perhaps self-policing might be a way to go? >> guest: it doesn't work. our view is trust but verify. there has to be some enforcement mechanism to keep these companies honest because while those entitieses since 2002 have been -- entities since 2002 have been saying that they're for openness, we've seen examples like the comcast situation where actually they've engaged in activity that's been very opposite of the things that they publicly stated that they were for. so they've blocked lawful content. and when they block lawful content, unless there's some sort of complaint process and recourse, it's very hard just to shame the company into changing their behavior. there has to be some sort of heavier r heyier stick than

that. >> host: some have said this is a great victory for content companies like google because they use a lot of bandwidth and virtually they see no recourse for their action, so to speak. what argument would you make as far as representing these type of companies about the type of bandwidth which goes up which was initially the content moving over the lines is what brought this to the forefront in the first place. >> guest: right. that's where everyone benefits by some clear rules, having a solid legal foundation which is why i think the fcc has to move to reclassify. once that happens the network operators will be able to promote rules -- and we'll support them on this -- that allows them to engage in network management activities to deal with issues about increasing bandwidth and how you deal with the traffic that may be overwhelming a network. so those are issues that the isps ought to have a great deal of flexibility to engage in. but right now they're not really

sure what the rules are in that space. i think having a clear set of rules helps everybody this that space know what to expect and where the lines will be drawn in terms of permissible activity and things that, you know, cross the line into impermissible activity. in the comcast situation, they argued they were blocking lawful content because of bandwidth issues, but the facts developed showed it was the opposite. comcast was blocking the application even when there was no congestion on the network. so there has to be some sort of oversight that can verify what the network operators are saying to insure that, that the activities they're engaging in especially when they're blocking lawful content is actually done in a way that is, that promotes sound public policy. >> host: markham ericson, thank

you. >> guest: thank you. >> host: thanks for joining us for "the communicators" this week. if you would like to read the three-judge panel's decision on net neutrality, net management, you can go to c-span.org/communicators where you can watch all of our previous programs as well. thanks for being with us. >> you've been watching "the communicators," c-span's weekly look at the issues and people shaping telecommunications policy. if you missed any of this program on the concept of net neutrality and the implications of last week's federal court ruling challenging the fcc's authority to regulate internet service providers, you can see "the communicators" or again tonight and each monday night at 8 eastern right here on c-span2. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might give me a little help in deciding the case. >> after 34 years on the supreme court, justice john paul stevens will step down when the court

finishes its work for the summer, and the best place to explore his life and legacy is the new c-span video library. with more than 80 appearances dating back to 1985, search it, watch it, clip it and share it. there are the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america.

>> all this month see the winners of c-span's student cam video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenge the country's facing. watch the top-winning videos

every morning on c-span at 6:50 eastern just before "washington journal." and at 8:30, during the program, meet the students who made them. and for a preview of all the winners, visit studentcam.org. there are. >> this past friday iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad unveiled a third generation of centrifuges that he says will produce fuel for as many as six of his country's nuclear plants. in a speech he talked about the advancements in his country's nuclear program and criticized the new strategic arms treaty signed by president obama and russian president medvedev calling it a big lie. here's a portion of his remarks courtesy of iran's news channel. this is about 20 minutes. >> translator: nuclear energy is a very appropriate replacement for fossil fuels.

but actually what happened in the nuclear energy field, the first people to acquire this energy, their main purpose was to actually use it for military purposes and dominate other nations. nuclear energy is a divine blessing. however, arrogant powers and selfish people, those who want to actually dominate all nations from square one from the very beginning, they actually had an inhumane approach towards this clean energy. they misused it. remember the first historical

memory related to the nuclear energy, what was the first historical memory? that was the nuclear bombs that dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. it was then when actually nucleus and knewically eye -- nucleii have a lot of power. from the very beginning they monopolized this energy and used it to dominate other nations. and by making wrong policies so up to this day they have not, they have prevented this energy to be used for the purpose of peace, welfare and in the positive direction actually. you see, recently they issued a statement to justify possessing nuclear bombs.

they adopted a number of measures and made a number of policies, all of of those polics were against peace and humanity and were in line with nuclear proliferation. first of all, the production of nukes itself, if a country possesses nuclear weapons, will it actually stop nuclear defense? no. it will, ironically, lose nuclear defense. actually -- well, when a country pezs nuclear weapons and others are -- possesses nuclear weapons and others are watching, others may say, okay, they have this, why shouldn't we? it's been 60 years that they say

we are working towards non-proliferation, working towards nuclear non-proliferation. however, all the policies they have made have been actually encouraging nuclear proliferation. is it possible that some country has nuclear weapons but at the same time that country asks others not to have atom thetic weapons? -- atopic weapons? it's -- atomic weapons? it's impossible. the stockpiling of nuclear weapons is the greatest incentive towards nuclear proliferation. well, we tell them, okay, why are you stockpiling and storing nuclear weapons? are you going to use them against other nations? they say, no, we are keeping them only for deter reasons. deterrence. well, please, pay attention. what does deterrence mean? if be nuclear reps -- if nuclear

weapons are a deterrent, first of all, why shouldn't others have it? well, everybody would like to have a high deterrence capability. secondly, this policy will lead to an intense nuclear arms race between rivals. why? because every, every country wants to get the upper hand, and otherwise it wouldn't be deterrence. so if they want to have a deterrence capability, they should get the upper hand. this would lead to a nuclear arms race, and it will lead to upgrading more nuclear weapons, building more nuclear weapons and all that. recently you saw that, of course, it was in the past as well, but they have used nuclear

weapons as a threat if somebody uses nukes as a threat, this, will this be causing actually proliferation? you see, you threaten some nations, and this -- what are they supposed to do? will they sit back and watch you? of course not. when you have a tool with which you are threatening other nations, you are actually encouraging other nations to get their hands on this tool as well. so when you say you are going to work towards non-proliferation, nuclear non-proliferation, this is a great lie. the show you saw, this show performed by the u.s. government a few day ago, that was a great lie as well. they have more than 9,000 nuclear warheads by their own

admission. of which 2,100 are strategic ones. it means they are weapons which are very determining and important in case of a war. they said out of this 2,100 we will cut it to a ceiling of 500. a number of atomic bombs, you see, just a few bombs in nagasaki and hiroshima, it made the catastrophe, and it killed hundreds of thousands of people. now you have 9,000 you want to reduce them by 600 over a number of years, and you are just reminding other nations of that all the time. at the same time, they say iran

may or is accused of actually is a accused of possessing one nuclear bomb in the next several years. if one nuclear bomb is so dangerous to the world, how about these 9,000 bombs? you yourself say that your arsenals can decimate the earth for several times. why are you stockpiling, have you stockpiled these arsenals? is that for human rights, for the sake of human rights? these policies are against humanity. the greatest, actually, betrayal of nuclear weapons states has been that they, they have

equated nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. who says nuclear energy means nuclear weapons? they themselves have defined it that way just because they are going to monopolize it and prevent other nations from acquiring clean nuclear energy, and this is the greatest betrayal to the humanity. they are depriving humanity of a great blessing which can be used in industry, agriculture, medicine and other sectors. of course, the betrayals and treasons of arrogant powers and totalitarian regimes are not

just a few. more than that. on the culture front, on the economic front they are like that as well. however, today our topic is nuclear energy. we are opposed to atomic bombs. we have announced it time and again. those, those who seek a bomb lack human logic. we do believe that the relations between humans and nations should be based on friendship, justice and happiness and nobody should seek to dominate another one, no government should be seeking to humiliate other nations and governments and dominate their resources. all nations should enjoy, should enjoy peaceful coexistence with equal rights. well, we consider nuclear

weapons against humanity. of course, i have said repeatedly those, today those who are seeking to stockpile nukes and by actually shows they would like to hide their true activities. they say because of threats we face by some nations, some nations who may later achieve nuclear weapons, we are just keeping nukes for that purpose. to defend ourselves against possible threats by such countries. this is just a false justification. we believe those seeking nukes are actually backward on underdeveloped political elements. where are they going to use them after all? against who or which nations?

who has the courage to use nuclear bombs against others? if you believe this gives you kind of domination, you should know that gone are the days when nuclear bombs would give some nations the edge. gone are those days. today the yardstick is actually, is how much you are committed to human values. this is the yardstick, not the atomic bomb. some behave like the savage people in the past. they think, actually all their relicense and -- reliance and dependence is on their weapons. in all the relations and talks whenever they cannot get their points across through logic, they just show their weapons. it is history now.

they issue statements, they said except for iran and so on and so forth we will not attack any other nation. this is another big lie as well. so you attack japan. they didn't possess nuclear weapons. you used depleted uranium against the iraqi people. they have nuclear weapons. okay, you have not lived up to your commitment so far. just they are going to justify their position of nuclear weapons. there are some actually fabricated regimes around us which have stockpiled nuclear weapons. however, they are supported by big powers.

you are going to work towards non-proliferation first, you should disarm yourself, then your allies -- those who have not signed up to any treaty, those who are not operating under international organizations. it is clear that you are not telling the truth. you think that nuclear weapons will give you the edge, but gone are those days. today is the era of logic, culture and humanity. and actually having more does not bring domination, but brings friendship. however, we support disarmament, we favor disarmament, but how? those who possess nuclear poms,

okay, we should tell them, okay, please, set aside your bombs. well, it's been going on for 60 years. we have been telling them for 60 years. have they done that? 60 years ago they had a number of bombs, but how many have they got today? in the statement they have said that, okay, they have said that we will work towards non-proliferation and all that. if we leaf disarmament -- leave disarmament to the possessors of nuclear bombs, it's not okay. it means actually handing over the security of a town or city to burglars. it means you can loot everything easy. easily. disarmament should happen. disarmament, what's through the method adopted over the past six

years, disarmament is not possible in dependent governments and nations -- independent governments and nations should get together for a new block and through and act through a global will and determination. they should form a global determination. impartial parties and those who are committed to humanity, they should two and disarm possessors of nuclear weapons. they say, okay, we have cut our nuclear weapons by 60. who is going to monitor that? 600. they wouldn't allow impartial parties to go and oversee that. they announce it, and they report it themselves. who is going to believe that? we need global determination for disarmament, and we favor talks when it comes to nuclear, to the

nuclear issue, we are cooperative. we have announced time and again and we have shown in practice that we are a man of our word. we have shown that we are moving in the right direction. however, they should know if actually anybody is sitting there and believes that with the language of threat and actually brandishing weapons and all that he can actually disrupt the will of the iranian nation, he should know that he is really mistaken. their behavior will make the iranian nation more resolved. if, actually, until just four months ago we didn't have the intention to actually produce 20% enriched fuel.

however, to use the language -- they use the language of threat against us. i advised them to stop it, enough is enough, stop this wrong behavior which has been going on for 60 or 70 years. and with that behavior they have harmed themselves and the whole world, and they have discredited themselves. enough is enough, actually. you can -- i advised them to come and experience humanity a little bit, respect others. please, actually remain committed to moralities. the iranian nation is moving full steam ahead on it path and strong as ever and with god's grace no power today can threaten the iranian nation.

and all the things that the statements they made they were going to just, find the justification so that they can keep nuclear weapons. not that they are going to threaten the iranian nation. they know that any, actually, any hand of aggression against the iranian nation will be cut off. the guests are chanting, "slogans." [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: there's going to be a conference in tehran in a matter of days. it's a disarmament conference. they're going to get together

and work out a proper and logical and efficient and independent solution to work towards disarmament. we hope they will come to their senses and stop mischief making and at the end i would like to appreciate efforts by all those who are working tirelessly in all fields, especially in the nuclear field, those working in the nuclear field are unknown soldiers. ,,,,,,

the way you look to the nuclear technology should be to the last possible point. or the peak. you should have the last possible point in sight first of all. you should get to a point where we would tap into our all potential in the field of

nuclear energy to improve our welfare. secondly, in the near future, we should actually turn into a nation which can export nuclear technology and know how this is possible. once again, again, i thank you all. and i hope that a more bright future is ahead of --

>> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest or a challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 eastern just before "washington journal." and at 8:30 during the program meet the students who made them. and for a preview of all the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> the southern republican leadership conference wrapped up its meeting over the weekend in new orleans. mississippi governor haley

barber spoke. his comments last about half hour. [applause] >> i'm just going to tell the truth and they'll think it's hell. [laughter] >> thank you very, very much for that wonderful introduction from me as governor of mississippi. [applause] >> to be back in new orleans -- to be back in new orleans this weekend is a bittersweet occasion. as it reminds me of what we and our neighbors in louisiana shared in 2005 to bear the brunt of the worst disaster in american history. and i want to say to all of you from all over the country and from the south but there's people from all over the country. our sister states were great partners to us.

and we want to say thank you to you for what you did for the people in mississippi and louisiana. [applause] and candidly, i want to -- i want to say thank you to the federal government. you know, the federal government gets a very bad rap about what happened after katrina. the federal government was very generous to us after the storm. and that i want to say to say to you for that. i do also say that there was something to be learned from that. people don't think there's any need anymore for stewardship of the public's money. of the taxpayers' money. i'm proud to tell you in mississippi where we received 20-something billion dollars of your money, that the federal government's auditors think the error rate in spending is less than 1%. [applause] >> wouldn't we love to see the government do something? where the error rate was less

than 1%. so i apologize for digressing to talk about that. that natural disaster. but let's face it today we're here we know we need to deal with a manmade disaster. [applause] >> the policies of this administration and the pelosi/reid congress are disastrous for our country. every one of you is here 'cause you know it. you recognize it. you're concerned about it for your children and for your grandchildren. you may not know the first southern republican leadership conference ever held was held here in new orleans in 1969. you would be interested to note there are three times more people registered today than there were then because you understand what the stakes are for our country and know this is the place to start taking our country back. [applause]

>> if i don't get but one thing across to you today in my brief time, is that we have got to stay focused on the election of 2010. don't worry about 2012. the election we got to be focused on is the election of 2010. we can't wait until 2012 to start taking our country back. [applause] >> probably most of y'all are not old enough to remember the ed sullivan show. >> i remember it. >> oh, you're not that old. but to be here in the hilton hotel in new orleans reminds me of a great story about focus. about staying -- keeping your eye on the ball. con regard hilton was on the ed sullivan showed back in the 1950s. here's con row hilton, this

business icon. he created a new business, the luxury hotel chain. and ed sullivan has him up on the show and turns to him and says, mr. hilton, if you could tell the american people one thing and only one thing, what would you tell them. well, conrad hilton never hesitated and never blinked, he said, put the shower curtain inside the tub. [applause] [laughter] >> now, there's a man who knew what was important to him. [laughter] >> he understood what it meant to keep your eye on the ball. one thing matters to us for the next six-plus months. and that is winning the critical 2010 elections. don't take your eye off the ball. [applause]

>> a big part of this, of course, for me as chairman of the republican governors association is the fact that there are 37 governor races this year. three-fourths of the state of the country have a governors race. now, i will tell you as somebody who was chairman of our party the last time we were similarly situated. in 1994. i can tell you governors matter. gubernatorial races matter. more of you see your governor get organized with your governor's people than any other politician that you have to deal with. governors matter. governors deal with real problems. you know, while the obama administration is on a spending spree that's so out of control that it gives drunken sailors a bad name, what are governors

doing? well, i can tell you i became governor and inherited a $720 million deficit. that's 20% of the general fund budgeted in my state was under water. and we balanced the budget in two years without raising anybody's taxes. [applause] >> we did it by controlling spending. we did it by controlling spending. this year since our legislature passed our budget for this year, i've had to cut the budget 9.5%. but you can do it. businesses do it. families do it. government can do it. bobby jindal is cutting his budget, bob reilly is cutting his budget, sunny perdue, mark sanford, and charlie crist has cut the budget in florida by $10 billion. governors step up to the plate and make tough decisions.

at the same time, in washington, the idea that you could cut spending drives cold chills up their subpoenas. -- spines. those of them that have subpoenas. spines.spins. spines. [applause] >> think about since this administration has been in. stimulus, omnibus. fannie, freddie. of course, healthcare reform. trillions. i mean, every month they were spending trillions of dollars. $1.3 trillion deficit, $1.4 trillion deficit. now the president has produced his new budget for this coming year, $3.8 trillion in spending.

with a $1.6 trillion deficit. do you know when newt gingrich was speaker of the budget the entire budget was $1.4 trillion and these people are prosing that as a deficit? a deficit for our children. and our grandchildren. and our grandchildren's grandchildren. to have to pay back. americans may not be able to say to you that this wild spending spree is going to drive down the value of the dollar. that it's going to drive up interest rates. that it's going to make our debt harder to sell to the chinese or anybody else they may not say this is going to cause the kind of inflation we had under jimmy carter. but i'll tell you what, the american people know it's wrong. they know you can't spend yourself rich. and they want to put a stop to this. [applause]

>> they want to put a stop to this. and the place to put the stop starts here. because we've got tremendous candidates. you're going to see around the country -- of course, i see the governor candidates and they are just outstanding. people with real records. people with success in the private sector. the kind of people you can be proud of. but the kind of people that will step up to the plate. and bite the bullet the way chris christie has done in new jersey. and bob mcdonald has done in virginia. [applause] >> they got elected to control spending. they are getting their states back on the right track. we need that with the federal government. of course, a lot of us have on our minds the healthcare reform bill.

we ought to have it on our minds. it's another gigantic spending bill. the trillion dollar spending bill. it will be twice that before 10 years is up. but more importantly it will drive up the cost of healthcare. it's going to make your health insurance premiums go up. don't take haley's word for it. the obama administration's own chief actuary at the department of health and human services has said health insurance premiums are going to go up. because of the obama administration's bill. costs are going to go up. because of the obama administration's bill. we're going to see lots and lots more shoes fall. we've seen what happened since the bill passed. it was announced three days later that social security, another gigantic entitlement that social security is

underfunded for this year. that they're going to spend more than they take in. several years earlier than was predicted just a few months ago. we found out that big companies are going to have to take at least $15 billion in losses because of the healthcare reform bill. caterpillar just announced they are going to have to cut back health insurance spending for their company because of the losses that they're going to take because of the healthcare reform bill. you know, the democrats keep telling us, oh, the more people learn about the healthcare bill, the better they're going to like it. well, i think just the opposite's true. you know, when they need 16,000 new irs agents to enforce the healthcare bill, how could that be the case if the american people are going to like it? [laughter] [applause]

>> my hats off to our friends in congress, to mike pence who just spoke. isn't he great? [applause] >> isn't he just great. [applause] >> but john boehner and mike pence, mitch mcconnell and john kyl and lemar alexander, that we're -- ron paul, sure. [applause] >> but the ones -- the ones in congress who are trying to repeal and then replace this law with good policy need to have our support. and i hope you'll support us governors who are litigating this in the federal courts. [applause] >> any of you that had the opportunity to study history and

the history of our constitution understand -- in our constitution we have a limited government. the constitution, which comes from the people, through the states, gives whatever powers the federal government has and no more. [applause] >> and no more. [applause] >> it's a matter of limited government. i believe as do a number of my colleagues that there is nowhere in the united states constitution, including the commerce clause, that says that the federal government has the power or authority to force every citizen to buy certain product, whether it's health insurance or any other product. [applause] >> and we're going to litigate in the united states supreme court. and no matter what new liberal that the president appoints to take justice stevens place, i like our chances in the united states supreme court. that we have a constitution that

requires limited government. that we are -- that our government is a people with a government. not a government with a people. [applause] >> that the power comes from the people in america. so we're going to keep working hard on this. the good news is much of it doesn't take effect for years. the bad news is it got passed. and i was glad -- i didn't get to hear congressman stupak's announcement that he wasn't going to run again. but i hope he said i'm sorry at some point. [laughter] >> at some point. this administration's energy policy in many ways is even worse. i mean, their energy policy is predicated on the idea that we ought to drive up the cost of energy so that americans will use less. well, every time that's ever

happened in an american economy it's because of a recession or a depression. that we are an energy -- a company that uses a lot less energy. than we used to per percentage of gdp. but we still have an economy that runs on energy. particularly, manufacturing. yet, barack obama said during the campaign in 2008, to the "san francisco chronicle, "-- i guess he knew who he was talking to. he said under my cap-and-trade plan, electricity rates necessarily will skyrocket. secretary chu in september of 2008, made a speech. in which he said, the new secretary of energy, what we really need in america is to get the price of gasoline up to where it is in europe. [booing] >> well, we don't need that in mississippi. i can tell you that. $4 gasoline brought us to our knees. [applause] >> these policies are predicated on enormous government spending.

and no worry about what it cost. what energy costs you, what healthcare costs you -- it's all about more government power. more government spending. for myself, i believe the right energy policy is more american energy. [applause] >> that will make america work. [applause] >> let me close by reiterating what i said to you. i hope nobody here spends one wit of time thinking about the 2012 presidential election. we can take care of that after the november 2010 election, okay? [applause] >> the critical issues -- the critical issues that i've just sort of touched on, tiptoed

across the top of -- we ought to start fighting all those issues now. we got to win this election. [applause] >> being from mississippi i'm naturally proud of mississippians. [applause] >> one mississippian i'm proud of -- one mississippian i'm proud of is fred smith. fred smith is the founder and ceo of fedex. and fred is born in march, mississippi. and fred has an expression i want to share with you. fred smith says, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. [laughter] [applause] >> the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing don't get distracted by 2012 is what fred smith is telling you. don't take your eye off the ball. remember what matters.

and how do we win in 2010? we stick together. [applause] >> we work -- we work. we work. we organize. we give. we campaign. some of you even will run for public office. and we welcome every single one of you. conservative unity has to be part of that conservative energy. i can tell you -- [applause] >> i can tell you the democrats' fondest hope is to see tea party or other conservatives split off and have a third-party to split the conservative vote. i'll tell you barack obama has worn out three sets of knee pads

down on his knees praying -- praying for the conservative vote to be split. in 2010. and we can't let that happen. we can't let that happen. [applause] >> we've got to stay unified. [applause] >> we have -- we have a tremendous opportunity. as you know, i was chairman of the party the last time we were here. in 1994. and i'm very proud and i think republicans have a right to be proud of newt gingrich and all the different people involved. and the great victory in 1994. but i will tell you this as a fact about which i have no fear of contradiction. the political environment in america today, in april of 2010, is better for republicans than it was in april of 1994. [applause]

>> i say that to you -- [applause] >> and i will tell you that has been primarily driven by policy. bad policy. it's been driven by what the obama administration and nancy pelosi and harry reid and the democrat majorities -- by the policies that they've tried to cram down the country's throat. so that people are energized. people are agitated. republicans are enthusiastic about republican candidates but i'll tell you that people are also scared. people are worried -- are their children and their grandchildren going to inherit the same country with the same opportunities that all of us benefited from so greatly. that energy -- the wind at our backs is far greater today than it was in the spring of 1994. but the election is not today.

the election is nearly nearly seven months away. how are we going to keep the environment like this? how are we going to -- this wind that's at our backs, how are we going to make sure it continues to fill up our sails? well, first of all, we've got to work. we got to work. and we got to work together. and we got to welcome everybody that wants to work with us. and we got to recognize sometimes somebody that's never been involved before may run in the primary and beat the incumbent republican in the primary. and when they do, they become our candidate. [applause] >> they become our candidate. [applause] >> we got to say to people in the tea party or any other group, the independents or people that have never been republicans or former

republicans or democrats for that matter -- people that think like us, people that believe in what we believe in -- we got to welcome. and not just make them feel welcomed. they got to be welcomed and have an opportunity to participate. [applause] >> at the same time they get in the batter's box that i get in the batter's box. [applause] >> that's what it takes. it takes unity. now, in a two-party system, both parties are necessarily coalitions, okay? not everybody in the republican party is as conservative as haley barbour. i'll tell you something you can't elect haley barbour of vermont. [laughter] >> we have to understand that every state is not as conservative as mine. but if we're going to put

together a majority, if we're going to put together a majority, we need to be sure that people -- as my old boss ronald reagan used to say, remember, a fellow who agrees with you 80% of the time he's your friend and loy. -- alloy. he's not a traitor. [applause] >> we as a party need to welcome the people who want to get rid of the folks that are in office now. we need to make them feel welcomed. but as i say, we need to make them be welcome. give them something to do. give them a chance to participate. help them with what they're doing. i could tell you in my state, the tea party has tremendous energy. and have been great partners for republicans. and putting a ballot initiative on conservative ideas. [applause]

>> and so we got to -- you know, i'm up here today more as former party chairman than as governor. because i'm so focused on winning. if we don't win, we can't fix things. [applause] >> you can't be a statesman until you hold an office of state, we used to say. [laughter] >> and we all need to -- yes, we've got to stand up for what we believe in. but we got to let the things that unite us be the things that we emphasize. and then with conservative unity, we will start taking this country back with a majority of republican governors in november. with a majority in the united states house of representatives in november.

with a a majority in the u.s. senate in november. this is within our grasp. [applause] >> this is within our grasp. but this message of unity is so important. and we cannot let it -- we cannot let ourselves be torn apart by the idea of purity. in a two-party system, both parties are necessarily coalitions. we want our coalition to drive our policies of conservative spending, borrowing, debt -- go down the list from national security to the social issues that mike was talking about. we got to get more than 50% of

the vote for our policies to become the policies that will save this great nation for our children and grandchildren. please leave here unified and stay that way through november. and beyond. if you do, we'll celebrate a great victory in november. thank you. [applause] ♪ [applause]

>> a live picture now from george washington university. a panel is about to get underway examining the state of new media and social networking in iran. and their potential effects on the growth of grassroots communications and the empowerment of political opposition in that country. journalists and members of academia take part in this forum hosted by the broadcasting board of governors and george washington university. this is live coverage on c-span2.

>> welcome, everyone. is this on? welcome everyone to our event on iran's blogosphere and citizen engagement. i think we have a different kind of conference today. i'm a professor here at g.w. of media and public affairs and i'm also the director of the institute for public diplomacy and global communication which along with the broadcasting board of governors is hosting today's event. like i said we're doing things a little differently today. our goal is really to talk about the importance of engagement. means of engagement. the importance of person to person contact even when foreign policy between two countries is difficult to say the least. and we'll be talking about new media, of course.

and one of the things that we're going to do that's a little different today is we're going to have an online moderator who will be bringing in comments and questions that we've received through our conference web page and facebook page. and twitter feeds. and also some videos that have been sent in from everyone from a noted film director to iranian bloggers. g.w. students some of whom are here now. i mentioned that we're partnering with the broadcasting board of governors. again, for the institute. it's always been a wonderful partnership. and i want to get started right away so we can get to our keynoter. by introducing jeff from the broadcasting board of governors. jeff is the managing director of the washington, d.c.-based partners and is also a senior advisor to ogilvy government relations. he has broad political and international experience. since 2002 he has been on the board since bbg. he's also the director of the u.s./russia business council.

and he's also a board member of freedom house, a nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the worded. -- world. without future ado, jeff. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, sean, and i really appreciate the partnership with george washington university. and its institute to present this timely program to you. for those of you who may not know the broadcasting board of governors is a federal agency that supervises all nonmilitary u.s. international broadcasting. we broadcast in 60 languages to over 171 million people around the world. every week. each of our broadcasters, the voice of america, radio free europe, radio liberty, radio sawa and radio free asia is deck indicated in the coded in u.s. law that provide reliable news and information, contributes to

international peace and stability. the broadcasters of the bbg work on a daily basis to promote freedom and democracy through the vehicle of objective, fact-based journalism. we do so in iran through the voice of america's persian news network and radio free europe's radio liberty radio farta. they broadcast 24 hours a day in iran. bringing unbiased news to the iranian people. a lot of the information which they cannot get elsewhere nor can they get from their own indigenous media. according to independent research, nearly 30% of the iranian population watches paa and radio farda found them as well. never have we found our work more challenging in iran. as i tried to figure out how to put this to you in language that

everybody can understand and briefly, we matter. and the reason we and other u.s. -- other international broadcasters matter -- the reason we know that is because the iranian government spends so much time, effort and trouble trying to shut us down. and trying to close out our distribution routes. whether it's by jamming our broadcast. blacking internet. or blacking internet transmissions on the uplink or the down link. they do it all. they do it on a daily basis. we at the bbg are dedicated to fighting this. we have developed new technologies to defeat their jamming. and we know it's an ongoing struggle. and it's very difficult to do. we have actively combating iranian jamming through web-based proximating service and circumvention blocking

software. it ballooned 500% after the elections in 2009. we have developed the first persian language news app for android and iphones. it allows citizen journalists in iran to send videos and photos anonymously with the push of a button. we do so what president kennedy told the voice of america in 1962. that freedom of information is a fundamental human right. whenever oppressive governments attempt to control government information and there's a lot of those around the world today including iran, we work to get people the information they need to make competent decisions for their lives and we will continue that mission if ever that is accomplished. with that i would like to introduce my colleague and

friend, frank to introduce our keynote speaker. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. thank you, sean. and welcome to everyone here today. i'm frank. i'm the director of the school of media in public affairs here at the george washington university. and here at the school of media and public affairs we examine, study the intersection of media and politics, public diplomacy and nowhere is that exploration of that intersection more fascinating and more important than in iran. our keynoter today is best known as the author of the national bestseller "reading lolita in tehran." it's a compassionate but harrowing portrait of the islamic revolution in iran and how it affected one university professor and her students.

the book spent more than 115 weeks on the "new york times" bestseller list. not bad. it's been translated into 32 languages and it has won several literary awards. excuse me. including the 2004 nonfiction book of the year award from book sense. the frederick w.ness book award. and several others. reading lolita in iran has earned critical praise in tehran and literary distinction as it has built a enthusiastic readership. they have been captivated by the story and the characters framed in this alluring and confounding place. iran. the book is an incisive exploration of the transformative powers, that truly transformative powers of fiction and a world of tyranny. she's a visiting professor and the executive director of cultural conversations at the foreign policy institute.

of johns hopkins school of international students here in washington, d.c. where she's the professor of ethics and history. she teaches the relation between culture and politics and held a fellowship at the university. she's taught at the university of tehran. a free islamic university. before her return to the united states in 1997. she's earned respect. and international recognition for advocating on behalf of intellectuals, youth, and especially young women. in 1981 she was expelled from the university of tehran for refusing to wear the mandatory islamic veil. and she did not return to teaching until 1991.

she has written for the "times" the "wall street journal," our cover story the veiled threat of the iranian's revolution woman problem published in the new republic has been reprinted in several languages. she's currently working on a book entitled "republic of the imagination" which is about the power of liberation to empower the minds of people. she lives here in washington, d.c. at the conclusion of her keynote i will join her for a few moments and have an opportunity to explore what she said with her and to open it up to you for your questions from that mic in the middle of the room. so please, as she speaks, and as we speak, if you'd prepare your brief questions, we will get to you as well. so now it is my great pleasure to welcome to the george washington university and to all of you azar nafisi. [applause] >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much.

it's such a great pleasure to be here today. especially when all those wonderful institutions that are constantly reminding us how important the truth is. the academia george washington university and the board of governors and all these people on the panel. and i do think that truth is, in fact, the main issue. the main topic at that we will be talking about today. and because of that, when i was thinking about how just a year ago -- it was just before the june uprising or rebellions in 2009, if you thought of iran, the images that came out of iran were not the images that were later taking over the internet and finally the media over here.

the images that was given to us through his cartoons. the image of that amazing girl nadal, who has become the symbol of iran and iranian youth. and definitely you would not have -- nobody would have thought when they thought of iran of a group of young girls sitting in a room overlooking the snow capped mountains of tehran and reading lolita. when you think of each one of these images you would not think of iran. iran was defined at that time by wmds, by terror. and the first image that came to your mind -- because his image was all over the media here. from larry king to anderson cooper to charlie rose. everywhere you looked we had our wonderful president, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad with a shirk on his faisst as if he had broken the neighbor's window and gotten away with it. and by golly he had gotten away with it.

he reminded me of a george clooney or brad pitt this fascination people had with mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad. the questions like how many kids do you have? do you love new york? how many kids are in your jails? how many are being raped as we speak? you know, those questions, of course. and it reminded me -- when i thought of that view -- because, you see, the whole idea is that you need to look at a nation, at an individual, at any -- at any -- at reality through diverse eyes. through different perspectives in order to come as close as you can to one -- to the whole -- to the whole image. and in order to understand a country like iran, in order to understand a country like united states, you need to understand it.

not just through the eyes of the governments. even when the governments -- even when the politicians are democratic. far worse when you live in a totalitarian society whose first act is to take away the group of voices. to reduce all voices. to just one image. and so the point here -- and what i celebrate now -- and in a meeting like this is that finally those voices and those images that had been forced underground for so many years have burst and blossomed. on the internet and on television screens. and when we talk of iran, we know more talk one aspect of iran but iran as a country that

is mysterious. and one of the most important debates and will be the answer to many of the very important problems that we are facing today. so whenever i think of mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad's perspective, i remember of an anecdote -- i mention it in my book but many people have later also mentioned it. it becomes sort of the metaphor for me about this whole idea of truth. and although it sounds very abstract, how important it is in our lives, not just personal but also political and cultural. and when we are here talking about iranian journalists and bloggers and how we can connect to them, we understand how essential their role is in not just changing the iranian

society and changing iran's role in the region and in the world but changing our perspectives about ourselves. because the way we look at others is a reflection of the way we look at ourselves. those people we think as our allies and our enemies defines who we are. and where we stand in the world today. and what we expect of the world today. well, the image that comes to my mind is the image of this guy who was the censor for iran in 1994. he was blind. he was nearly blind. so he would be sitting -- one famous director told me that he would be sitting there and somebody would be sitting beside him. and he would tell him things like now the girl is approaching the boy, you know, cut. you know, so he couldn't see. but he could say how people should be acting.

and after 1994, his job was changed. and he became the head of the new television channel in iran. the main censor for the new television channel in iran, channel 4. and his successor who was not blind -- i mean, not physically but metaphorically definitely blind. he used the same method that this censor used. he would have people give their scripts to him in tapes, tape-recorders, and he would listen to the scripts. they did not have to enact it dramatically. can you imagine to be a script writer and not present your script dramatically. he would listen to them and decide how people should act. and this metaphor of the blind censor for film and television for me became a metaphor for all those totalitarian mindsets who,

in fact, afraid of the diversity of voices, of the diversity of opinions, of the diversity of ideas -- they tried to impose their own image of reality upon -- in the case of the islamic republic of iran. upon a whole, you know, nation. and so when the islamic republic came -- took power and the blind censor a philosopher of kings came with it. the first targets that they found -- the very first targets were those who have symbolized this diversity. which was women, minorities, and those who worked in what we call culture. the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret. and that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal.

and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s. and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that

they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of history. it wasn't even islamic. islam came to iran in seventh century. but after the invasion of iran, that islam mixed and mingled with the past of iran. every country that is muslim is muslim in its own way. in the same way that every country that is christian is christian in its own way. you have so many definitions. and yet all of those components of islam from shia to sunni to

the mystical -- one of the most peaceful philosophies and ideologies that came against orthodox islam. and had its origins in iran, and mysticism -- all of these were lumped together. and, you know, and all of them were reduced to state, an official version of religion. because you noticed that, you know, this country is a christian majority. and yet we have so many different denominations where we talk about america being christian, are we talking about sarah palin's christianity? are we talking about obama's christianity? are we talking about reverend wright's christianity? are we talking about reverend falwell's christianity? there are so many ways of interpreting religion.

but once religion becomes the state -- let's say from tomorrow, we say we're a christian nation and ms. palin's christianity is what we will all do, then religion itself is confiscated. and yet when you said that, people both in power in iran and those apologists for them here would call you western. you know, to say that religion should be diverse was an insult to islam. now, iranian women, iranian men, iranian clerics from the beginning of the last century -- from late 19th century had been fighting against an absolutist monarchy and against an absolutist religion. and they were the first in the region -- iran was the first in the region to have a constitutional revolution.

the same forces that you see in the streets of tehran today are the great, great, great children -- great grandchildren and grandchildren of those forces who came out into the streets of tehran and other places in iran 100 years ago. and created the constitutional revolution, which was the first revolution to create modern and open institutions. and the iranian women who are called western because they say that they need to have a choice -- they have been fighting for their rights for over 100 years. their rights was not something that a shah could give them. so that an ayatollah could take away. they had been -- they had been fighting. they had been beaten. they had been exiled. morgan schuster in 1912 wrote about iran. he lived in iran. and he wrote about iran. how iranian -- i talk about it

in my second book in "things i have been silent about." iranian women in the course of a few years have made leaps of centuries. and they have -- they are far ahead of their sisters in the west. so what i'm trying to say in this very short time is that what your facing here is not a regime that is defending religion. that is defending tradition. that is defending culture. that all totalitarian systems come in the name of half-truths. and all totalitarian system takes something from the society, some aspect of society and then extend it to the society as a whole. and when we talk about -- and, you know, one of the things -- this is a good time because when we talk about iran, we also have to learn about america. right? this is a dialog.

and in dialog, it's not ever a one-way street. really what amazed me was that over the 18 years that i lived in the islamic republic, i had some of the most amazing experiences in terms of the flourishing and the need and the thirst and the hunger to connect to the world. and to connect through the best the world had to offer, it's ideas, it's philosophies, it's novels, it's poetry, its music. we had some of the most -- you know, i remember once i gave a talk. there was almost a riot. you know, people -- when they came to watch the movies by the avant-garde by a russian filmmaker, it seemed as if they were going to a concert by michael jackson.

you know, so the whole idea was that there was this thirst for culture. and yet i come here -- and, you know, and also, for example, about the issue of the veil. there was far more freedom among ourselves to debate the issue. and i want to mention this here because it's very important to understand that the issue of the veil is not about religion. it is not about whether the veil is good or bad. when i refused to wear the veil, it was because i thought that no state, no authority has the right to tell its citizens whether to worship god or not and in what way to worship god. that it was dependent upon the citizens to decide that for themselves. and my grandmother, who never took off her veil, had the same idea as i did. and she would cry and tell us that this is not the real islam because they do not flog people. and they do not put young women

in jail. and give them virginity tests. they do not insult god's children in this way. if they are true muslims. so i want you to understand that this society is very traumatized because not only its history, not only its culture. not only its reality. but also in the name of its religion something has been taken away from it. that for the past 30 years it is trying to retrieve. so the whole idea then was when i came here. and in a society where i'm free to write, when i'm free to talk, when i'm free to criticize, i realize that the same reduced images, the same mutilated images that existed there are now dominating here. and when you talk to people about, you know, the right of choice, about iranian women,

they look at you oh, but you're western. oh, it's their culture. and some people from the right and some people from the right -- from the left -- the people on the right say it's their culture. so let's attack them. they're terrible people. people on the left -- it's their culture. let the natives do whatever they want to do. now, the whole point is that what did they attribute to our culture? when the islamic republic came to power, iran had some of the most progressive laws on women. we had two women ministers. one minister for women's affairs. my own mother was one of the first women who went to the iranian parliament in 1963. switzerland didn't get its right to vote for women until 1974. we had women in the industry. we had women pilots. we had women judges. the nobel laureate was the first

circuit judge because they said women are too weak to be able to judge. and for women like her, that did not take away their motivation. they came back into public and became defenders for women's rights and human rights. this is the kind of women that we have in that society. but the first thing that the government did before having a new parliament or a new constitution was to repeal the family protection law which protected women at home and at work. they reduced the age of marriage from 18 to 9 for females after women fighting for almost 20-something years they finally raised it to 13. but still the judge can give its consent for the father to marry a girl under the age of 13. how critical for a culture who would put a man in jail if they

have sex with a 13-year-old girl to tell me that this is my culture. or something that had never existed in the history of iran, which is stoning people to death for prostitution. what they call prostitution and adultery. if that is my culture, then slavery is the culture of this country. and not abraham lincoln. and frederick douglass and flanary o'connor and william faulkner and mark twain. if this is my culture, then inquisition, fascism and communism is the culture of europe. fascism and communism came from the heart of civilized europe. they didn't come from the muslim world. they didn't come from the east. that is their culture. not dante, st. thomas aquinas,

jane austen, shakespeare and others. every culture has something to be ashamed of. there are no innocents in this world. not a single innocent nation. but what makes a culture great is its ability to see the points that are terrible about itself, shame, genuine shame. not the kind of shames that politicians -- nowadays they don't even apologize for the shameful things they do. not the kind of things that the politicians do, oh, we are so ashamed. oh, we feel your pain. no, not that kind. real shame, which leads you to change. real shame which created the abolitionist movement in this country. when i left this country in the 1970s, obama and mr. lieberman -- none of them

maybe could have gone into many institutions in this country still. hillary clinton as president, hillary clinton -- women like gloria steinam and betty friedman were made browbeating as women at home. it's the fact that within the past 30 years, in the past 100 and something years from there it has come to here. so that we now not only have a barack obama who is the president but a barack hussein obama who will remind many husseins in this country that they do not have to become terrorists. that they can become, in fact, presidents. and if barack hussein obama who chooses to become christian and keep the name hussein so now maybe a hillary or a bill will

become jewish or bahari or maybe a hussein or ali will become christian or jewish or atheists for heaven's sake. i mean, i just want to actually go through the conclusion about the bloggers because i think the most important thing. but what i was trying to show was that if you are talking about truth, whether it's about iran or china or darfur, you cannot go to those people who fabricate the truth in order to gain power. for truth you have to go to history. you have to go to culture. you have to remember that this iran sees its identity in its greatest poets that iranians know further see or by heart even when they're illiterate. that's 750 years ago.

a poet whose book is in every iranian house said -- talked about hypocritical clerics who drink wine in private. and flog people in public. you have an agnostic astrollger every time you pass my grave you douse a glass of wine to remember my life. wine in mystical iran poetry is a symbol of communion with god. these culture we call muslim, they are sensual and erotic and colorful. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not an american thing. the woman in afghanistan who has been shot to death, the woman in iran who is being raped in jails, the woman in saudi arabia

who is being flogged for the way she looks. the woman in darfur who is being -- whose children are killed in front of her and is being raped, they also want to be happy ...

>> is that truth is always, always, you don't need to be political. and i want you to know the reason that the movement in iran will be successful is because it is not merely political. i know that is wrong to say this in washington, d.c., but that is why washington has been getting iran so wrong for so long. because there's, like south africa, and like eastern europe, is a movement that is fighting for something far more important than politics. it is an existential movement. for 30 years, iranian women have been fighting against these laws, through educators, the 1 million signature campaign, and there is a book out now in english, where it is the history of 1 million signatures campaign that the iranian women created

so that they -- against the repressive laws. they chose, the first line of light iranians are important for us, is iran is not going where the regime is going. if you want to fight a totalitarian system, you cannot be totalitarian yourself. military attacks, insults to the regime, just call for its overthrow, this is not what the aim of this movement is. the aim of this movement, it has learned its lesson, is not just a mere change in regime, but a change in mind. which is far more difficult. and a change in mindset means that the ends does not justify every single mean that you can use. that the means you use will become the sum total of the end

your and the iranian, the reason it will teach us a great deal about ourselves, about the region and about the world is that it has chosen to use democratic means in order to change a nondemocratic system. they have the guns. they have the jails. what do we have? that is the point. for iranian women use the wondering signature campaign to educate women both within the country and without. and they showed to women across the board that whether you're an orthodox muslim woman, or whether you are an agnostic modern, you know, very open woman, these laws are against you. the laws that do not give you custody of the child, the laws that marry you while your

father's wish at such an age, the laws that do not allow you to become judges. these laws are against all of us, and in the streets of tehran in june, and later on, you saw women. you saw they had to wear the veil. but you will see the differences. you saw young and old, male and females, asking for freedom, asking for their openness. this is the strategy, to educate and to default against the guns. because if the struggle is political, you know how in politics is always compromised. it's always compromise, but you need to have other areas in the society where you can use other methods. this is what a democracy is. you have politics. europe literature. at humanities.

we -- the writers, the journalists, the artists, we can become the conscience of society. and what we do then is to use the truth as a weapon. that is what is happening right now in iran. and the bloggers in iran, the first panel can talk much more than i can about this, but notice that if they flog women for showing their hair, if they put bloggers in jail and tortured them, if journalists are jailed for just simply telling the truth or showing a cartoon, that shows how vulnerable the regime is, how afraid they are. because women, the bloggers

weapons of mass destruction is what they write and is a bit of hair that the show, you know, and so i am very much on time, you know, i'm looking at my watch all the time. although i know it's lovely to talk about democracy when you have microphone. okay, so what i want to end within is the fact that we need to take this movement in iran very seriously, and we need to take it seriously, not just for the sake. do not feel sorry for iranian people. they have taken responsibility for their lives, and they have refused to be victims. so what you need to do is to support their voices, and to add your voice to them, and to communicate to them via radio liberty need to create a conversation with the iranian people. they are now in jail for reading and chronicles, education,

people were trying to prevent a revolution because they were reading, for heavens sake. how many of my students know that? they are taking the best that the west has. your best weapon is not your military. your best weapon is the culture. and they are taking that culture, they are putting on their websites and they are reminding us in america that today in this terrible crisis the crisis is not financial. it is a crisis of vision and it is a crisis of the united nations, and iran is here to remind you that the root against the blind, here in america or their in iran, is through a conversation that is based on imagination and on thought. thank you so much. [applause]

>> thank you very much. it was fascinating. a great privilege and pleasure to have you here. on campus, and your metaphor of the blind censor is killing, really. but i'd like to ask you this question because much of the world, shortly here in the west, we have so much about the part of iran. we hear about ahmadinejad. we hear about the nuclear program. we don't hear much about what you refer to as a trauma tide society. what do you think is the cultural dynamic at this moment in iran? and as you formulate your entry, i will invite those of you who may have questions to move to the microphones the weekend get our response here in a few bits we have before move on to the next item. >> you know, we do have to, i'll say that we have to thank the islam republic for so many things.

to show me just the divine details of life, like the sun in my hair is very important that one of the things that the revolution debt, which was very important, was it forced us, not just question the world or not just question the regime, but to question ourselves. and that became part of the culture that had sort of question itself. for example, when they would talk about women, the way women should be or the way muslim women are or the way iranian women are, we ask ourselves is this true? so we have to go to history, to read the history to find out the truth. and as we found out the truth, we changed. and the same was true of the world. we were deprived of connection to the world so we had, many of my muslim students who were in top positions at the university, they would come to the class

full of prejudices. why are we reading withering heights? it's all about adultery. they would leave our classes full of curiosity, wanting to know the world. >> you mention bloggers. you mentioned the role of the voice of america, and various other broadcasts that have come in, in search of the truth, how does an iranian citizen today obtaining the truth about the world? >> part of it now is through the internet. that is how they do. of course, there are -- there is always access it. one of the amazing things in iran as in many took out 10 societies is that many, the guardians of revolution who defended this revolution at the beginning, through contact, with the world and with what is happening, changed. and so there are always rogue elements within the regime,

within the ministry of guidance that open the road that lets you publish a rogue book which then becomes censored. but mainly now i think it is through the internet. during my time we had a one-sided relationship with satellite dishes where we got our information year and, of course, bbc and all the others also provide information. >> let's go to your questions. >> dr. nafisi i was just listening to your comments here about faith. i'm just went if you think that iran can successfully democratize itself and reclaim that cultural identity? and remained and islamic republic. >> well, i think the title islamic republic is a contradiction in terms. it's like the german republic, the communist. the republic supposedly is based

on a democracy, where they would be many ideas. i don't think that it can remain and islam republic, and at the same time have that. first of all, religion used as an ideology does not represent the whole of the iranian people. we have muslims with many different ideas. we have jews, we have christian, we have others. and all their interests should be represented properly. many of the former revolutionaries, now are talking about the secular open society. >> does that have traction as they talk about a secular open society? >> it does have a great deal of attention that the other panels will talk about it, but that is

what iran is so exciting because you know they are really finding what democracy is, you know. and destroying the myth about democracy is simply western thing. there were debates when i lived in iran, and i left iran and 97, there was a magazine where they brought in first all these debates. >> can you talk a bit about the psychological aspects of the nuclear program? why iran brandishes this program beyond whether it wants weapons or not, and particularly what ahmadinejad is so obsessed with the nuclear program. >> well, i think you'd be able to answer that much better. this is barber, and just much more information than i do on this topic. i don't know. i think -- first of all, i think

that mr. ahmadinejad, whatever he is doing is not out of strength but out of frustration them both domestically and internationally. and he takes these things as hostage, that if iran, like with the american tourists that they now have. you take on says agitate people hostage. and they think they can intimidate the west once they have the nuclear weapon. by, you know, sort of move to their side, or do as they want to. i think it is a very dangerous game they are playing, and it definitely does not even have support inside iran. but really, you should talk about that. >> she has, actually. >> i mean here. >> yes. i would actually like to

follow-up on that though because there is a lot of projection, and this will be our last question because i think we need to move onto the next part of the program. there's a lot of fear and get onto the iranian nuclear program. what role does that play, in your view, and this sort of national pride and national psychology of the country? >> well, you know, actually answer that with a question, this question that i asked a friend of mine who is a wonderful person. she is a lawyer in iran that and i told her about it. she said why do you people live over there think that people like us wake up in the morning and their first worry is we need to have a nuclear weapon? she says i'm worried about much of not having a job. i'm worried about the future of even the house that i live in. the pollution is already killing us over here. so what she was saying is that that is not uppermost in the minds of most of us. and the second thing with national pride, i think every

country, i mean, americans sometimes very crude talk about national pride, you know. so every country has their own national pride. but why do you think that iranians would be more proud of having nuclear weapons then being represented as a civilized country whose representative is not mr. ahmadinejad? why do you think they will feel less ashamed of having someone who comes here and denies holocaust and says we have no gays and we have the best system in the world, and whatever he says, embarrassing every mode. that does not embarrass us, but having, not having nuclear weapons embarrass us? iranian's national pride is this amazing history. it is their poet, it's there philosophers. your national pride is mark twain and frederick douglass. our national pride is other.

i don't accept that as national pride. >> thank you very much for your comments and for your thoughts. >> thank you. [applause] >> we're going to move into our first panel, and i'd likeo introduce ivan buglers created a phenomenon to introduce himself and upheld. thank you very much. [applause] >> hello. good morning. i'm going to be moderate the first panel. and this discussion will be the new media landscape in iran. we're going to discuss and interrogate the ideas of who exactly is online in iran and how they get information, how they participate online and how they discuss, and envision and write their own lives.

so we have a distinguished and group of commentators this morning, and i think we will go and get them on stage as quickly as again because we have a limited amount of time. so i'll introduce them and they what they will come up and will begin our conversation. so mohamed abdel dayem is the middle east and north africa program coordinator for the committee to protect journalists are prior to joining cpj, he was a research at the coalition and the national endowment for democracy, and also before that he was analyst for five years. hida fouladvand is the executive editor of the persian news service. prior to joining the oa she was

at cnn international at the u.s. affairs desk for many years, and also worked in a american journalism for many years covering everything from hurricane katrina to u.s. domestic politics. and next we have nick kosar. nick is best known for depegging iran's most powerful clerics and politicians in his cartoons. and he is a member of the "new york times" syndicate of cartoonist and has worked for many international news and information networks. sorry, i'm a little bit nervous. we're going to get on with their conversation very quickly, and then we will have a conversation amongst all of us. and you.

>> so we're going to begin today with mohammed and he's going to discuss the media landscape in iran and particularly with the focus on how iranian bloggers and how they engaged in the professional media space. >> thanks, ivan. i want to start out by discussing a point that i'm sure all of you have considered at one point and another, and that's really the divide between professional journalists and bloggers, and where does that line really lie. and i think in iran that line is lower your than it is in many other places. and this is a result of multiple factors in iran. in the late 1990s that

iranians government shutdown upward of 100 publications in a matter of four or five years. as a result of that, and a lot of journalists really migrated online in the late '90s and opening years of the 2000. hundreds, thousands of journalists really and you see those professional journalists alongside regular students, doctors and engineers, and nurses, and all kinds of people who write online under blogs online news, news sources, on newspapers that no longer exist in print, but simply exist in cyberspace, as it were. iran, not just iran, but really all the countries of the middle east region have had an explosion in internet penetration. between the years 2000-2008 was a 13 fold increase in number of people who are online and so not only are the number of people writing online on blogs and elsewhere, mushrooming, but also

the number of people who have access to this material is growing at a similar speed. so we have an iranian blogosphere that is roughly consistent roughly 70,000 active blogs that by that i mean blogs are basically of blood at least once a week, if not more regularly. and that's only a fraction of the entire log is your. the entire blogosphere is as made between 70,001,000,000 blogs that just to compare this, the arabic language blogosphere is roughly half of that, about 35,000 blogs, and when you consider the population of iran, a little below 70 million the population of the arab world is around 350 to 360 million, it really gives you an idea as to how active the iranian blogosphere is. iran is also unfortunate at the forefront of online impression. when you compare to other governments in the region, and it really is a combination of

old school tactics as well as new ones come and they do this in the legal realm but they also do it on a technological level. so for instance, when a blogger in iran right something that offends authorities for any number of reasons, they have a whole host of options as to how to neutralize this individual. so legally speaking, they could prosecute this person under penal code that they could prosecute them under pressel or prosecute them under the newly promulgated cyber criminal penal code, cybercrime penal code. and the provisions of all very vaguely defined and can essentially be altered to really go after any blogger that anchors the authority. in 2004, the initial wave of

arrests of bloggers that took place in early 2004, authorities in a matter of a couple of weeks arrested almost 30 bloggers. and i want to make it specifically one thing that was said to one of the leading bloggers in iran at the time, he was arrested, interrogated quite roughly and, in fact, tortured. and he was basically told by his interrogators that there's too many of you, there are thousands of you and every day there are more and more of you. and we can bring all of you in your. we can't interrogate every single one of you, but we can make examples of the people that we bring in here. . .

>> we will those who discuss the perspective on where people receive information in iran. and also -- >> good morning. i'm here from voice of america's persian service and i'm here to talk about how important international broadcasting is to iran. voice of america started in 1942 as you may or may not know.

and it's been broadcasting to iran since 1942 in intervals. however, after the 1979 revolution, they have been going nonstop. this past year in 2009, it became quite evident how important media is to the iranian people. a lot of people underestimate where the iranians can get their information. the blogosphere, television, radio, the internet -- everything was very easy to prove that when the iranians want to pursue information they have raise to do it. this year voice of america the 2 million people on their websites. it was one of the most popular websites for the service itself. i bring this up for many reasons.

voice of america, you know, was known to be of an audience of an older demographic. and nowadays 70% of the demographic right now is about 30 and under. and we have tapped into that in so many different ways by adapting that into facebook pages, youtube channels, twitter pages and other -- several other social media websites. you know, i grew up in iran between iran and washington, d.c. and it's really important when people want to get their information, they have many ways to do it. in the early '90s they would have satellites all upon their roofs just to get the different channels that they would get from turk sat, arab sat what have you. voice of america and other international broadcasters have tapped upon these different ways to put, you know, funnel in information into the country and let the people decide on the information that they can't get within their own state media that's happening.

so it's very extremely important to understand that international broadcasting to the region primarily to iran and other countries in the area is extremely vital to put the information out there that they cannot get anywhere else from their own country. and have them make their own decisions upon the things that are happening. i'm a firm -- we are all a really firm believer of giving voice to the voiceless. and to putting out all the information and having people decide. so i cannot underscore enough how important it is in this day and age in journalism. and in broadcasting that you have to be very multiplatformed. know how to reach your audience. know who your audience is. and how to give them all the information that's out there. so i'll be more than happy to take on more questions as warranted. >> i think we should -- we should have brief statements from everybody before we go into a conversation. so nik, please. >> i just wanted to say -- add a few things. but later after i show my cartoons.

so if the cartoons are ready to show, i'll talk about them. this is about the fate of iranian reporters and citizen journalists all together. many have had to leave the country after the election. in june, 2009. and many of them are in turkey, france, iraq and other places in need of help. and why am i bringing this up? one important thing is that many iranian journalists turn into citizen journalists. what you were mentioning was a reporter who also used to blog. so many iranian citizen journalists are actually journalist/citizen journalists. it might sound weird. as ms. nafisi was talking about, we transform islam in our own way. we transform the mongolian army

to an other -- what's the name, being. so we also transform citizen journalism into something else. that's our art. and the second one, please. yes. this is about iranian journalists in total. they bear their own cross. and we know we will be crucified in the future but we love it. we love it. the next one, please. i call this the sound of silence. of course, not from the movie "the graduate" but in another way. many people can't hear the sound of journalists. they hear about mahmoud ahmadinejad. they shouts a lot. he talks about lot. he shouts a lot. he causes this many that many in the media cannot hear the voices of the journalists. next country please.

this is the balance we have actually experienced in iran. because we know if we do something wrong as imprison journalists, we will fall from the cliff. the next one, please. this is what the government and the judiciary actually expect from us in iran. so just to be quiet and publish whatever the government asks us to publish. next one, please. if you're a thinker, you're a stinker in iran. so they would actually terrorize your thoughts but yourself as well. next one, please. this is how we've coped with censorship. we can't live you without each other. as ms. nafisi was talking about the blind censor -- no, we have censors better than governor paterson. spitzer, i don't know why.

this is what happens to iranian journalists who are actually imprisoned for a while. even after getting out of their prison -- after getting out of prison, their pen is imprisoned. next one, please. we're talking about how internets can help us. but when even google is blocked, it was blocked for a day or two through many internet service providers known as isps in iran. and it was very difficult for people to use other search engines. google is addictive. but this showed the problem. next one, please. we talk about balance. in iran many of my colleagues know that being impartial is very hard. usually journalists take sides. they are members of actually parties. it's funny. that they have to promote whatever the party leader is saying. so during an election when

you're walking along the ballot box, you just have to keep your balancing this way. sorry for my language. [laughter] >> this is how mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad claimed to actually win 62.6% of the votes but nobody could actually vet it. and the journalists actually had a lot of questions. but whoever questioned the authority was imprisoned or had to get out of the country. so he's just showing the percentage, nothing else. next cartoon, please. [laughter] >> this is about citizen journalists. actually many iranian journalists turn into citizen journalists. and because of their names and their fame, many other people who were interested got involved and became citizen journalists themselves so they use whatever tools they could find like cell phones to actually record what

was happening. so if 20 years ago in the tiananmen square people were able to use cell phones, they could have sent this. smile, you're on youtube. next one, please. years ago i drew a crocodile that caused a lot of trouble for me. i went to prison for it. because the name remind with the name of a powerful cleric. but i usually use the crocodile to symbolize the iranian conservatives. oh, the elephant stands for -- okay. something like that. but he was first the judge of the press corps then the chief prosecutor of tehran. and when they had to get rid. -- of him they got rid of him actually. they cut him off. if there's too much pressure through the blogosphere and through youtube and although all readers coming out and people around the world would know what's happening, the conservatives have to bow. and they do it. next one, please.

talking politics, i brought this up to have some fun. you remember mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad said that we don't have homosexuals in iran. when i drew this this was another conception. he's having this tango with mr. chavez. i don't know somewhere around tehran. and they're having a lot of fun. he would deny this, any connections but it's happening. next one, please. [laughter] >> do you remember mr. obama said if our opponents unclenched their fists we would stretch out our hands and shake hands with them. okay. shaking hand with the devil with his hand is actually bloody wouldn't be that clean and clear. so i think somebody has to bring a wipeout after mr. obama who was shaking hands with him and stepping on the green members.

this is iran and iranian journalism and somehow citizen journalism. thank you very much. [applause] >> so mohammed, if -- as moussaoui said every citizen in iran is potentially a journalist, how does -- how does that kind of behavior -- and you state -- you quoted some numbers, upwards of a million iranians with blogging. it's about linking and networking and talking to each other. building communities, building conversations online. how does that community link to the larger world of internet broadcasting, international news, international information? what is the dynamic between the internal conversations that you are between and among iranians? and the broader world of news?

and maybe also you could comment on that as well. >> as the iranian government took a number of actions -- i would say over the last 10 to 15 years they have really pushed sort of traditional journalists and many regular citizens into this arena. and people have made the most out of the new technology and the tools that are provided to them. and so there is a lot of linking. there is a lot of exchange between the iranian blogosphere and the arab blogosphere. and the iranian blogosphere and the western european and the western blogospheres. the bloggers read the "new york times." they read some of the arabic newspapers and they link to them and they write their own stories about those stories. so i think the cross-pollination exists. and it's all over the place. and all you got to do is go to virtually any iranian blog to see that taking place on a daily basis. in many ways the iranian

government has done itself a disservice by narrowing the options so much that people were forced to migrate to a new medium all together. and they're reaping that as we speak. >> you know, 70% like we said the demographic is under 35 or 30. and everybody saw that they actually have a stake in this whole movement. primarily the movement was made up of a lot of women. and a lot of young folks. who were all technically savvy. so everybody with a cell phone, with internet access could find a way to put their voices heard. we know internationally that all the broadcasters from all the different venues were trying their way to get into iran and they couldn't prior to the election. and regardless right outside people were watching the social media websites like twitter, which became hugely on the map after that. so much so that the chinese

apparently were learning from the movement that the iranians did. so everybody realize they have a stake in this. if they are going to make a change they literally have to take out their cell phone just like your brilliant cartoons show and put it out hey, you're on youtube now. how are you going to censor this. so i feel like -- everybody realize that if they want to make a change, they have to do something about it. and now they have the tools. and that older generation of folks didn't. which makes it all the difference. >> if i may, let's go to a blog -- blogger. he was in jail in 2005. and he recently is calling for a campaign on other bloggers to write about the prisoners who are lesser known. this is his web blog. and he's calling it like a game, like a bloggers game. and he's calling on his other bloggers to write about these people who are still in jail.

and nobody knows about them. and he himself has been writing about the fictional prisoner who can be called hassan ali who's sitting somewhere in a prison in iran and nobody knows about this. and this just shows how bloggers are using this new media. and the point you mentioned about this movement, each citizen is a media. and this is what they're doing. they're publicizing the cases of prisoners who know one knows about them. you n'teadbo the people in the "new york times" or "the washington post." even in the media in iran which is under the control of the government. but these bloggers are launching this campaign. it's very powerful, i think. >> so is technology a silver bullet? >> not exactly. >> what is it? how does -- >> a rusty silver bullet. >> how does the technology interact with political movements and reform movements in fact?

how should we think about that relationship? >> actually, it helps. but let's say the government cuts off internet connection in city a or city b or decreases -- what's the name the volve, how can people reach out through facebook or twitter or other websites? so there should be a combination of traditional networking and modern networking. so if we combine these together, how did the networking work in the 1979 revolution in iran? did people have internet? no. did everybody have a cell phone? actually, a majority didn't have phones. but it worked. >> they had cassette tapes. >> that's right. that's right. >> faxes. >> you have to use whatever you can. iranians are very good and sophisticated in that.

>> not a silver bullet at all. i mean, i think it is merely the latest innovation that is being used by activists and citizen journalists. and it's being used by the government. the iranian regime is very sophisticated in its filtering and its blocking. they are perhaps only really second to china in the way they filter and the way they block. for example, it's the only government in the middle east region that is -- that has -- that is developing its own soft and hardware to filter and block. and journalists -- citizen journalists are sitting in prison a printout of their chats and their surfing history and all this stuff is thrown in narrow face -- their face and they're told to admit to everything they have done and haven't done. it's not a silver bullet.

it's more like a cat and mouse game. the technology is available to the bloggers. the technology is available to the government. and there is no ultimate winner as it were. it's a catch-up game. incidentally it's the governments that is that are most repressive where you see bloggers and citizen journalists of the highest of technological sophistication. whether it's syria or iran or saudi arabia. those bloggers are far more proficient at circumventing those kinds of restrictions when you compare them to a place like morocco, for instance, where the government isn't as severe in its approach to freedom of expression online. >> if i may, you mention how the iranian government is using the internet by filtering websites. but that's not all they're doing. they're doing more. there's an example of former vice president who was jailed in iran. and who actually updated his blog from prison.

it was a very clumsy attempt by authorities to show how prisoners are well-treated in prison and nobody believed them. but still it was very awkward. and if you could click on the -- yeah, th is s blogrom prison with his picture. saying how nice time he's having. and very nice talks with his interrogators who allow him to use his laptop. and how everything is rosy. he's out now. >> one thing iranian bloggers and a group of hackers actually hacked his web blog for a while just to stop the government's propaganda. >> you know, it goes both ways. i mean, it's not a silver bullet. it's definitely a tool. but it also goes both ways. the same tools that we have, the government has. so, you know, you have the iranian cyber-army which went in and crashed all these websites and say you've been hacked by, you know, the cyber-army. so it definitely goes both ways. and one thing some folks shouldn't undermine the power of mouth-to-mouth. you know, giving news to each other that way.

i know a lot of times when different signals will get jammed in iran, we would go take the steps of putting on five different satellites trying different ways to get around it. but even the folks in iran would actually -- those who would get access would put pressure programs onto cds and dvds and sell them on the streets to pass on the information just like in the 1979 revolution. you know, pamphlet-passing cassette-passing. it's a tool but it's not the only tool. it goes back to the whole thing of being multipurpose amongst all platforms. and know how to utilize it effectively. and to get your message across. >> so what's next for the iranian citizen media community? we've seen this incredible movement. we've seen a recognition that's occurred around the world before its effects. about the potential for it? about what does that mean for the future of iran?

what does it mean for the future of iranian public space? what are we going to see in the future with this kind of -- this kind of dynamic? >> well, i think it's more of the same. i think the only difference is that the journalists and the ma mouse as it were the government, the cat will continue to play the same game. they will do it with more skill and with higher sophistication. both technological and also i think there will be an increase in volume. the number of blogs that cover political unrest and the jailing of other journalists and other bloggers have skyrocketed since the june elections. so i think there's an upshot in volume. but there's also an increase in sophistication by essentially both sides of the equation. but the dynamic is still the same one. people are trying to speak

freely. and the government is trying to suppress that speech. and the fact that this has gone on for as long as it has really from the late '90s onward is proof that this is -- this is a long war. and these are merely battles in this war. i think the government and occasionally bloggers themselves have declared victory prematurely on both sides. there is no victory today or tomorrow or the next month. this is a long war. >> if i may, this cat and mouse thing -- sometimes even if the mouse is faster, the mouse might catch the cat. by its tail. so i think if we empower the mouse, this can happen. of course, i'm not talking about the wireless mouse or whatever. but by creating citizen journalism platforms for volunteer we're, what we actually experienced in the past

few months -- we started this platform called self-writing platform. and we have about 2,000 members. and most of them are from iran. and they're trying to give -- they have a voice right now. but they're trying to give choice to the choiceless. it's not just about voice to the voiceless. so they're talking. and they're questioning the authority. even questioning the leaders of the green movement. asking them questions. what were you doing in the 1980s? when people were being killed or tortured. so this is important. and we have to change the mindset as ms. nafisi said. if well-known bloggers can do it, others who are interested can get involved and continue. >> you know, another angle to look at is the mediums have provided a sense of anonymity. people have gotten more courageous about putting their stories out. before, there was a worry about being persecuted and being caught.

since the volume has gone so much higher, people are more apt. they've become more courageous. and wanting to have a stake in this movement. you know, even as long as i remember when i was in iran, you know, just like ms. nafisi would tell us, there was some banned books. we couldn't read certain books in school. and i could never understand that given that i grew up in the states. how could you not read a great piece of literature? it would be passed on from different people from folks to folks or poetry even for that matter. so this sort of has changed into another level now. where people are now becoming more open about sharing their thoughts about what they experienced. if they've been detained. if they have not. what they think of it. whether it's pro or against. i mean, it goes both ways. you might find folks, no i'm happy just the way i am. it's hard to believe but they might exist there. now there is a medium now for them to actually put it out there. whether it is anonymously, whether it's not. what have you.

but they now have the tools to actually speak out. and the fear factor of it has gone much less. >> i think we have time for a few questions from the audience. so if you'd like to speak, please come up to the mic. >> hi. i'm miriam. i'm part of a growing group of iranian-americans or iranians in the diaspora who are pushing hard for the u.s. government to break iran's firewall. the u.s. government has among its means the technologies that can do this, free gate tour and other antifiltering. but the server capacity is limited. so the number of people being

able to access the internet freely is very low compared to what it was just after the iranian election. in june. which wasn't even high even then. we're trying to get the obama administration to release funds that the u.s. congress has already appropriated to the state department for this use. we are encountering a lot of resistance. we have a lot of allies in the u.s. congress. senator brownback is a huge supporter. i'd like to ask your opinions on the panel, what can the u.s. do to safely, securely help internet freedom in iran? promote internet freedom in iran? and why do you think it isn't doing it so far? thanks. >> before we go to the panel, i think we have a quick -- >> we have a video from a blogger which is on the same topic. he's a blogger. he was one of the few -- the

first blogger is to blog from the baluchistan province. it shows how blogging is popular and how widespread blogging is in the country. and now he's based in london. and he talks about the same topic. if we could have that video. >> hello, i'm iranian blogger from london. citizen media and blogging have many problems in iran. but important problem are filtering sanctioned by american companies. and security of bloggers and citizen journalists. filtering is not working to stop blogging in iran. and iranian users are using google, it's or some program to reach their website or blog. but sanctioned by american

companies but it's very important. sanctioned by american companies such as google and microsoft cause us to -- cause us iranian user cannot have some software or tools. and it cause us big situation for iranian user. because insight of iran they are under pressure by filtering and outside of iran they are under pressure by sanction. and last item or thing is security of bloggers is very sensitive. because there are many red line in iran for blogging or writing something in the website or web blog.

and if someone cross those red lines, it cause us the web blog will be blocked by government. >> anybody would like to comment? >> i think the top thing one needs to do is education. i think -- you know, now the u.s. and other countries have -- are starting to understand what iran is all about and the repression and what the people are all about. and i think education is the number one thing and finding ways to get proxy servers. or to get ways to send out signals or spoofing mechanisms if i'm using that correctly to get means for them to funnel into websites to put their views on. to put their blogs on. to get their news out. and to be able to break down

these firewalls that exist around iran. it's a very hard task. it's something that millions of dollars is poured into it with all sorts of different companies to try to do. it's not just for iran but other places like china as well. but i think the number one thing is education. because a lot of times they don't know. they just don't know how many users are out there. and they don't know how many people -- or teaching them how to use it. that would be my number one thing. >> the main problem here is one must be very careful not to link the iranian blogosphere as a whole this is a very diverse group of people with the u.s. with the u.s. government. it is a heterogeneous group of people that are -- and they're not all pro-american.

they are not all pro-mahmoud ahmadinejad. they're too many people and they're too different. and i'm not certain that a u.s. government initiative funded by u.s. taxpayer money would be doing some of these courageous people who are putting their lives on the line a service. there are multiple mechanisms for people to use circumvention software and proxy service. is more of that needed? absolutely. is the u.s. government the best source for this kind of thing? probably not. >> just one thing to add. first of all, we have to know what are the capacities in iran? you have to study them. two, please avoid -- i should tell this to many lobbyists who might want to make money for a few individuals or companies in the states as they've always done. please stop just selling crazy ideas.

like one thing i heard that an individual is going from door to door in washington, d.c., promoting the idea of giving satellite internet connections to people inside iran. the government can detect any sender receiving tools in the country. they arrested many people in 2002 and 2003. they don't work then how can it work now. first of all, let's study. let's think. and then do something. not just do and then put a lot of people in trouble. >> i'm a writer and blogger and also am the secretary-general of iran students in the latest report of congressional research service my organization is the biggest student organization that had the most influential organization in iran now. and you can find it easily on the state department's website.

three years ago i was foreign five years in jail and because of for my student activity and writing. after i came here i had testimony with the u.s. senate and i said maybe the radio can be better. i didn't say they are bad. i said they can be better. testimony u.s. senate, homeland security. after that the voice of america persian department and and i could go to fox news, cnn, cbs and everywhere not in voice of america of persian services and -- maybe my farsi is not so good. but it's so good. my question is directly to hidal and jeffery can help you a little bit about this one.

why you are boycotting the people that you don't like it in persian services. the voice of america persian services acting as a part of opposition group. and you can find a lot of family members there, husband and wife and their children. and that's a family business with the american taxpayers money. and i think that's wrong. i don't know. it's part of journalism. but i'm sure it's not. if you want to give time to -- i don't know maybe you like it. but last week he was on voice of america for one hour. and the day after his best friend was there. and the day after was trita parsi himself for one hour. in the week you gave a lot of time to them. why you boycotted us. [applause] >> thank you.

>> first of all, we don't boycott anyone. that i stand by firmly. i always say if you're pissing both sides of the arena you're doing your job right. the pronii-nyack folks and the anti-nyack folks we are on both sides and giving equal playing ground. the media or the news is not something we generally like to cover. i mean, who likes to cover what happened just with the polish president yesterday? or so many other things and the things that are happening in iran all the time. there's so many voices out there that we are actively trying to pursue to bring on to the air. to give the different sides. it's a very tricky thing. but firmly, there's no boycott. it wouldn't be right to boycott.

if that's the case we wouldn't have many at times members of different other parties that were also on our air. and that we actively pursue to come on our air. yeah. the media is always about going straight down the middle. both the red and the blue both sides down the aisle wherever you are in the world to make sure you get both voices heard. >> the panelists have alluded to the blurring of line of citizen journalism and professional journalism and another line that's getting blurred and it's probably more important although it may be less visible is the line between the public sphere and the private sphere. a most illustrative instance of

that was the wife of the presidential candidate holding the hand of her husband almost all the time during the campaign. more recently, the wives and husbands of jailed journalists are writing love letters to their loved ones in jail. is this public or private? my question is, how does this all this blurring and going back to the game of cat and mouse it may be complicated enough. but in that, of course, the two sides are bringing different skills to bear on this game. but what does all of this portend for action or hopeful action in the future? i would like to also refer to mr. kowsar's cartoons are telling and there's another suspect. -- aspect. the opposition in iran, the bloggers included, the cartoonists included seem to vent out more than what would want to vent out and complain than actually guide the way to

some sort of action in iran. is this a remnant vestige of a shia mentality where victimization plays a big part. how can all this energy that you've all alluded to be channeled in ways that are more positive than we know we have a whole force. what is being accomplished? and what can be accomplished within reason? thank you. >> regarding the guiding question, i don't think journalists could be a leader. but journalists can just describe what's happening. if a journalist turns into an activist and becomes a leader in some way, yes. the journalists can actually give a guideline especially cartoonists. i think what we usually do is making fun. but telling a story through making fun.

and i'll pass it on. >> i think i have to respectfully disagree with you. i don't think there's a blurring between the personal and the professional. and obviously i'm not speaking for every single one of the 70,000 blogs i mentioned earlier. but i think in general terms, when the government detons -- detains a blogger or a journalist and this person is held in soltarily confinement and this person is tortured and he has his head is bashed into the wall and his family visits after 90 or 100 days without visits and they write a letter to a family or friend describing some of the things they witnessed the 3-minute supervised visit and that's then carried on a blog or in an online news source, that is, in fact, news. it's maybe not the most traditional news. it's maybe not the news that we saw 10 or 15 years ago.

but that's the news that the iranian government has created in acting the way it's acted. and so i personally don't view that as a subversion of news as it were or as a broadening of news to include the personal -- as opposed to the professional. i think those are legitimate news stories. and the iranian people above all more so than us need to know what their government is doing in their name. >> you know, i agree with you. i mean, the personal accounts that they're getting through these different letters or these three minute visits that people have been able to see a side of the dealings within the government and how they deal with things that become personal stories and memoirs of folks. and it's just a layer or a slice of life of what they're actually going through. i don't think it's all of the story. but it's just a moment in time.

i think another way to also look at it would be, you know, the fact like let's say twitter. they would use these one-line accounts of things that would happen, whether it was on the street, different meetings, seeing whatever they saw and they would come back there and put it out, you know, for the world to see. it's a different form. it's a different media. and it's also another way of getting sources and accounts that we didn't get before. >> and it's interesting. there's a lot of discussion about whether there's -- whether the blogosphere or the online space is pushing -- pushes forward a certain kind of political change. and there's an assumption of agency that might occur. i think a lot of the analysis that we see, though, is that successful online movements are very closely linked to off-line movements. each one works in a different context, in a different way so what might work in the u.s. might not work in iran.

and what works in moldova might not work incurred stan. -- in kurdistan. and when you look at online conversation and community morphs or doesn't morph into a functioning and successful activist movement, you have to analyze the space and the world in which it actually exists. and who the leaders are. it's own history. there's not an expectation that it's going to work in every case. it's not a determined relationship, if you will. >> can we have the iranian editor of global voices. and he's also the cofounder of the march 18 movement. this is a movement that was created after a blogger died in prison. and he has written a post for us. if we go to his -- and it's about that -- let me read from this. this is no doubt the citizens protesting the results of the june presidential election have

made efficient use of twitter, facebook, youtube and blogs to i immortalize their movement. it's not about the people. it's the people. as he also says that irani citizen media is the extension of real people's activities. so a lot will depend on the people on the ground and not on twitter and facebook and blogs. >> and just on to follow up on what you were saying, eisen. -- ivan. this is a new medium and people are learning as they go along. and not every single blogger adheres to the same professional values. and we have to recognize that. there isn't a body in place to sort of regulate and maintain some sort of uniformity. and that's only natural. it's not a big deal.

i think the readers are the ones who decide what bloggers become popular and what bloggers will frankly stop writing because nobody is reading their stuff. the other thing i wanted to mention briefly is what works in tehran may not work in the provinces. i mean, this is really not a difference from between to country to country. this is a difference between the capital where there's -- people have certainly a lot more leeway than people in the provinces. some of the stuff that people write in tehran on a daily basis and don't get into trouble for would never be allowed in kurdistan or in other sort of less developed parts of the country where local administrators have far more power as individuals simply go and grab somebody and throw nem in a dungeon somewhere and have them forgotten. there's a lot of variety. and readers and writers we have to recognize the variety.

and frankly give bloggers and writers the benefit of the doubt. they are putting a lot on the line, professionally and personally to bring us news we wouldn't get. this is not stuff you can, you know, switch channels and see on your tv. very frequently this stuff only exists in this format. it's important that we -- we encourage it and it's important that it continues to grow. >> my name is jonathan cohen. i'm with the bush institute in dallas. next week we're having a conference on cyberdissent. featuring dissidents from countries around the world. my question is related to the variety of dissidents who are bringing to our conference. and i'm prompted by the interesting phenomenon from the green movement protests of last

where the chinese religious movement provided servers to iranian dissidents. to get their message out. and i'm curious to know from the panel to what extent is there cross-border cooperation between iranian bloggers and other cyberdissidents. and other fellows in other countries. >> actually there are many universities around the globe that are helping iranian bloggers or even iranian geeks. they are actually trying to provide iranians with proxies. you might have heard of siphon. of course, it doesn't work. that's the problem. it doesn't work properly. because the iranian government knows how to block it. but many iranian bloggers who are also studying computer science are trying to get help from the universities to pass that help.

to pass the torch actually to people inside the country. it's working. but absolutely. many people are actually even creating videos. i know of a few who are actually doing it right now. email, not even to post on youtube because many people inside the country have having watching youtube videos. they're sending the videos -- and these are guidelines that how people can cross the filters. >> a really quick comment on that. and that is about the network nature of online communication. i think there's an incredible amount of diversity across different countries and different communities. that has to do with first translation.

and second recontextualization of the people throughout the world. when i talked in the beginning about the dialog and the conversation that's occurring in the iranian blogosphere and some people would like to to have and whether it should be a voa platform. we should note that conversation is occurring all the time. and it's occurring on platforms that people make and build themselves. and what we should expect is that people will continue to figure out ways to build platforms to communicate with people that they want to. and those conversations will be diverse. and they'll be on different platforms as people build them. and they will be with people all around the world. in other words, it's not just an american-iranian dialog. it's not a polarized conversation. it's multinational and multipolar. please. we have time for one more question. >> my name is about user brown. -- buster brown. i'm a student at school here.

what's been talking about is about exposing truths and a lot of about it we hear in the american media is about the extremist movements throughout the middle east. and what a lot of things i've learned about here at school is that these movements are misinterpreting the koran. they are justifying murdering nonbelievers through religion. and so i was wondering if you guys thought that journalism -- that reporters should do more to expose these misconceptions? >> you know, there's a very fine line between what really -- the religion -- any religion is and the politicized form of the religion is. and a lot of times, you know, those lines get blurred even in broadcasting. you know, the images that we see with all the different, you know, acts of terrorism around the world.

whether it's in the name of allah or in the name of what happened in wako. -- waco. i do think the media does have to educate more. and get more backgrounders an understanding about what -- what the story is really about. and not what it's purported not to be. and sometimes in a news organization when you're fighting so hard to be first to get the story out, you forget the nuances in the back that give a bigger picture to those who don't know all the story, you know, all the stories in between. but, yes, it's something that it does need to be pointed out. it needs to be illuminated and put into context and what it really is about. and not, you know, the marketing formula is about. >> well, you're the boss. you're the viewer/reader. and so if you don't like what you see, turn it off. and go read something else or

watch something else. and that's -- at the end of the day, if you zoom out far enough, that's what makes a successful show or newspaper or a blog. and that's the difference essentially between a successful channel and a channel that nobody watches or a successful blog and a blog that nobody goes to. so it's really up to you. and up to everybody else. >> last comments? >> i think it's an interesting way to wrap. it points once again to the diversity of the iranian blogosphere. and indeed of all blogospheres. we have the presumption that there's extremist conversations out there but what we know about the iranian blogosphere it's not mostly about that. it's mostly not about politics in fact. and i think it's really a healthy reminder for us that we should be paying attention and listening more. and reading more. and absorbing the kind of vast diversity that's out there for us. we're out of time. but i'd like everybody to please give a big round of applause to

our panelists. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ivan. we are going to get the second panel up and mic'd and all of that. if you would like some coffee real briefly. we have some still on the second floor and we will get going pretty quickly in the next couple minutes. if you don't need it, hang out and we'll get everybody mic'd and then we'll hang on. [inaudible conversations]

>> as you just may have heard a brief break in this discussion of the new media landscape in iran. journalists and academics participating in this forum hosted by the broadcasting board of governors in george washington university. when the discussion of iran's blogosphere and grassroots movement continues, a panel discussion of what people in iran are doing to change the government. and our live coverage will continue after the break.

>> this year's c-span studentcam competition asked middle and high school students to create a 5 to 8-minute video dealing with one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing.

here's one of the third place winners. ♪ ♪ >> america's news media. the wealth of information and opinions available to us through the first amendment is certainly one of this country's greatest strengths. however a closer look at our cable news also reveals one of america's greatest challenges. >> the first amendment was based on the notion that if there were many voices, the public would hear those voices and would find the truth.

and that one opinion, one writer, one publication would balance another. >> the decline of civil discourse has become an obstacle in the pursuit of knowledge through news. according to americanprogress.org mass media informs our political decisions. media bias is not simply a problem of partisanship. it is a problem of peace or waffle. -- war. has incivility become the driving force behind television journalism today >> in many of the major news outlets particularly the ones on television and online the hosts have made a name for themselves by pushing a point of view and ridiculing the people who disagree with them. >> if you're going to be on the rush limbaugh show, if you're going to be on keith olbermann or if you're going to be on -- you know, the previous lou dobbs, you know what you're getting into. that's what they sell.

they sell argumentative, you know, exchanges. that's what people want when they watch it. >> the networks are trying very, very hard to hang on to their audience. the cable people are trying to take those audiences away from the networks. and they're using a wide range of tactics to do that. >> let's try something more confrontational. let's try something, you know, less respectful and see if our audience likes that. and for now people are watching it because it's new. it's different. it gets your blood boiling. >> i know there's -- what i would consider a great deal of incivility between some major personalities. and the people they cover. >> true incivility, true rudeness, for rudeness for its own sake is something that should be condemned on both sides of the political aisle and let's be honest it happens on both sides of the political aisle.

there are some nasty things said sometimes just in the heat of the moment. sometimes deliberately. >> if you have to make your point in 10 seconds and you're worried about the coming commercial break and whether you'll be invited back next week, your tendency is to scream, to raise your voice, talk over the other person and say something quotable. outrageous. >> it's important to say that i think rudeness for its own sake is one of the great hallmarks of as ninety. asninety. if you want to be rude then i don't condone that. i don't know anyone who does. >> as news outlets that can be entertaining, that is by humor. by making fun of things. and, unfortunately, that often results in incivility. i interview somebody and then in my studio i make fun of them for the way they spoke, the way they dressed whatever it may be it

gets a laugh to the studio but it's unfair to the source. >> it makes good theater sometimes for compelling television but it rarely adds any illumination to the issue. >> in 2008, the average daily viewership for the three major cable networks were as follows. fox news with 2.1 million viewers. msnbc with 787,000. and cnn with 805,000. within the top ranked network "the o'reilly factor" and the special report with brett baher are two popular shows. "the o'reilly factor" has 1.1 million more voters. do they lend themselves to the popularity of incivility? >> i think ratings come in to factor and that comes with advertisers. get advertiser dollars by how high your ratings are. >> i am certain that all of these people are very, very interested and concerned about their ratings ...

>> i don't want to sit down, eat

dinner and listen to people scream at each other all time. i would've had something else and the audience would dwindle. at that point they will look for something else to sell. smack my hope is solid rational information. >> in a nationwide poll of 80% of americans said they think incivility is a problem. in a separate study that has been shown americans have become less and less trusting of mass media since 1972. >> so many people at this point get what they consider to be their news from an outlet that isn't providing news. it's providing commentary. >> i think it's quite easy to find people who will reinforce your opinions and never listen to the other side. >> people just think that's wrong, you're wrong, i'm right, that is being billed as news. news in its proper sense is that it, check out, objective factual

information. and to the extent that people are being misled about what is news and what is opinion, that to me as a problem. so i think what i would wish for would be to keep the same opinionated approach, but add balance to a. >> i think anytime you injected some sort of opinion, some sort of striking opinion then you're going more to do what i call, dating, commenting on that. >> and they are forcing things in a lens of opinion. >> to see all of the winning entries of this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org. >> and we are back live now for a forum of journalists and academics produce a baby in a discussion of the new media

landscape in iran. coming up in the panel just seated, discussion of iran's blogosphere and grassroots movement. and a discussion of what people in iran are doing to change the government. you are watching live coverage. this is just about to get underway here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome back. and we're going to get started with our second panel, which

will build on the themes of the first panel. we will certainly be talking about new media, but for this panel i am really reminded of what was said about needing a conversation based on imagination. that's what i think will be talking about today is the importance of engagement and the way that iranians and the west can better engage with each other through citizen diplomacy and other person-to-person contact. we have a great panel today. first sonya reines-djivanides since 2004 has worked for search for common ground and international conflict prevention ngo headquartered here in washington with offices in 18 countries. she is the director of the track ii mediation unit. and has led exchanges in iran and u.s. in health, science and film. mohammad tabaar is a bbc world

service reporter in washington, d.c., a ph.d candidate of department of government at georgetown university and has been a professor at georgetown, george mason and is one of our more popular professors here at george washington university, and several of his students i know are here. and then on the and we have geneive abdo, who is the director of the irm program at the century foundation and editor of a new website called inside iran.org. she among many other things has been a foreign correspondent our was a foreign correspondent for many years in the middle east and the broader islamic world. and was the first american journalist to be based in tehran since the united states cut off ties with iran in the aftermath of the 1979 islamic revolution. she is the author of many books, including mac and main street. what i would like to do is start with you, sonya and just get a start of some brief comments and we will join the discussion.

>> i think will have an interesting panel today. i want to start off with four main point. one about engagement and generally and the consequences of the past 30 years of tension. another about the background and history of exchanges. what's worked, what hasn't. and what have we learned and where i we now and our exchange is still possible. i want to start off with the assumption, and that it is possible to have friendly relations between the u.s. and iran. the consequences of the past 30 years of hostilities has been increased as paranoia about the other. that's further been fueled this lack of contact is further fueled bigness of the other an entrance on mutual distrust of each other. and search for common ground, our motto is to understand the differences and act on the common nowadays. the way we have opposed engagement with iran is that we believe engagement means it's

possible to find common ground, new approaches in the other society, engagement means of sharing knowledge, a cheaper than values, about creating dialogue, lasting relations, professional networks. and a very minimum it's about maintaining contact. some of the things that have worked over the past 10 years have been science, diplomacy, religion, poetry, music, education, film, areas in which both cultures have an interest in which both cultures xl. what we have learned about what works is primarily to have a partner organization. and iran we've never done in exchange on our own. we've always started by asking the other what it is they want, starting with shared interests, a level playing field, learning and sharing in both directions. and we've been very transparent about what we've been trying to do, the intent of our exchanges, and communicating along the way.

clearly, the panel today and the panel are your demonstrates the kind of complicated political context in which were working. complicated bilateral context. the nuclear issue, domestic political context within iran makes it very difficult to develop new relations and partners to create exchanges. and it makes it difficult to stay connected. another challenge would be the calibration between government policy and the actions of private organizations carrying out exchanges. that's really, any iranian thinking -- or thinking of some in iran that the u.s. is trying. you can sit also on the list of organizations, the 60 subversive international organizations that were purported to have create unrest in iran during the elections in the aftermath. so these sorts of, this calibration between policy on the one hand, we've got a

government that might be calling for regime change. and on the other hand they are leaving one of the largest most successful international visitor programs at the same time. and that has been challenging in terms of really clarifying our intent to the other. u.s. government funding has been challenging. some people who took it work at all affected by the fact that they took it. others that didn't work. another challenge between sanctions and treasury licenses in terms of meeting them to have exchanges, that's quite complicated. and i think i should have started with this one, but these are very, very, very complicat complicated, difficult to get. and i think it's really a symptom of state of relations. so moving forward, our exchanges to possible? they are. people are doing them. there are organizations that

have carried out a successful exchanges since the june aftermath of the election. but thinking forward, it's important to take stock where we are. the conversation by having them the political context in which we are working. if you re-examine the purpose of exchanges, to clarify the intent of those exchanges, and i would argue that given the amount and mistrust that we have in each other now, creating some kind of consulted to the mechanism to jointly decide upon exchanges would be the way to move forwa forward. >> let's go to mohammad next. >> i would like to talk about some of the perceptions in washington and if i have time i will go back, because i think it can be taken when she got to cultural exchanging and engagement. from the very beginning, i think

the beginning, from the very beginning when the movement began there were many and and in -- in washington who did not take it service and thought it would die down very quickly or look at it from nuclear issue. but as the movement began to gain momentum, many went to the other extreme, and looked at it, looked at it as a color revolution. thought it was going to be an all out revolution, and suddenly the question was not if, but when islamic republic was going to collapse. and according to many leaders of the movement, green movement, the current leaders, this was not particularly helpful. we thought it gave an alibi to the conservative establishment. of course the coverage that the green movement received was

extremely helpful movement to grow. but gradually at some point began as a movement, gained momentum. that kind of perception according to many did not really help. if i may go back to some of the practical engagement, practical stuff that can be taken. it is ironic that according to many in iran one of the most pro-american population in the muslim world. ironically, the population of the people has the hardest time to get a u.s. visa to come here to the states. there are a number things that can be done. one is to ease the restrictions, and, of course, the citizens of countries that often -- it means when they come here they cannot

go back. they have to stay here for a lease for five years if they are a graduate student. and then after that many tried to get permanent residency to make sure that if they go to iran they come back. kind of counterproductive. because the state department was to make sure these students maintain their ties to the families and back home, but ironically after five or 10 years it is more likely for those to stay in the states. there a couple of other things that can be done. the other thing is the flight safety. i run has one of the oldest air fleet in the world, primarily because of u.s. sanctions. and many argue, many, not just the conservatives, even many reformists in iran argue it is part of the human rights to be

able to provide, and the u.s. could allow going in airbus, companies sell brand-new planes to iran. i think i will stop right here. >> you mentioned, you also talk about the visa issue, the red tape involved in some of this. there was an incident recently also where the first iranian to play in the nba, of all things. was actually -- there was -- he was able to come over but there was a lot of difficulty with it because of these red tape issues. and you can imagine when that much money is involved there are still problems. you can imagine what it's like a sort of a normal person to person, teacher exchanges, all these things were talking about. geneive? >> i thought i would just her start off talking in general answer putting the opposition and a political context because i think that's very important.

weekend here in the united states to sort of, our perceptions of the opposition movement are people that are, you know, not only the leaders of the green movement but are fairly westernized, educated iranians, and, in fact, the movement is much more broad-based than that. and we know just from not only anecdotal information, but scholarly research that is being conducted now in the country by professors at the university of tehran that, in fact, in some of the areas that have historically been basis of popular support for president ahmadinejad and supreme leader that that base is leading them to some degree. i mean, it's hard of course to measure, but according to a lot of opinion polls surveys that have been taken we see that to some degree their base is leading them over a primary issue, which is the issue of the gross human rights violations have occurred in iran. so when you look at the opposition, i guess more in

terms of the civil society movement, i think that's a much more sort of informed way to do how the united states or anyone on the outside perhaps could try to engage this increasing sort of disgruntled part of the population that is dissatisfied with the regime. and i think that is part of that, of course, you do have groups that were mentioned in the first panel, the 1 million signature campaign. you have well-defined organizations that have evolved over the last few years, but you also have very loosely formed organizations. there's a lot of evidence for example, that even some of the unions now are a part of the opposition to some degree. even though strikes in iran have not been all that successful. so i think it's important to sort of talk about the opposition in that broad context rather than kind and has a narrow movement that is sort of just restricted to the green movement. and part of that also is that i

think we have to keep in mind that because this is a very broad movement, a lot of iranians inside the country now that are opposed to the government of course don't necessarily want help from the united states. and part of the reason is not only their own feelings about outside interference, but it's also due to the fact that the state has made as part of their strategy in gaining with the oppositions, associated this opposition, this broad-based opposition to being some sort of ploy by western government. so any sort of direct assistan assistance, a lot of opposition is believe will take a moment and sort of reaffirm the kind of propaganda, the argument that the regime has been making really since last june. so i think it's important to keep that in mind. as part of the work that i'm doing now, at the think tank where i work, and also with other think tanks in washington, what we've done is we have in

formally convened a iran task force that includes some members of the u.s. government, some european diplomats as well, and also some activists with ties to the opposition movement. and in the course of the next year and a half, we are going to try to come up with specific details as to how the outside, perhaps the united states, maybe not in the government to sort of civil society relationship, but somehow have the united states can't assist the movement indirectly. and i was just sort of go back to the issue of the internet and give you a list of some of the specific recommendations that the iranians who are part of this task force has recommended that these are iranians who are both in the united states and europe, and some who are in iran. they are participating in this task force. and they really believe that,

even if these initiatives don't come from the u.s. government, that to have a dialogue, that the only way that's really possible, given the current climate, is really to the internet, as the panel exhaustively discussed this a few minutes ago. and they have also pointed out something that i think is really important that wasn't touched upon in the first panel, which is, not only is the internet important for the narrowly defined opposition movement, but it's important also information or to mitigation technology inside the country is very important also for this part of the population that i mentioned, that is not necessarily identified, this part of the opposition, the vast public opinion in iran that actually their only access to information is the state run media. and so, one of the most glaring examples that has been given to me in terms of the cutoff of information by the country was last summer when this young

woman was killed on the streets. some people in iran did not learn of his death until two or three weeks later. so if you are in a society where information is so limited, the only way you can really engage with the outside world is if you have independent sources of information. so this is another aspect of this, but it's important in order to sort of change public opinion in iran within those millions of supporters. among those noise of supporters within the regime is also through the internet and access to to information. so some of the iranians on the task force that i run with another think tank have specifically identified a few measures that could be taken. one is to provide, to somehow make skype more available to iranians. and this is -- skype is now used and is fairly reliable as a

source of documentation that the regime has great difficulty in intercepting. that's one of the recommendations. another recommendation to encourage companies to support persian language online advertising. they believe that this would get iranians a broad another private sector tool to target those inside the country to identify them and allow websites promoting human rights, or other important issues and to help distribute information to make advertising money available in order for iranians to be able to pay the costs. so in other words, generate revenues so that people can sort of have access, more access to the internet. another suggestion has been to permit persian web developers to partner with people on the outside to build websites for civil society. so this is another recommendation i have that would allow those groups within civil society actually have their own

website in order to commit get their ideas, not only inside the country, but outside with people outside. and another, of course, this was discussed earlier, but another specific recommendation that they are making is to find a way to make high speed internet available to iranians. because again, this could address the sort of the vast technology that the regime has to slow the internet and to make it almost unusable as it was, particularly before the federal 11th demonstration. i don't know if you read about this in the newspapers, but as was mentioned earlier, traffic to google was significantly slowed. the internet was so slow that it was basically impossible to really use it. so these are some of the specific recommendations that iranians that are part of this very broad movement have, whether they should be initiated by the u.s. government or by the private sector, but they really believed that the battleground

going forward is communication technology. thank you. >> thank you. sonya, i wonder if you could talk about maybe, step back from the way that i think the west and especially in america we typically, at least in the last year, certainty since last june, have been talking about this issue which is an important conversation, the opposition and the internet and all of that. but talk about the importance of it of person-to-person exchange as a concept, historically but specifically with, within the iran context. what works, what doesn't work? you laid out some of the conditions for war, if you could give some examples of the type of work, maybe that you've done or your organization does. and then drawing on what geneive singh, the ways in which the internet can be a tool in some ways for person-to-person contact with people, particularly climate that we are

discussing where it's difficult sometimes to do these programs, it's difficult to get over there, difficult to do academic exchanges, et cetera. >> i just want to be clear, the kinds of exchanges that search for common ground have put together, carried out on partnership with others was really before the time of all of this discussion. so i want to take us back to that time, because this is very competent to have a discussion with the context right now. given that engagement for us is not about legitimizing on government or the other or about rewarding behavior in some way or another. but i think the internet is an amazing tool that can be utilized, but it doesn't replace face-to-face contact. doesn't replace being there in person. the times that i have brought people to iran, it has change everything that they ever -- every stereotype that they ever could have imagined that they would have had.

i was taking a group from -- medical doctors to visit rural health programs. and we had a long day, warm all comes from everybody. and we got to a small village and we were about to eat a big bowl that he might make for us, it was lovely. and a girl came out and she must've been about 16 or 17, and she said i am so sorry for what happened. and i said i don't know what you mean. i'm so sorry for what happened at virginia tech university. and that was really striking to me, that obviously there's the satellite televisions everywhere, but can we imagine that in this country? can we imagine some and a small town in america knowing something that happened in iran? hopefully with the internet and with blogs and with the new media, blossoming as it is, we will. but that is the kind of thing

that face-to-face contact really does. and experiences that we've had and why we continue to promote it. i had other people tell me how much they love doctor phil and desperate housewives. lap expect these are good thin things. this is a positive sign? >> but the fact, i would argue many iranians know so much more about the united states than we know about iran. and i want to emphasize that this exchange and dialogue is really in both direction. it's when i talked about a level playing field. it's not about bringing people, it's not about bringing iranians here to be taught about america and our values. it's really a shared ,-comcommon dialog. so that some of the expenses that we've had. >> someone who came to visit, her daughter, religious lady was here during the month of ramadan when you are supposed to fast

after a few months, after how it was, her expression to be here. and fasting. and she said she had the best time she had in her entire life. she enjoyed meeting the people here and going to different muslim communities or non-muslim groups. and i think it does make a big difference when you come here, you have a lot of stereotypes. partly because of the propaganda in the country, that this country is very immoral. but people come here and realized it's not that way. >> you have written some of your work and your research about you have analyzed particular media coverage our perceptions of america in media in iran, and how it differs, it differs by what we would call partisanship. sort ofar