now, panelists said the world economic forum discuss improving the lives of children increasing access to medicine and vaccinations and improving maternal care to expectant mothers in developing countries. it melinda gates and campaign founder bono are among the panelists. this hourlong discussion includes questions from the audience. >> good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this main stage session on raising healthy children. i want to start by applauding the world economic forum. i think this is the first session in the form's history on children's health on the main stage, and we think this is very, very important. as you can see, we have a very

dynamic panel. we want the session to be interactive and focused on practical action. so i will ask one round of questions and then open up to the floor, take two or three questions and then open it to the panel and keep coming back to you. so get ready, prepare your questions and ask them. lamb josette sheeran, the head of the world food program. the world food program we see a lot in the developing world of what we will talk about today. we know that we are reaching 50 million children a year that are facing urgent issues of malnutrition and hunger, and we know in the world today there is more than 200 million children whose minds and bodies are stunted and who lose a chance at a healthy life very early in age especially under to without adequate nutrition, children's

brains and bodies, we now know, can never recover from the lost during that period. on a call this and the other information we have the burden of knowledge. today we know that without specific interventions, children lose the chance at a healthy life, and this is not only an issue of compassion, but also one for finance ministers and presidents and prime ministers. the loss to gdp as made by my program, but by others at six to 11% of gdp that the country loses if children are on hold fi and bring that into adulthood, and we know from one economy alone, that equals over $20 billion a year. the issue really is are there deployable solutions, is the knowledge we have deployable,

and also the dilemma we have of the undernourishment in parts of the world and the over nourishment in other parts of the world, and today we are going to cover the whole spectrum. we know today in many rich economies we are seeing diabetes and children, we are seeing the precursors of them on communicable diseases very early in life, and so we have to deal and tackle both issues. i think you will hear the panel not being grim tremendous progress is being made, and i think there are solutions at hand and we will hear some encouragement along with the challenge by humanities facing. we will first hear from dr. margaret chan, this is the no-nonsense get it done leader of the world health organization. last year we took stock of the

millennium development goals. it's a 15 year time span, but we took stock, and the focus was on the millennium colin number four on children's and maternal health, and are we reaching the goal of reducing the number of children who die before their fifth birthday by the year 2015, but last year 7.7 million children died. margaret was instrumental in launching last year a global strategy for women and children talf where stakeholders pledged over $40 billion to invest in the sector, and i'd like to ask margaret what are the three things that need to be done that can be done and will move this

dial? >> thank you, josette. good afternoon, to all of you. if you look at what can be done i will scale up very quickly to make an impact in improving the health of children with me give you three suggestions. number one, vaccine preventable diseases especially for children. we have seen how effective vaccines can be. they are safe, cost-effective, and they are the best sign innovation can bring. look at polio. the vaccines brought these diseases almost to their knees and we are very close to eradicating these diseases. and vaccine for pneumonia and for diarrhea, and these are also big killers of children. so if we can scale up the knowledge and the action gap of

what is preventing us to make huge progress so if we can still feel that not the only difference. we have never seen, you know, for the first time in 60 years, the under five mortality of children. we saw it go down to 8.1 million, the lowest ever in 60 years. so we should gear up with this momentum. the second thing we could think of and learn from this bednets for children in saharan africa. i was reminded by scientists don't worry about malaria, there's nothing more you can do, it's not clear to get better, it's not going to get worse. i cannot accept the status quo. you know, melinda, you and bill gave us a challenge and one of the meetings, the malaria forum so the idea is to make the

decision to flood the households with insecticide bednets. the importance of combination treatment is important, but the fact of the matter is when you talk to mothers in africa you ask them what worries you as a mother? malaria, malaria. that is also -- we are seeing great progress. we are seeing reports of incentive cases and reduction of 15% of death. i literally actually myself together with the bill and melinda gates foundation and of course the secretary general, we visited hospitals in africa to our pleasant surprise we saw children, hospitals where they used to keep children who were seriously sick with malaria, but the bids were empty.

so that's the kind of thing we are seeing. the first thing is let's not forget the importance of food and proper nutrition. when you said is correct. what we are seeing in the world is quite troubling. we see famine coexist meaning obesity. when we have 43 million preschool children obese just look at the impact, think of the impact on the health system, on the families, and that is why we are working closely with many actors and of course josette, your organization, to really promote, you know, the first 1,000 days of life. if you get the nutrition right, you get a child a new lease of life. if you don't get it right, you squander their life because they cannot get the benefit of education, and the family, the society, the cost is so high.

proper nutrition is extremely important and let's not forget that the importance of diabetes. it's a relationship to diabetes. then we finish by promoting one thing and giving you one concluding and powerful intervention. this is promotion. breastfeeding for the first six months of life and the mothers hold their ivied no one can take it away. [laughter] >> thank you, margaret. just to frame this this happens to be from rwanda. today one out of every 7 billion people will wake up and not know how to fill this cup. and 1 billion people are over nourished. the first time in history last year a billion nearly starving people and a billion over nerve risch nourished people leading

to the types of disease and challenges we are talking about today. the next speaker, melinda gates -- margaret chan says she gets nervous talking about health because she knows so much. my staff, this, too because melinda cooke is also found in the villages of the world talking with the beneficiaries, recipients and partners to their programs, and my staff tells me, melinda, they've never seen anyone ask more probing questions, get to the solution and untie the knot of the problems better than you. but i would like to ask you is from all of your travel, why are we losing so many children? and why this is no longer rocket science and i will ask this, we know what to do, why can't we deploy these more, and what do you think we can easily scale love to make a difference? >> those are great questions and i think first of all it is forums like this, to speak about

the world economic forum having a panel about childhood health to me is an incredible thing, and you have to think about what happens through even in this forum that's allowed us to make progress so let's go back in time. without the thing myself too much, if you go back in my lifetime to 1960, there were 20 million children dying every single year, 20 million children die in. we got that number down to 12 million by 1990. pretty good progress. now we're down to 8.1 children dying every here. the question bill and i keep asking ourselves and the panelists here is how do you exit the progress on the 8.1 even faster so the next ten years we can stand up here and say we have cut that number significantly? and i think it really comes down to three things. number one, we need to invest in women. we know that mothers make an incredible difference in the lives of their newborn babies and their children.

we know that women, if a woman gets an extra dollar or two of income she piles it right back into her family in terms of health and nutrition and education. so the women are key in this, and there are so many easy things we can do, so number one as women. number two has to do with really investing in these front-line health workers. this is a worker that kosoff and works in the most remote places in some of the countries we are talking about. so where did these childhood deaths have been? the happen in african nations, places like ethiopia and nigeria have millions of their own, and in northern india. these places though our skilling up front line health workers. i was in malawi last year. it's one of the poorest countries in africa. they are working on the m d g. four about childhood death by getting up these front-line health workers who take messages out to women. ethiopia is to in the same thing, in the highest in the same thing and here's what makes

a difference. we have to take those 8.1 million deaths and really break it down. 40% of the deaths are in the first 28 days of life. what you tell the women about the first 28 days is slightly different than you taller ones that beebee cross t's 28 days to 5-years-old. so the first 28 days of life you say to her what margaret just said, through the front line health worker the media, the immediate and exclusive breast-feeding even if it's hot outside your baby will get enough nutrition by being breastfed and keep that baby warm. we can reduce the first 28 days of life, we can reduce those by summer between 20% and 50%. so that's the first 28 days with front line health workers. the front line health workers then also talk about the vaccination peace which is the piece you get from 30 days to five years. this miracle life-saving vaccine is that both deliver them in the villages and they get the women into the health clinics to get their vaccinations for children.

so that is the third thing i would say, invest in women, invest in front line health workers which countries are doing, and third, investing vaccines. vaccines are a miracle technology. and we, i think in the developed world, take them for granted. i take my children to the doctor's office to get their vaccines i don't even think about the disease that we use to get in the united states and the u.k. and france or japan. but these merkel technologies -- when bill and i first got into this work it was taking 15 to 20 years for a vaccine we knew what work in africa because we had it, and it was 15 to 20 years before it would get out in africa. now we've gotten that down to one or two years. and through this alliance that was actually announced here at davos over ten years ago, the global alliance for vaccines and immunizations, many large countries came into the fund. we were able to have the offense to market commitment they made and we were able to guarantee number of purchases and we can

go to the drug companies and say not only make the vaccines that work in the developed world but the specifics trains for the developing world, and we will guarantee you a certain number will be purchased. they will bring down the price and so for the first time, we now have specific strains for africa. i was just in kenya this week because they are rolling out a normal vaccine for pneumonia. i guess with the biggest childhood killer is in the world, pneumonia, 1.6 million deaths a year. so this miracle of vaccines is happening and we can bring down these deaths by making sure the women do the right things the 28 days of life and the right things that vaccinations and it is the world coming together. its partners like these on the stage working and it's the government saying we are willing to invest and the drug manufacturers say we are willing to take risk you are right and we will get the strains out there and it's the world coming together to see this is

important. >> her expertise is deep on these issues. we are very pleased now to have one of the leading ceo's, muhtar kent, of coca-cola with us to read your company has profound global reach every corner of the globe. how can a company like yours with sets reach of the numbers and do you think coca-cola could make a difference in saving children's lives? >> thank you. i think without a doubt we have seen a very important role for business and this challenge that we are talking about, and we see the role today ten years from now. it is the reason why we have forged partnerships with the civil society with partnerships with government and other

business partners dealing with issues like undernutrition come over nutrition and education all related to child health. and i can reflect on a couple of examples of how business can make an impact and how we are seeing the impact, positive impact. a few years ago in the philippines, we worked with the nutrition and science institute read numbers cannot that said that roughly one in five children in the philippines hs six to 12 had efficiency, anemia. we developed in our innovation and supply chain and know how the product, juice with added

zinc and iron and vitamins a and c. we start with the ministry of education and the ministry of health distributing this the virgin first 2008 and touched about 8,000 students to read this year we will touch about 70,000 students. efficacy last year 40% reduction of that deficiency. next year the 100th anniversary of our business in the philippines will go up 100,000. another, and this tells us this is a great opportunity. let's do more of this, hence we have agreed on a new partnership with the world food program, i may add, and also the howard buffett foundation and a multimillion dollar, multi-year program to take a similar

approach in a large latin american nation. again, we will be touching many tens of thousands of children related that will have a different design because of the different deficiency, but again, how the business makes a difference. michael is to take this and not talk about hundreds of thousands but millions, because we know it can be done. if we know that this product right here helps cut that deficiency by 40% and all the children we could touch in the philippines, we know we can make an impact. and we will skill this up. there is tremendous interest from partners and institutions like the inter-american development bank, and i know that we can do much more on this journey of partnership that we started with the world food

program, and i am very excited about that. then there are a host of other areas we can lend our expertise. another example is the agreement we just reached with the bill and melinda gates foundation to help raise awareness of vaccines in two major african countries and also lend our supply chain expertise to get to ensure the vaccines get to where the or suppose to reach. again, the clear area. i just want to finish with of the notion that there is so much other areas of the intersection child care, health care, health for children and say the whole subject of women's empowerment. we are a big believer not just gender parity inside of the four walls of the coca-cola system,

770,000 employees, but also how much more we can do for the women's empowerment outside of the walls of our system. and that's why we made the commitment recently of 5 million, and helvering 5 million more women by 2020. doing that through our whole entrepreneurial projects in africa, asia, microdistribution centers, touching and enhancing and creating more retailers from breaking down barriers, and then that helps also invariably having better health for children when the women are empowered and so connected. so we have to think about it in the sense and a more broader scale and business has a role and i call it the golden triangle, business, society, more. so i invite everyone to come and help participate in some of

these great projects so that we can all talk about millions of children touched that we can reduce of malnutrition and also the health of children. thank you. >> thank you, muhtar. powerful words and action, and i think a new type of global coalition coming together to address these challenges. next i would like to turn to lars sorensen from novo nordisk, one of the leading health companies and the leader in diabetes treatment. lars, we are seeing a global epidemic and diabetes, but we are also seeing pre-diabetes and diabetes and children at an alarming rate of growth. what is driving this? how can we prevent that and how

can we ensure that we are not creating bigger problems as these children grow up and bring these diseases into their the term life? >> thank you. and first of all, thank you for the invitation of being here today. as you mentioned, my home companies working in diabetes, and that usually occurs later in life, even though we also do see childhood diabetes, but sadly, we are seeing undernutrition and over nutrition at the same time, and so, before the meeting i rode down three observations. we are in business after all. perhaps a slightly different one. the first observation and the most important one is interestingly enough the notion of empowerment. i can't say it any better than melinda cooke did, but i perhaps had a different angle to it because i believe that the origin of health starts under

the field of element -- fetal development and the fact that we have an epidemic diabetes ii is due to the fact that the mothers themselves or undernourished when they developed and the children under the fetal development are undernourished and hence develop that look much higher risk to develop diabetes later on in life. what we should do and this is a wonderful thing we could simply identified the pregnant women and insure they get proper treatment as early as possible in their pregnancy ensuring they get proper nutrition and enough of it and also to ensure they do not develop gestational diabetes so they get too big babies which causes a lot of problems in connection with first but also that the offspring are likely to

the ladies. it's a short-term goal in life where she control to the control and help her. so that is the first manpower the women's, they are all the ones. the second observation is it is gratifying to see the u.n. is now holding a summit on chronic disease. we have been trying to raise the alarm of the fact that there is mortality to the chronic disease in fact now the infectious disease and why is that relevant for the debate? it is relevant directly for children with obesity but also in the indirect sense that healthy societies are the foundation for economic growth. and economic growth and prosperity is the foundation for healthy families. for the ability of the family members to care for the offspring and for the children.

a fair observation is this issue of a particular kind of chronic disease, childhood diabetes. the life expectancy of a child in sub-saharan africa is less than two years. they have diabetes type i. we are trying in our own company to identify these children to ensure they get dalia no stand set up a distribution system and the capacity building system whereby we will provide the mitigation, education and care for them throughout their lives hopefully until we can convince the government to take care of the problem. and then, to the commercial, the commercial should be one to all the business leaders here that corporations can do a lot and i would encourage you to enjoy the work force which has been formed here at davos where companies by adopting a bonus programs have

such a tremendous impact generally on health and again on the families because we have millions and millions of employees. if they are part of our wellness program they would bring that knowledge back to the families and the would create a better opportunity for their children to live healthy lives for generations to come. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, lars. bono, not only do you make great music, but he's moved the world with your attention to issues from aids to trade, debt relief, peace in ireland, hiv/aids, and attention on children, health, hunger, poverty. you're one campaign have millions of members now, the red campaign has raised a lot of money for these causes. you've made these calls is cool among millions of people who

maybe wouldn't have paid attention. on a scale of one to ten, how are we doing in the fight to reverse a necessary avoidable deaths in children? >> there is nothing cold about these ideas and i'm very passionate about them. you ask the right question which is where are we, what's happened, and it's a question hanging in the air over meetings like this in davos and that is a public of which i am one of them which shows are these just talking shops? what happens when people get all on the streets and a protest and

ask the government to take this stuff seriously when they buy read product is, whatever it is, what can we achieve? is anything really achieved if a primm minister makes such matters a priority in economic times, if bill and melinda gates leave a life of commerce and work in this area, what happens? lewicke terms of what happens to read to go back to 2004, i was here. we are a part of the process. 6,000 lives a day have been saved since 2004. it is an extraordinary statistic we should be shot in from the rooftop that should be on this line here at davos. 6,000 kids are alive today every

day, 6,000 today and actually if you can check out the living proof campaign, it's just good news. i am just so encouraged. i give it six out of tinto because there is some jeopardy and if we want to get the eight out of ten, i would say these public and private partnerships, the coca-cola company, i have seen them and met with them over the years and they are serious about these issues and i think that's important. i can't we have to see real commitments at government level so the replenishment is going to be a test as to how serious we are to get to eight of ten.

replenishment of the global fund. we solve some problems last october not hitting quite the numbers they were expecting. so to be serious, about getting to the 12 of ten that's what it's going to take, for ten out of 10i think you probably need another bill which is a vaccine of a kind against disease that is killing more kids than the rebel virus hiv/aids and that is corruption. if you want a multiplier effect on the results that are happening within the organization, i think we need to tackle that and transparency is a very important piece of this and you might even see this week criticism for the global fund for being transparent.

it is kind of remarkable. they published their own figures and included some test cases that have gone wrong. so we think transparency has to be taken seriously and i applaud the global fund for their transparency and as a multiplier effect on this could work this in my view what we have to get this ten out of ten. >> excellent. we have a good start here. i can barely see out there but we have a microphone and the first question here. >> last year i was running the program in somalia for the global fund. i totally agree with what you've said, dr. chan and melinda about the importance of vaccines and bednets and health workers. i just want to comment at my

experience and i'm not representing because it is a special case, but vaccines need to be put into the old vaccines because of the problems with cold chains and it's happening in all the countries not only in the long term development but every time it's plucked the cold chain is interrupted and two days ago i had one of those random meetings in davos they produced an old fire riss vaccine which is [inaudible] and the second comment on health workers, absolutely we need to invest one of the problems is that for the first year health is a vocation for so many people in africa it is a job, and in somalia we don't offer them enough to make them good and there is a huge competition in the private-sector in the towns in somalia there's ten, 12

clinics, between 300 to 500,000 pharmacies providing the health care and trying to drag those well-trained people into the public health sector is hard work because we don't pay them enough and they could earn more in the marketplace. so i really applaud what you said, mr. kent, and i encourage -- i would love to see more involvement by the private sector to help us because it is a huge challenge. somalia is special, but that happens in so many places that there's almost competition with private sector and they get ignored. finally, for bednets, i mean, i would say keep scaling it up. it's not somalia's biggest problem, but bednets go a long way towards drinking water and malaria that these other diseases of childhood and i applaud what he said about the global fund, bono, the most transparent organization i've ever worked for.

brilliant and hugely appreciated by those people that get bednets they can do so many things with that. i would just say keep it up. thanks. >> we are taking notes appear because we are going to take two or three questions and then go to the panel. we have one over here. >> i just want to pick up on the point bono need -- >> can you speak closer to the microphone? >> i want to speak on the plant bono and about communication and the fact that it was echoed by other people earlier on in terms of future progress has actually been made and there are concrete things going on now that everybody can be part of to make steps to accelerate the progress and i just think one of the things private-sector can do, technology companies that

actually all companies have customers is are now marketing, you have a huge beach in terms of the messages that you are able to get out there and promoting your own services and products, and just bearing that in mind is more than obvious not everybody can be reaching those places, but i think most companies can help in terms of getting these images is a cross. both the good news story that a child's life is saved every four seconds as well as being lost, and also about what can be done to address these things and what needs to be done. like the replenishment and government committing simple steps that can be taken. this isn't an impossible thing. it is doable and i honestly believe you, josette, that this is doable. within five to ten years' time we will have a panel of here talking about the success that has been made in terms of saving

children's lives, stopping these preventable deaths but that will only be possible if we get that message out and get a groundswell of demand for this change so that they've really does become a shared norm. i think it is a shared norm. nobody wants to see a child died but we are not seeing any that the act on that shared norm to make it a reality. >> thank you. is there one more? >> right here and then we will go to the panel. >> bono mentioned this but i would like to see it expanded. all of what you're saying makes sense to all of us, but there's a counter sermon going on in government around the country about deficits and cutting

spending, and the finance industry in washington, d.c. has five lobbyists for every member of congress. how many lobbyists to the children have that we are talking about today? so we need to do more than just offered facts that make sense and ideas, but really we have to offer a new sermon that we are all contributing to. and, you know, my favorite, how we offer a sermon that can counter the pressure to balance our budgets on the backs of the world's most flammable children? -- vulnerable children? >> that's the elephant in the room isn't it? the recession and the attrition of budgets that are smart

budgets and when stuff is working it makes it just so aggravating. i think to fold, you have to show the results to keep the public involved, but the public does have to keep feet to the flames of officials. we set up the one campaign and i used to joke and say we want to be the nra to the world's poor and people say nra? will say that. and i say no, they are very well organized, extremely well organized. >> the national rifle association. >> wondering whether so many people running around with guns in the u.s. because lobbyists and the like. and so come and get the poor would not have the same force of representation. that's why one campaign we went to 2.5 million members and we are trying to gather that support, and so you credit

somebody like david cameron when in difficult economic times he sticks with his commitment to .7% and makes a speech saying we are going to do serious cuts of the british budget but we are not doing cuts that cost lives, and there was a real moment and the british people should be very proud and it's a difficult position for them to hold. so what you can do in britain because the public support, because comic relief and the british are very educated on this stuff and they know what works so we have to do that in all the other countries and, you know, i have to be critical of president sarkozy. i really like him but the demand just saying we want your leadership. he was talking about new ideas and to think differently that

he's getting the pressure to cut and what was product is actually really, really important because it's crazy to get this far and to be here as you were saying in 2015 and you know that this limit would be awful. >> thank you for bringing this important point up. as you were talking who is going to champion for the voiceless. in the 70's when the world was going through similar to what we are seeing, the oil crisis and the financial crisis, so at that time and many countries are asked to cut their social services including education and health and many countries 40 years later are still suffering from cuts in social services. i hope this time around

political leaders would have the resolve not to make the same mistake again. >> i was just going to -- this discussion is really important because we are quite concerned about government budgets and particularly to look at the goal line and immunizations the need another 3.7 million over the next five years so we have to make sure this money continues to flow. this is an important issue. i want to come back to the issue of innovations and vaccinations and in particular vaccine's versus injectable soon to be clear with everybody some vaccines require refrigeration as to some injection, and she's in write the cold chain is difficult in these settings, but it does exist today and the thing we are trying to do is take the system apart and innovate sweep without some challenges where we will give them grants to see how can you

redo the vaccines? what is coming off that is the process is so long for getting an existing vaccine reconstituted in the system but in fact you need to work further upstream suite of a small furnace that has its own energy source that doesn't require electricity and the vaccines can be kept in storage and the whole container can be taken from the main all the way to the remote village so we've got to go even further of the line and enervate sood this is exactly what the private sector does is look at the problem and say okay it's not just innovation and technology vaccines what's wrong with this supply chain, how we take it apart and innovate each piece of that? so that work is going on it's just going to take a while to come to fruition. >> now you know when microsoft

-- [inaudible] [laughter] >> you referenced the point about cuts many of the programs we have been able to put in place have been put in place in the last couple of years. all in the midst of this crisis, and i know many other consumer companies that are represented here with great programs whether it is the old general mills, the great companies they have also continued the focus and commitment, their energy and it's not just the money it's the commitment. whether we planned our supply chain to distribute mets for life in africa which we do we continue whether we do in the supply chain for getting the vaccines awareness, the marketing system creating more awareness it doesn't take --

it's much more than money. it's the commitment and the belief and going out and ensuring you can have those partnerships in place to get results because the partnerships are the ones that get results and it's great to see this has continued through this crisis and i'm very happy to see also that now even companies coming in from the east or chinese companies they are also increasing their awareness and commitment to these issues and that is what is so good about what is happening in the world. estimate you sort of on the color kind of. >> lars, did you have anything? >> was interesting because there are millions of adults live with

diabetes so in fact when we are talking of the distribution of vaccines we need to keep these products in very good shape otherwise millions of people die and we feel it can be done. it is a matter of getting together with coca-cola and twist their arm a little bit and find solutions to get things through the furthest part in the world with some medications and it's a matter of commitment and not so much resources. >> i would like to touch on one important point which is the power of innovation. i've been in public health for longer than using. more than 30 years. honestly, i don't see major breakthroughs without innovation and i can bring up two points.

one is the food and beverage industry and motivated to this regulation to markets for children and commitment to reformulate food in such a way that had been put on hold the so cut the sold and reduce the sugar so the kind of innovation is so important so we look to you to continue this effort and make our children healthier. and then on diabetes, as a doctor i still remember, you know, when a patient comes in with diabetes you send them to distant places for education, you see the dietitian, buy it consultation and go to the pharmacy to get your medicine or your insulin. can you be also created in the delivery system where you can

have the package to facilitate the health system because there are many countries health systems going through stress and strain and they are hell should i say better prepared in dealing with a disease like communicable diseases but less well prepared in dealing with heart disease, diabetes, and it's important with the education of people, you know, improving, you know, point of care, self care but under the guidance of doctors and qualified people because in order to reduce the high cost but also empower people because people are very self-reliant and if you in power then they can take care of themselves and the gentleman in the private sector what can you do to make us of

the year? >> i would like to throw another question and get ready for the next round. as humans we regret that naming names when people do things wrong and leaders do things wrong, and we are less good at naming names when leaders get it right and one thing i've seen in the ponder business is a nation never changes unless there is a leader that says no more. children are not going to die under my watch. they may have to rally with the vision, but then you start seeing things change. i want to ask you, each of you, what names, not the top names but what comes to mind when i say that first of leaders today of nations who are making a difference? >> the primm minister in ethiopia, people have criticisms about some things the government does but he's an economist and

taking the economy apart saying i care about these maternal deaths and i'm going to train the health extension workers in my country. i'm going to open what he has done 30,000 remote health care clinics. there are about one-third the size of this stage and he is making progress on the maternal child goals in ethiopia because of that. this commitment and then the government goes further and says we got the health care workers trained and the facilities, why aren't the women coming in? how are we going to keep them in their villages, so again, taking the problem part one step at a time but it's an absolutely for him and his health ministers just saying this is what we are going to do. >> any other names? >> it has to be political figures? >> leaders of nations. >> i think that again, it is a

controversial figure in some ways. it's an incredible job in rwanda in terms of organizing the health system. i've seen by visiting the clinics the difference, and he's sort of looking to the future in terms of technology, broadband, it is remarkable to watch. countries that come out of conflict, he's an amazing economist, he became an extraordinary economist. people couldn't figure out how to such a great macroeconomist. it turned out he studied in the b.c. open university correspondent student weigel fighting the war. i think again coming out of

conflict -- child health -- estimate and the investment in women. they decided a certain percentage of the women in parliament and parliamentarians will be women and he says that's changing the face of the country because the women are so involved in rebuilding the that nation. when you talk to the parliamentarians they are dedicated and committed. >> the same thing in both cases. >> i've done wonderful work with the president of columbia and i do believe the successor is going to continue in education and empowerment for women and also health, children's health and columbia and then now and again we are very excited the program we are about to embark

on. >> any other leadership here? >> i have 193 countries the competition is keen to they are all my bosses. we better be careful. >> i could take margaret's spot and john been with another leader. the feeding hungry and malnutrition faster than any nation on earth and i loved it because it was focused on school feeding and small that the parents couldn't get the cash allotment without a few conditions. the money wouldn't come out of the machine unless the children have their vaccinations up-to-date and unless the children got good grades, unless they had perfect attendance except for excused absences. this is a powerful combination of -- >> fighting atv was incredible. >> and i think she's going to keep that of pri from every

indication but it's important we get these pace setters and promote the work. they are the good ones making began. okay, audience. one right back there. one behind mark. triet >> in honor of the elephants in the room this is probably the largest kunkel conglomeration -- >> we only have four minutes left so you each have 30 seconds. >> healthy children without a healthy labor conditions and wages, and a labor party member who also really help the working conditions there. i wonder if we can talk about healthy children with parents

struggling with three and four jobs. >> thank you. mark? >> question that observation prompted by the last question of yours, josette. three of the four leaders and you mentioned lula arthenia was, shall be less tecum -- fabulous to the look met leaders but questions about their space performance if you like, and i think for those of us, and that includes all of you on the stage, you have all followed the concept that development and democracy are linked it forces us to confront the fact there is a new generation of people who call themselves development presidents who are doing a fantastic job that do not on all occasions meet our expectations on human rights. what is that ilana?

>> last 30 seconds. >> i am an academic and alaska very quick question. children grow up to be teenagers and young adults. what about them? >> we have ten seconds each for final, anyone who feels they would like to address. >> the halls of the youth is extremely important and that is one of the areas we discussed. teen-age pregnancy, adolescent diabetes, and this is a group of people and we have not really had a good handle on this. we talk about children and mothers and something in between so let's not forget their needs as well. >> i would say in health investments will prosper in open societies and transparent societies and that's one of the

ways to opening up the democratic issues and i would like to say because i mentioned the global fund and criticized for transparency because i might have given the wrong impression test case is the word used. there are four countries out of 145 countries and the corrupt practices the halted the country's and i want to make a point about that. >> just invite the passion and commitment of everyone to come and join the partnerships and let's create more and be more effective in this area. >> it's great to see so much interest in the room on this topic. thank you, all of you. [applause] >> i would like to leave putting a heavy dose of pressure on everyone in the room because we

have more liters per square inch than anywhere on the planet right now. i was raised catholic and in the catholic faith we were taught very young there are sins of omission and commission. where you don't know and the commission where you do. we now know a child's brain keeps developing until they are too. without adequate nutrition those parts of the brain never light up. i don't know but they have scans that show dark parts of the brain that can never let up. this is definitive as of two years ago. the cost of the inward intervention is inexpensive compared to the cost of society. we have the global pleased that we no longer are the burden of knowledge and no excuses not to get it done so we join in and ask everyone to join this groundswell the children talked about coca-cola, bill and melinda gates foundation, bono, all of these -- this is a new

type of global, let's report back and get it done three years from now that we've turned the tide on this. thank you. we now have an announcement by melinda gates. we are going to ask the panel to take seats in the front, and melinda, may i invite you to the podium. ..

>> "national public radio" has been on the air for 40 years. up next, a look at the future of public radio. they will hear from npr correspondent susan stamberg and radio reporter, leslie berestein

rojas. this is one hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> i'm not abandoning you. good evening and welcome to the central library. a pleasure to see her tonight. before you start the initial deductions just a bit of housekeeping. format tonight is in the form of a conversation among our three guests. after which we will open up your questions, so we will be circulating a microphone, two microphones in the audience so please wait until they come to you and please make your question a question. that would be great because we do report for podcast. after the program susan stamberg will be signing her new book in the lobby and we welcome you to join us there. another important piece of

business also before the official official welcome is just to let you know that something very important is coming up on your ballot. that is measure al, which is very important to libraries and i doubt that you care about libraries. and i know you probably care very much about this library because you were here tonight. and measure al will restore if it is passed service at all of the los angeles public libraries. [applause] and eventually a seven day service at the ate my neighborhood library so please find out more about measure al. put it on their facebook pages and we'll try and get it past. i am louise steinman the curator which is presented by the library foundation of los angeles. and now i can officially welcome you to the first of 2011's program at central library. this is npr the first 40 years. and i want to thank our local

npr affiliate and media sponsor for supporting aloud and i want to thank bill davis who is the founding president. you can way to them over there and give him a welcome. thank you so much, bill. [applause] our own library foundation president ken brecher is somewhere in here. if he is not he is on its way so wanted to welcome our two presidents here tonight. and i want to thank those of you who are library foundation members and to support a loud and support the mission of the los angeles public library free access to ideas and information which is certainly a mission that is part of what we care about npr and what mpr does as well. and you can find out more about supporting the los angeles public library in the lobby after the program. just talked to one of my colleagues. just as many of us have grown up with the public library many of us have grown up with npr. we love npr and be can imagine life without npr and we are eager to be part of the conversation about what the future will bring npr so to tonight we have a stellar panel of journalists to discuss the

past, present and future of npr. it is my great honor first, susan susan stamberg is the voice you hear in your head when he think you think of npr. [applause] the stamberg is one of the pioneers of npr. she has been on staff since the network began in 1971 and is the first woman to anchor national nightly news program. she has won every major award in broadcasting. i won't list her numerous honors and a competent but you should now in addition to being an acclaimed broadcast journalist she is also the author of two books and coeditor of a third, talk and pr susan stamberg considers all things every night at 5:00. susan stamberg's all things considered and coeditor of the wedding cake in the middle of the road plus the wonderful book we are here to celebrate tonight. geneva overholser is director of the school of journalism at the university of southern california annenberg school for communication and journalism. she is the pulitzer prize-winning -- correction a pulitzer prize-winning reporter and editor and newspaper

ombudsman of foreign correspondents in her career. jenae was a national leader in the discussion about the future of journalism and in 2006 through the annenberg public policy center she published a very influential manifesto title on behalf of journalism and manifesto for change. leslie berenstain rowhouse is the lead reporter for the new immigration blog a multi-american. she was formerly with the san diego tribune and she covered immigration issues from the u.s.-mexico border followed legal and illegal immigrants coming to the united states and she has reported from throughout the americas and is written for several publications and leslie will be our moderator tonight and we will turn it over to her. these welcome the susan stamberg, geneva overholser and leslie berestein rojas. [applause] >> can you hear me now?

is that better? thank you all for being here. thank you the public library. thanks for having us. susan i'm going to start this off by embarrassing you. >> no, not me. >> i don't have anything too embarrassing. >> okayed can go ahead. >> i'm just going to read a passage from npr, written by john e. steve. many people have contributed to getting npr on the air and keeping it there. i am convinced that there haven't been for susan npr would not be here today. certainly not with the audience of a range of 30 million weekly. with that, susan it is all yours. >> good heavens, i am locke judd. he is a misguided young man. psr economics correspondent that he has had quite a hearing problem. i am being unkind. thank you very much and hi everybody. i said to a smaller group that little bit ago, it is lovely to

see you in person because we talked to these people who we think are in a void and until we can put a face with the ears, it is a special pleasure to be able to just see who you are and see that you are our listeners. i am a founding mother of "national public radio." i was part of the very first stand and i was from day one. i wanted to give jenae but chance to talk before i ramble too much but at some point, i have very little responsibility for this book which is a lovely compendium i must say of different people farmed out different decades. renée writes the '90s and davis gets into the tens and beyond. i have merely done a small

forward and i am going to read it to you at some point but i don't want to go on for too long. without asking geneva to talk some because part of our subject is public radio, and its future but it is also the future of journalism, and u.s. dean of the school of journalism -- well. as director, what do you feel you are teaching? what promises can you make to all those young people who think that they want to do journalism these days? >> well we can make a lot of promises because i really do think that the future is full of hope but i want to return to embarrassing susan by saying that i first met susan by telephone from paris when i was living there as a very young person and had been working in newspapers for a while. we had a mutual friend, who recommended that susan talked to

me about a unesco story that was fairly large, so i wrote the story like a good newspaper reporter, right? i call to file the story and i started talking to this susan stamberg about the story and susan said wait a minute, are you reading this? i said yes. she said, talk to me as if you were talking to a friend. after i got over i wouldn't call it friends talking about unesco i realize the importance and this relates to your question because if you think about it, four years ago, we are celebrating the birth 40 years ago of this news medium which has become so important to so many of us and really, the sense of talking to people as if you are talking to a friend as part of what has differentiated it. so as we look at the future of journalism now and i hope this is something we can talk about, what will be the characteristics of this next chapter? and i think some of them are very promising.

for one thing the people formerly known as the audience as jay rosen said. that is not my line, i wish it were, are able to make contributions to our work, much more richly. that is something we are certainly dealing with and they i think it would be something if you were the dewey eyed brunette who we are picturing. >> they published all of our prom pictures here which is another reason this is the most public -- popular book of "national public radio" has never published because look at her. [laughter] but you know we were talking about -- former hosts have a tendency to run things. forgive me. >> but i wanted to say something about lawyers because it is the into smithy of the voice of radio but it is also the writing voice and that is something you as a writer is somebody he came up in newspapering and now we we are doing it on line surely know what you have to say to yourself but for as we open our mouths

and there is some voice in there. but for you, you have to create the voice with your computer keys or a pen or paper or clues or whatever it is you use. >> is very different now blogging. blogging gets a bad name because it started out with people just sort of talking about whatever they want to talk about. whatever. there are journalists who blog, but that kind of contributes to this rather confusing media landscape that we are all in basically everything in the media landscape is changing. we are accustomed to there was npr, television and network television and of course we have the large newsgathering operations which were the large cities in newspapers, the newsrooms that have been dwindling. everything is changing.

social media especially disseminating news faster than we can make sense of it. the lines between news and opinions have become somewhat blurred, police and the public eye. there are bloggers like i said who are not journalists, journalists who are bloggers. there are pundits who get news and it is confusing. it is remarkable all at once. so i guess i would like to ask both of you, what are the bright spots here in this very rapidly evolving landscape as we contemplate the future of journalism. what are the opportunities and what is in it for npr? >> i would give one quick answer before geneva will really weigh in on this. you are a bright spot as far as i'm concerned because actually where you came from and what you are background before you started, you told me, you are journalists. you have been trained. you have worked in print. which implies you have had good editing, you have had people putting safety nets under you in

making sure that what you reporting was the best trick you could have at that moment. that to me is a bright spot. i fear and this is getting into the darker spots that we are becoming an opinion nation, that is who we are in all sorts of people who have no depth, no training, no real understanding are being taken as seriously as people like leslie are people like "national public radio" who have all of those layers and layers of sourcing and care and attribution behind us. [applause] thank you so much. >> a question. >> you are a bright spot. >> how do we -- had a journalists navigate these waters these days? is that better? >> maybe angle at. >> about that?

it is loose. it keeps dropping. is that better? all right, good. first of all one bright spot is the traditional media like "national public radio" which by the way is thriving, that is the bright spot. newspapers are far from over. we are little bit mark twain overstating the death here about newspapers. they are far from over. they are very important. it is true their underpinnings are a challenge but they're far from over. very important and should bidders. my credentials are i am a 62-year-old "new york times" "washington post" former editor of the "des moines register." all there is to lament, but there is much to embrace. for one thing leads to leave out a lot of people. i can tell you, i have edited a newspaper. there were certain neighborhoods in town that we didn't report on nearly enough and there were certain people whose voices weren't heard nearly enough. there was a great democratization going on that is

scary and wild west feeling but is very promising. so i think part of the responsibility that we all have his journalists and part of what we are hoping and i believe we are, and infusing in our wonderful students who student who completely embraced the future and believe in the same ways we believed we were going to go out and enable society to be better educated about what is going on around us, better informed, live richer and fuller lives, that is what they believe, they are going to be entering a world where they will bring these enduring values and enable people to find information and a whole lot of different ways. that we can't assume that people who find information through social networks are always ill-informed. people make interesting decisions themselves. and i think what are the most important things to recognize is that news literacy, helping people think about what is credible, judging a source of news by who funds it and by what

its intentions are and how transparent it is about those things, all of those things are increasingly important. i guess the main thing i would say is there is so much change but there has been change before the media world, and while it is important to talk about these concerns, we love voice but we don't like rants. there are important things for us to talk about here but i do want us not to lose the fact that there's a lot going on that is very promising, yet scary. >> actually one of the great things that is going on is, because there is so much public input now, you could harness that. these organizations are able to harness that in a way that could happen before. before traditional print journalists, nobody saw what i it would look like. somebody might write a letter to the editor. right now, i get feedback. i get comments and i can interact with people for comment. sometimes they take some other comments and i find them so interesting that i will post them. the public is a great source as

it always has been a great source to use an and now we just have other ways of tapping into that. that is one of the exciting things going on right now. >> may tell a story about that? it links to the idea of the intimacy of the radio and of the voice on the radio. and my all things considered days when i used to get a cold, listeners would send me chicken soup. that tells you how long ago this was, right? because he could it could come in a package of -- and you would drink it. you wouldn't have any question as to whether or how it would be. but that is the connection really. you are getting bad in a different way without the soup right now. but it is something about radio. the medium of radio and that is a personal commissioned -- connection partly because of where you listen to us. sometimes i don't want to think about it.

we are in the shower with you in the morning. we are in the bed with you in the evening or in the early morning, or in the car, especially here. but there we are. is sort of that sound that becomes the soundtrack of your lives and becomes personal anyway, which i wonder whether anything on line or anything in cyberspace or anything that is tweeted can be. what do you think about that? >> i want to jump in there and this one because think first of all what a change that was. people complained you were their first national news anchor. people complained her voice was too high. listen to this voice. people complain that your voice is too high. it was untraditional. people were used to the voice of authority speaking down to them. and one of the differences is that helps revolutionize the way people thought -- saw a authoritative voices and that was a great thing. we now have another opportunity to be less top-down.

you know does not really always good for me as the editor to decide what you need. on the one hand you do want people who are able to make these curatorial choices but not just me sitting there deciding and not giving a fig what you think. when i was at the "washington post" i would listen to readers as was my job and my colleagues at the -- said you are listening to those people? that is a grade unwashed would be my least concern. we now to listen and there is an intimacy in the listening. we now listen to them. you hear from your readers i'm sure. it is that kind of intimacy. i actually have, one time when i took a sick day i went ahead and posted a photo of some medicine and cough drops and said excuse me guys i'm not sick today. no when semi-chicken soup. it didn't have that effect. i think there is, here right. there's a different kind of relationship in a different kind

of warmth that builds. it is not always more. sometimes you have people who just want to yell at you and that is the way it is but that is the way to spend even sense cents newspapers opened up to comments it has been that way. you never really get that on the radio side. >> sure we do. it is always part of the brew of that mix out there. >> i guess then we have come a long way. this is a very general question for you both answer but 40 years, by lifetime give or take. >> oh please. [laughter] but from the time an when npr broadcasts were put together by editors that would slice them at the razor and take them back together to an era where information is moving at light speed. what is npr swirled during this time in terms of changing the media landscape, changing our society, changing the way we

understand our country and our world? >> could have and what an enormous task. i think we have certainly been part of the changes, and again, it is said carry along with you voice in the car, keeping you informed pretty much throughout the day. that is a different experience from a newspaper or not so different now from computers and from cyberspace. so there is that, a kind of respect for the listener or the consumer of news as well as respect for the information and the way in which we put that information out. i think that has been something different. surely it was her reinvention of the medium itself of radio and sort of the raising of its profile in the way that had never been existed before. but also the pervasiveness across the country and that was true from the very beginning. we have these member stations which we have almost 900 of them

now. when we started maybe we have 68 or so but still they were everywhere. it wasn't just in the corridors of power. it wasn't just in particular on the east coast it was nobody in washington and only in new york. but the commitment from the beginning was to cover ruppersberger tennessee. we had a station there and that station had people who could get on the radio and bring their listeners. you are reminding me really that it is still the kind of global village you were talking about before is one of the bright spots and then we were doing it at the beginning and now it is being done for keys and screens on all those areas divisive. but listening in on -- listening to america and listening on behalf of america by putting those townsend people from most towns on the air. we did it from the very beginning. and those are places where we have really to this day remain and away says, because there is no competition. there is nothing -- the local

papers are shrinking or they are not doing the breadth of reporting that they might be able to. television is from other centralized source but never local and so what they are getting from "national public radio" in those towns becomes a vital source of information. >> i would say a couple of other things that into a susan is said about the role of "national public radio" over these 40 years and its impact on other media. and the way our nation consumes news actually. one is, you know, this was an original creation for us to have this public television and public radio and public radio was kind of the afterthought. >> we were the and radio. >> the book is full of wonderful stories like this. i do recommend it to you. partly because of that i think, and partly because there has always been an effort, always

imperfect. it always is. what is objectivity and what is balance in what is proportional and what is fair? there is always been a -- to deliver the news and abounds in proportional way and of course there've been complaints. there have been some more from the writer has the there've been complaints from the left. but the record of credibility that has been built up by "national public radio" is exceptional, and the continued growth of "national public radio." so what do we do now? what is public radio do now at this juncture, where you know, couple of things we have mentioned, one is the speed of new so that you have got to embrace twitter and love got to -- these are important tools that have you incorporated them and maintain a sense of fairness and how do you incorporate voices and maintained a sense of stability? one of them is that record of credibility. the other one is the means of support, the public support of public radio. that has been huge and has been look at how we are going to

sustain those journalism moving forward that is one of the models. >> yes i think it is because people to look at us, to us as a kind of business model. can you imagine? >> and yet it is true that you know, fundamentally we have taught people in this country to believe that the news will come to them free. you have plunked down a quarter for the people. believe me that never paid much. the paper was 80% funded by advertising. or you turn on the tube and until people got cable there was this feeling i don't have to pay for it will come to me. of course it is a pricey think the reporting and delivery of news. the concept of "national public radio" was that the public would be supporting at which i think is a terribly important thing. >> is astonishing that people will pay for it. you don't have to do what you do, but it is not like someone will come and take your radio away if you don't pay us to become members. but in fact it is because you value it and you want to pay for it and you want to participate.

and have ownership in it and be part of the stewardship of it. that is what is such a miracle here. >> you know there is a was a question to me that was brought up during our conversation prior to this which was, as some of the more traditional newsrooms do shrink, do you think public radio is going to be something -- and if so what is that mean in terms of funding perhaps? >> i doubt the public funding is ending anytime soon and not only for political reasons but of course the government doesn't have any money at any level anyway right now so i don't think public funding -- i mean government funding is likely to be -- it doesn't look very promising to me but i think philanthropist are more concerned about what is happening with other traditional media and are likely to be -- more joan kroc's would be a good thing, right? local philanthropists are going to take on a stronger role.

>> and businesses and corporations and if it comes to a dollar for this for a cup of coffee, people will decide that the radio really is more important and maybe they can, like myself by a mr. coffee machine for a mere $16 at target. naked at home and tend send your radio on. [laughter] >> i think the public radio will partner with more people. we both benefit. i think more and more there will be collaborative work that will enable the public to receive the same quality of information but through more collaborative means. >> and there are some schools with a greater on line presence. there is a goal to bring in a younger more diverse audience. more local presence and partnerships with local stations. now, how do you go about doing this and maintaining the npr as

the salk rose? >> that is my favorite new expression. i feel i am a walking npr mix. if you are trying to define it, what is her mission? those of us who do it and apply the fields know our missions very well and how you do it is you keep doing it. that's all and more than that listening to each other and you keep reading each other and saying no that is wrong and no you didn't get it right in know you were sounding pompous and i know you sound as if you are reading. we do this day in and day out, self-criticism and self reflection, listening to ourselves and listening to one another and say what i tried to sway this time? i have stayed with it for 112 years now and the reason is the medium itself of radio is so extraordinarily, wonderfully creative candy and expansive and i feel i have not come to the end of it. i don't know where else you can go. for as much as i have done it all these years how to make it

sound a little bit different and how to put in the pauses that hilton sometimes into those stories that get told on this american life. just the art of it, the creativity of this medium and that is how it will sustain, and those values will be applied to all these new technologies and devices i hope. >> i do think it's more challenging to figure out how we bring it forward when we are doing it in different ways. the same question basis newspapers. one thing i thought long and hard about is okay which of the things we know is hosted were our traditions? we rode a certain kind of leak. we had an inverted pyramid and we played the most horton story. does our traditions. ..

[laughter] with thank you very much. >> coolio, a rap singer helped me present my mom's recipe and rhymed the word relish with fetish. [laughter] it was really a high for me as a broadcaster but there is a far greater burden on us now given i'm sure you fill newspapers are healthy. my "new york times" in the morning when i picked it up

looks anorexic because it's not getting the advertising -- >> it looks about the way it looked when bernstein and word were at the "washington post" doing what they did and "the new york times" was doing amazing work and talking about the news hole. it's always a trick to look at the grass. burba pieces there were 1400 people with the la times x number of years ago but if you look back a few more years i'm not saying we don't need to worry now that there are only 550, but i am saying there is plenty of good work left at these newspapers and we shouldn't just judged by whether it is a telephone -- >> absolutely, the reporting and the depth of it is superb, but my point was given the fact that our responsibility now at npr has shifted over the years in ways that i never could have predicted more bill who was the

man who created all things considered or we founders could have imagined. we certainly want to be authoritative and a solid and as good as we could, but we didn't think we would be the last man standing, that we would have become a this point people primary source, and we are. for in-depth information not just electronically as broadcasters, but any way and all so that does, could a and often does aging to the time slots because we are so fixed by times and the clocks how much time there is to bid for the cranberry relish recipe is it to music. i used to do 12, 20, not 20 but 12 to 15 minute music pieces on the air. that doesn't happen anymore, but fixed to a new media we have wonderful online music sites where that music can get played so that is a bright spot on suppose it is a we of

reallocation. >> and outtakes from interviews of mine because if i've got six minutes and that's all there is for a story that i have which is a major time and any other broadcasting organization but never enough for me i can put out takes, things i just didn't have time to put on the air in my story on line and guide people and see if you want to hear more of that conversation and this and that we can do that, too so it is a wonderful expansion. i came here quite depressed. >> thank you. [laughter] >> wait until the q&a. >> talking about personalized content people cherry pick the news they want to hear. how might this affect the content, and in the larger sense what does it do to not just

media consumers but the media consuming society? >> this is a wonderful question and i would put it to you because if you say you don't want the editor-in-chief to say this, this and this, doesn't somebody have to make the decision as to what the content will be and what it is that the listeners, the readers, the clckers, the tweeters should know to get through today? >> i'm not saying i don't want editors to make the decisions i want them to do it without the influence of the public. the editor becomes nothing but somebody with their figure to the wind. i think certain news organizations will make different decisions, and i believe the news organizations like national public radio and the l.a. times will make decisions that to include the funding of the people formerly known as the audience, but clearly will bring their own editorial judgment. there will be others that make decisions already completely by popularity.

but, you know, news -- elrod am i broadcast brother and it's been going on a long time. it's not as the we invented this on the web. we will distinguish among the news organizations by exactly this kind of thing and trusted sources of news because we do believe that the judgment that is exerted in combination with thoughtful listening to the readers and listeners will be valuable. >> let me ask you this. i would love to hear you talk about this subject because you're not 40 yet. [laughter] one of my concerns is how you build consensus anymore in this society, and people are only going to the things they want to hear like national public radio, god bless you but there's more in this world i sometimes don't

like admitting it but it's true, and others who only want to go to their blog but for the most current thing is. how do people ever come together when they are writing to the poor writing individual hobby horses and that's all they want to know about i would say that is an issue these days. >> it changed me. it really does. i'm old enough to really miss -- i still do it but picking up a newspaper and kicking my information about the world from the international, it's not that way anymore. we go to different places for different things and there's a cherry picking steadily and some media consumers miss out on some really good stories and that's just kind of the way it is right now. >> i think i'm talking about something different if i can articulate it a little bit not just the absence of the newspaper, not that it goes back to the days of the three commercial television networks

and that might america sat down and mostly listened to walter cronkite. so you've got a universal, it may not have been the most diverse assembly of information. >> that's an understatement. >> we were receiving it maybe it was received wisdom, maybe it was received something else, at the same time that we were as the nation is experiencing something altogether, and that doesn't happen very much these days it doesn't happen on any of these platforms. but i think in some ways exposing myself as a job of the 60's about what happened with civil rights and women's rights erupted partly because there wasn't a broad conversation in that very narrow living that you described. i do understand your concern. landry much concerned with the will of civic discourse and lack of civility.

i do think we have seen this and previous period and it's not necessarily a product of what is happening to the media that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about as we figure out what to do in the media but think of the previous era of american history where there has been terrible. some of inability to gather around one idea, i mean obviously not least among them but i don't think we should think that it's the only time in history and the u.s. in which we've ever had this kind but it's awful right now. >> what can the media do about it is the important question. >> i should add it to clarify its of the loss of the broad exposure. if you want to just sit in front of your computer and listen you can. expose you to ideas different from yours that you don't agree with and that makes you think and push you in some way or pull

you and me to have to reevaluate. as i am doing in public this evening as i listen to these. >> we shouldn't assume people aren't going on line and only reading their own stuff. because they are doing information gathering differently doesn't mean they are doing that information gathering. most of the people shouted at one another on talk radio are not exemplars of what is happening when people go online and search for informational or when people share with one another through social networks information. we shouldn't assume because these are new methods of delivering information people are delivering only poor quality information. >> i'm not assuming it would only necessarily be poor but i am assuming that ranting to one another and they will talk louder than anybody else. >> but we we've done that is mostly on radio. >> here we go.

[laughter] >> this is interesting. quoting a software designer for google devising an npr application for android is much more likely to listen to podcast and internet radio streams and increasingly to the similar to the content and artists find interesting. in the past radio was something i tended to listen to when there were no alternatives content and place can be completely of my choosing. he may be articulating the next media modeled on his own timepiece devising the npr application for android and i'm hoping it would draw more listeners to the stories you readers to the text pages and four colleagues to their own npr applications. it's, you know -- >> who wrote this? >> this is, my gosh, this is the most recent section. >> that's very good actually,

and what it does is put programmers out of jobs and maybe that's okay. i love making radio programs giving them a shape in deciding how we began and go through. this is those things of newspapers. i like doing that with the radio, taking some sort of an emotional journey in the course of the hour. but that's obviously i know that that is a very old fashioned now, and this kind of scattershot thing is really what seems to be the prevailing business and the radio pieces are being downloaded and listening to -- listened an individual wants to hear. >> we no longer continue to have -- will be heavy shapely show any longer? >> the maker of the shows will continue giving them that sort of shape but we do focus groups of the time and put focus groups

believed to 20 something and say how many own a radio and not one hand goes up so i don't know who's got time to spend listening to the two hours in a row. they don't think about the radio in their car and how they may sit in traffic jams but they will download to the other devices in the car rather than push the file whatever it is, so the makers will continue getting that shape the way you give the shape to a drama or a poem, i do feel it is an art form in many ways and that distinguishes our work. but how long before it will be cut into bits and pieces for personal consumption i don't know. >> let's move on to something fred because you're talking about reporting it digital age. it lets talk about keeping up with the information and the misinformation. this weekend as we know there was a terrible incident in arizona and there were several

news outlets including npr that at the beginning erroneously reported that representative deferreds and died and and that she was wounded. part of the problem was being treated by other outlets making for this very fast hyper competitive environment in fact i will read part of the executive news editor wrote in his apology. the news had been reminded of the challenges and the professional response of the report on fast breaking news at the time and environment information and misinformation move that light speed. it is very challenging. what are the astrologers and how to do it better? >> we've always had these challenges. how many different sources should we get before we report something? we've always made mistakes do you remember during the bcts determine? now what is happening at lightning speed, so what happened and within npr, and it was very unfortunate when you report someone's def it is a

grave mistake, but what happened is there was somebody in the sheriff's office who said it and somebody else and then it becomes one of these things i heard that and people tweeted in the people tweeted. the good news is we also now have the ability to hear exactly what happened. and npr did that great length and with transparency, and i think increasingly this will be part of our news literacy as consumers we will ask ourselves -- and i hope news people will be careful to say there were a kid is a exactly who said reports to be straightforward about the level of assurance and confidence that you have. >> i believe so. it's important to raise the curtain and tell exactly what the wheels look like and how they got increased and how we came to that story. but this lightning speed is

really something serious. i've seen it in breaking news being on the air myself as an anchor and a reporter coming in with the best, as i said before, the best true if he had in that moment, but making mistakes and having to correct if i knew something that he was singing was incorrect, having to jump in as any good anchor will and make the little tweak and clarify and make the correction as you go. but it takes a tremendous amount of integrity and intelligence and also quick witness to be able to do that. the cracks are enormous and the risks are huge. but i think the key thing is to come out as quickly as you can and say we made a mistake and we need to correct this. we regret this mistake. this is what we found out now and that's the future. >> the media are much better now -- >> i remember "the new york times" with do not publish a correction, terrible.

now they have huge corrections columns either they've gotten very sloppy or they are much more forthcoming. [laughter] >> some news news outlets did withdraw their tweets. >> let's talk about that. this is something i had to think about today at the first time since i don't live in tweetsville. >> of the social media strategist for npr wrote an interest in post on this web site with the decision was, the decision was to not erase the tweets becomes some outlets did and it's a pretty simple answer, he wanted to keep it transparent so he wound up tweeting again because she's alive. >> he wrote a nice thing on the lost remote i commend it to you. it's an examination of what

happened. everybody is struggling with this and if you think the answer is don't bother with this bricker stuff that can't be the answer for the news organizations to increase the future because these are reporting tools and ways of receiving information and weighs a lot of diffuse and i mean old that and we've got to be out there, but it does mean that it's going to be a struggle to figure out how we now define accuracy and attribution. >> this is a part of my learning process thinking this. reading through today. my first impulse would have been not understanding the world tweeting very well, take it off, ury said. you published a mistake. get rid of it. but it doesn't disappear. so in order to keep the historical record, you leave it there and then you, however many leader make the corrections you can see what the process has

been. the problem is so many of the people will have looked at the first and will catch up with a correction. there's always an issue and we do it on the air, too bhatia corrected. our program rolls over across the country and there is three different additions of it and we will correct for the middle of the country or for you to get the perfect program every time. we are flawless i will tell you. [laughter] >> the question is what is kept and if you fully heard the first draft. >> one thing we should know what we are beating up on the twitter part of this -- but what i mean is while we are saying what happened on twitter, the first tweet came because the social networks i was listening to the radio and heard on the radio that congresswoman giffords had died so the tweet followed the broadcast -- >> the school in puerto rico is a horrible scoop to have that we

had this story of the shooting and then the death business came first on the radio and then you're right, and this is another burden when you get out there and become that kind of primary source that other news organizations think npr is reporting we will go with it and that is what cnn and "the new york times" and fox went ahead and did that day. so there are a million lessons to be learned and no one will learn them more carefully than we will. believe me. >> and basically one more thing that i will throw out is back to again as this landscape shifts and we have so much information out there coming at us, the kind of counter about a cherry picking, one of the best things about it is yes, you can pick and choose but you can also choose to be flooded with information because it is coming from all places including the social networks and that is a very good thing.

i'm turned on to stories every day that i wouldn't be turned on to otherwise wouldn't have been in daily life to years ago, and i incorporate this into the way that i report and what i think and how i wind up doing that date. the different approaches we are using towards disseminating news and gathering news are very valuable to npr and everyone. >> and on that note, let's have some questions. are we done? [laughter] >> we are about to mental question time that we might as well open it up. >> the first hand of saul was over there. >> thanks for a great conversation. i run a discussion group called

the deep thinkers at to one time it might have been called a salon and we are getting together saturday to talk about journalism, at the question is i would like to hear your thoughts on that which is what is a journalist? is it julieanna staunch, john stewart, keith olberman, gwen to -- glenn beck. regarding wikileaks how does it differ from npr? [laughter] >> oh, my. welcome in every imaginable way i would think. an investigative reporter at the national public radio would work as hard as he or she could to get access to those documents, and then having gone through them would evaluate, would decide where the leaves were, where the new information was, check then back. all they are our documents in the rare form.

it's like pentagon papers i suppose in that way. but would then try to provide some context for that information that was available. i think that would be part of it. anything to add to it? >> i always turn that question around slightly because they find it impossible to define a journalist. i think it's easier for me to think in terms of defining journalism and i like to think of journalism as information in the public interest that has certain characteristics including proportionality and verification. so you can argue over whether wikileaks is or is not in the public interest but i don't think it's journalism because it doesn't have as you pointed out exactly right. there is no one is sort of carefully trying to think about what parts might not be in the public interest because they endanger lives and there is no one trying to figure out what is

the source of this and what are the intentions, nobody else editing it. on the public interest in having access to a lot of data we didn't used to have access to so i think your question is very important. i think that it's less necessary that we define journalists and more important we think about what kind of information do we as a public need and what are going to be the right sources for those kinds of information? >> i think it becomes all about context and giving a certain proportion of the to the raw material that's out there. any journalist goes out and gathers but then it's what you do when you come back, and the kind of shape he give and the way you choose to tell to make a story out of the chaos that is life and give it some sort of a narrative line that will make it clear to the readers and listeners and your consumers.

>> would you say we would be better off if wikileaks didn't exist? >> i wouldn't say that, i would say that it does need some mediation. >> it's interesting to me that wikileaks went to some news organizations this round seeming to recognize it needed mediation but maybe it just recognized it wasn't getting attention unless it went to the news organization [laughter] >> some people speculated. >> the stelle release date unedited. does that answer the question? [laughter] >> no? what is your answer? >> i think that he's released about 1,000 documents of the hundreds of thousands the drought there so there's a lot of misinformation floating around and i believe the columbia school -- >> from whom?

who is misinformation is it? >> i think if people are saying that there is a document that implies its pulse all these documents out to read to you think that's the case? i think that salon.com is an excellent source of information about what is really going on and what kind of legal protections should wikileaks be afforded and deny that perhaps "the new york times" would get. >> i think that is a very interesting question. i'm just -- what i'm saying is i don't think -- there again, what do we as a public need, what kind of information do we need? the same kind of legal challenges have been argued about which of the people deserve to be able to protect their sources right and it's very hard to define journalists in that regard so i don't know exactly how we are going to go down that road of figuring out what information the public needs and what should be

protected. but in this age it will become more and more of the question as you can get things available which were not meant to be seen and so there will be more and more of that very controversial it could be inflammatory or endangering of raw material out there and available. >> so that is something to think hard about. >> although it's true as you said not all the documents have been released when they do released in the generally release them without admitting them. >> they are selecting. >> [inaudible] because of the danger -- >> more this time than the last time. more than they were at first. >> it's a bit of a moving target. it's great to be interesting to watch and it's an important thing giving access to information like this is very in powering, with the question of

how it's treated is very complex. >> i agree. >> we should take another question. i'm thinking of a very correct decision that you made on "the des moines register". >> bill would take all night. it was a decision made by a woman in iowa who was raped. when nobody was talking about rape and a woman wanted to tell her story and it really was brief. but i think we do car velt -- >> your bravery was deciding you wouldn't reveal her name. >> she wanted to tell her story and have her name in the paper and that is what was courageous because nobody's name was in the paper. that's another program. >> i'm a very avid listener but that doesn't make me special in this crowd. [laughter] >> no, but beloved. >> one of my questions is related to wikileaks but i don't want to beat the dead horse again. the second question as to deal

with the impartiality of npr that we talked about. what i first noticed is npr seems to maintain that very well with domestic, people can accuse it of leaning towards less likely but on the whole you see very impartial and accurate reporting from both sides of the ogle. when it comes to international news sometimes it feels as though the npr is tagging along the u.s. foreign policy. it doesn't report on incidents from let's say it doesn't report the other opinion from the other side from the states which may be household to the united states so we should like to comment to grab the news from.

>> doing what we can to flesh out a story but i am not exactly clear on what it is you are hearing. we have correspondent it is the department of the job is to report on what american foreign policy is coming and we of correspondent in foreign countries and part of their job is to report ramifications for an event in that nation for us at home and where the government is stationed has to say about it. so i feel as if the picture is pretty complete. i can't defend this. i'm not on the foreign desk or a editor, pulitzer prize-winning by the way. [laughter] but, you want to be specific or can you be?

>> one of the issues i personally have felt is a palestinian issue that gets mobile zero lot. if we don't get to hear the story, for example for me to find news i have to delve into other resources. the palestinian property. in puerto rico i feel if it is lacking that. >> we could talk about this the 40 years we've been cuddling middle east affairs. i can quote from you thomas friedman has been a good deal of time in the middle east and said his experience was whichever side you talked to said to you you report my way or you die. that's how hard it is. i don't mean to quit about this but that is how difficult it is to report that story and please everybody listening to you or reading you. it's just really, really hard. you make your darndest effort to do it.

>> there's one there. okay. i saw the hand right in the middle. >> along the same line i also sometimes feel like i have to move over to democracy now and hear amy goodman and a different version, a little more in depth, a little more raw, and i have a feeling that there are an increasing number of little cute personal comments often made by not so much the reporters, but the hosts of stories i don't know quite how to identify them. so i need a little more grip beckon to npr because they do count on it has nine main news

source. >> i will convey that home. spec we have a variety of news sources. >> we had one over here. >> thank you for this conversation. it's wonderful. congratulations on 40 years. one of the things you mentioned, susan, at the beginning of the conversation was the place of editors and the many layers that kind of divine journalism. it was a topic this week of the public at a terse column in "the new york times" about what becomes record and how that record is edited. "the new york times" used to in its print division had a definitive record, but now, you know, it continually revises its story, and i'm wondering in this blogosphere and even with npr taking on other vendors of news

coverage and itself, pri and the other ones, how the leaders, the falteringly years will evolve in the new world book online and the mobile world, but how do you examine defender and edit the content and? >> i don't know what you mean by the vendor. we are not taking the news from other people, we are not taking news from other organizations. we did some from the bbc or other very distinguished news organizations, but we are not bodying stories from other news organizations. we will use freelance reporters and editors them ourselves. we would put anybody else's edited material within the context of our news broadcast. but all in all of those other platforms, this is the daily

challenge now is to convey what goes, sorry, geneva, hierarchal standards we have as doubles in the years these are the elements and these are the steps to which you have to go in order to get on the air or get published or get an npr story about and that needs to be shared with the people who write our blog and columns for us and others the non-broadcast elements that we are working to expand and explore, and that's hard to read sort of hard-core people there from the very beginning are very concerned about that frequently. >> thank you. >> is there time for another? we had a gentleman's -- we have the gentleman here that raised his hand. >> thank you. it's been very enjoyable and informative.

i want to understand where npr is heading, because looking at courts to another time when let's say the vietnam war i can relate to we looked for a point of view for hope, for inspiration, for a way out from controversy. but i see now is a middle-of-the-road not a point of view but a competition trying to be like everyone else. is there a possibility that npr can -- i have more editorializing or take a point against the war >> it's their point of view to take stand for or against. >> is npr afraid of upsetting the government? [laughter] >> one of our jobs should be to upset the government everyday. >> you look at the british --

>> who and how were the powerless. that is one of the basic jobs of journalism to give voice to the voiceless and make trouble. >> the british do a good job. they are not afraid of criticizing government, of getting some point that counters and changes the government's understanding and their policy. i think we need a strong position. >> you get that on the editorial pages, you get it from a commentary on the air, but you wouldn't get it from the basic news organizations. you shouldn't. our job is to give you the information as to what happened today in the most factual and clear objective if you can, but at least fair manner possible. >> who was the person in the corner before

>> what a wonderful way to spend a tuesday evening. thank you. [applause] it seems to me that in this discussion of transparency, npr and the npr whether go, the name juan williams can't be avoided the risk of being unpleasant, and i don't mean to. >> don't be silly, he's on the list. >> i'm sure many others would appreciate if you could comment in ways you think are appropriate or perhaps inappropriate. >> i will do but what i can. i was hoping i would get away this evening with two things not being raised, when a request for my mother-in-law's cranberry relish and number two, the question about one williams, but i'm glad to talk about it. he put in years of good surface with us, but it gets -- it's

been the theme we've been dealing with all night, and it's the difference between commentary. that is the expression of personal opinions and analysis which is the slicing and dicing of the subject to talk about its implications and its meaning. juan williams was hired for us as an analyst. in the tradition of daniel schorr, daniel schorr would never have gone to any news organization, fox, cbs, whatever come in a roundtable format of so-called pundits and expressed his opinion. he would not have done that. he knew he was a newsman and that his job with us was analysis and could not stand in both worlds at the same time.

it wants is and is perfectly free to express his opinion on those programs for fox, and fox is not the issue. it's really the job description that's the issue, but to have it both ways is a credibility business. and if he's over on this program waving the flag for palestine how do you trust his analysis that the middle least the next day on the national public radio really it's that simple. >> i wish to cut it were that simple and i greatly admire susan. but i just think this is going to be one of the great struggles for news organizations moving forward in this era where acrimonious expression of opinion is so common. npr is either going to have to say first of all i do not think that the line between the analysis and commentary is that clear and perceptible to most listeners to really do know daniel schorr didn't cross it. i agree. but most analysts expressed some

opinion when they are making the comment, and i think that if npr really believe this is going to be a workable thing and it's going to have no commentators who say anything anywhere else or no analysts who are not heard to me it wasn't workable from the beginning to have juan williams was kind of a provocateur and to say you can't see this over on fox and npr. it's just -- >> that's what i'm saying. it wasn't a workable situation we should have permitted ever. >> okay, then how can buy that, but does that mean you will never have any analysts who would never say something provocative? i guess my main point is i think this is going to be a struggle for the media moving forward and for npr that built its reputation on this kind of -- >> the last thing i heard and i find it troubling is that our days in house analysts are over, and in some awful and ironic way

against the died. >> that is a difficult challenge and will be for all of media that have said we divide -- this is a clear line between the news and opinion so the way we will do it is to have outside people coming in and doing that sort of analysis. >> what if he goes somewhere else and says some stupid thing. >> in fact that's right, he's on our stuff and comes in once a week. >> back to the question i had that there is this confusion sometimes between what's new is and what's punditry, and because we do have the shows of the ten, 15 years, one of which he was on, what's going to happen there? in part it was the climate and the type of show she was on, it was a provocative environment to

start with. >> talking about the fox show. estimates for a much a discussion going on at npr right now because a number of reporters school social up on such programs, other people's programs, and i don't know how it will turn out, whether the lines are being drawn, whether they are going to be told you can't do it, you make your choice. i don't know that, my view is that is what should happen. they should be told it's either a ours or theirs but you can't do both. >> is that it? all right. [applause] >> i want to thank you all for coming tonight. our wonderful panel and our audience, please support npr and remember to vote on the measure.

someone left their cell phone and the rest room. please call maw suzanne in the lobby for a book signing. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

americans for tax reform president grover norquist joins the penalty party activists for a discussion on cutting federal spending. this event was held before president obama released his budget to congress last week.

hosted by the conservative political action conference or cpac is 50 minutes. >> it is an honor to be here today among an amazing panel of individuals who are committed to scaling back the size and scope of the federal government. what i'm here today to talk about in particular is a project that is new to us as an independent institute. it's called mygovcost.org. i and ritual to check it out. what we have produced is called a government cost dhaka later and what it does is enables you to come in and find out exactly how much federal spending programs are costing them personally. so not only can they find out the true cost of federal spending programs, break them down by issues and various different budgets but they can also find out what the value of the dollars would be worth if they could save them and use them as they choose.

today 14 trillion-dollar federal deficit we now come from this tends to be one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers the world has ever seen. this year's annual budget deficit is $1.5 trillion. and so now more than ever, the issues of how to cut back spending and where to cut back spending are more important than ever. it's clear that in order to address the crisis meaningfully, large and deep spending cuts are going to be required in those areas that constitute the majority of the federal spending. these include medicare, medicaid, social security, and national defence. this panels designed to address these issues with clarity the taxation is not the answer. as i introduce the panelists joining me today i challenge them to discuss the spending issues and target of these areas in particular. moreover, i invite each and

every one of you to come and use our government cost calculator on mygovcost.org to find out how federal spending issues are affecting you directly. please welcome my fellow panelists. [applause] today we have john o'hare, author of the new american tea party, vice president of the illinois policy institute and a regular contributor to big government and the daily collar. finally, john has appeared on all kind of relevant shows like the daily show with jon stewart and more important msnbc's hardball with chris matthews.

[cheering] my second speaker today is amy. one of the original founders of the atlanta lt party, chairman of the tea party express, and an active founder of the twittered movement within the liberty and tea party movement more general. she's an activist, and a regular informed citizen. [applause] finally, our third speaker of the evening is grover norquist. [applause] he is president of americans for tax reform, on the board of the national rifle was a station, the american conservative union, and the author to books including rock the house and leave us alone.

[applause] >> john will speak first. >> thank you very much, emily. are there any tea partiers here today? [applause] [cheering] how many of you have ever been to medium organized a meeting or a rally? [cheering] that's a wonderful thing. when you guys are really part of a totally transformed of political landscape today really making a significant impact. most recently of course in the november election. [cheering] while this is very obvious to many of us here in the road it's worth noting because it is no small feat particularly with the cynicism and criticism the tea party has endured since day one. there's no doubt we've made a significant impact on the political landscape but three

major i think are worth highlighting today and to think about as we move forward. one, the tea party movement has brought more people into the political process. really by highlighting the dangers and runaway government bent on creating the two classes of people, the one hand, the wagon writers, the public employee unions, the political class, the corporate welfare, and on the other hand, the wagon polders, the rest of us, hard-working taxpayers that are made to pull the wagon. this movement has shaken people out of complacency and expanded the center-right movement and that is a victory. more and more of our fellow americans self identify the team partyers and conservatives are joining our ranks and believe in limiting government and expanded individual liberty. part of that is so we don't

always make that case well, our ideas are not only philosophically sound and in sync with the founding principles of the nation, they are also the best way to help the poor and the disadvantaged. we need to make that case better and more often and continue to bring people into our ranks. all charitable works for that matter any government program any liberal house are made possible because of the pursuit of profit in the free market system where an investor picks chance of an entrepreneur who takes chance hiring workers to provide a service for a product. free-market capitalism cannot command and control government has pulled more people out of poverty than any system ever has or ever will. [applause] we need to tout that and champion the benefits of the free market and make that case to many of those who might not come to cpac, those outside of the base and continue to build

support for our ideas to the second contribution the movement has made is to clearly elucidate the two paths for the future of the country. are we going to be a country that depends on big government for everything? slowly suffocating? or are we going to the nation as independent individuals who believe in free markets and fren version of the american dream. i can buy know where most folks in this room stand, and the good news is more and more people are standing with us and we need to continue to build up momentum. [applause] third, itt party movement quite possibly is the most important contribution has been to serve as a much needed mechanism of accountability out side of the republican party. [applause]

of the tea party movement poult not just liberal democrats accountable but we were republicans as well. this is good for liberty and for the country, and it's important role of the tea party plays. i live in illinois as you heard my introduction and in many ways it is a proxy for what can happen to other states and the rest of the country if we don't continue to preserve. reduce the current trends. public employee unions are bankrupting the state's and we are hemorrhaging jobs and people of an alarming rate. the trend line is good even in illinois which is the good news. people are hungry for politicians will speak the truth and articulate thoughtful solutions to serious problems we face. chris christie is a great example of this. [applause] much like the country as a whole, illinois's fundamentally center right. before we were the land of taxes and the land of lincoln.

before we were home to president obama, we were home to ralf -- ronald reagan whose legacy we celebrate. we've recently lost a gubernatorial election but was close and we sent a handful of tea party freshman to congress here in d.c. and republican to president obama's former senate seat. [applause] and it's the assault on with substantial game changing tea party participation in the illinois. is anyone here from illinois? a few in the back. they are probably getting lunch. all right. i'm here to suggest to the goal and illinois, something to redeem ourselves to send a strong signal to the nation. the goal is for illinois, the president's home state, to vote for a new person to occupy his current seat in 2012. [applause]

it's an audacious goal but with the right grassroots strategy of delivering the right message of the debt is an achievable goal and one that every activist in the room should sit for their state and their county at the precinct in 2012 the matter how high of a hurdle they think it might be. reject those that tell you it's hopeless, and they will because if anything the past election cycle has taught it's that americans are rejecting the big government status quo, more than anything it is possible. [applause] the tea party movement and the broad center-right movement has come along we just the past couple of years, but there is still more work to do. what's continue to be vigilant and told the elected officials accountable. stand by them when they do good, five-year and replace them when they do that and continue to build our bench of candidates. when we redouble our efforts we are going to get our nation back on track and i look forward to doing that with all of you in the months and years to come. thank you very much. [applause]

>> hello, everyone. it's great to be here today. i am really honored and privileged to be here, because i am no one special. i am just a mom that two years ago was concerned about our country and came together with some other conservatives, and we started this little thing called the tea party movement, and what happened in november is simply amazing because it all happened with no plan, absolutely no plan whatsoever. and now, here we are, looking at 2012, another election cycle, and we have time to come up with a plan and to work even harder and to be more successful. [applause] you know, the steeper the movement is a direct result of people being fed up and pingree

and just disenfranchised with both political parties, both republicans and democrats. [applause] and so people have become engaged to read this movement is about issues. it doesn't matter if you're republican or democrat. we want principled conservatives in washington. [applause] and that's our objective. we are not in the republican party as a matter of fact, there are many republicans that don't like us, aren't there? [applause] our object is to think conservative to washington, not republicans. this movement, you know, it started the day after rick had his rant. it's like the title of the panel, spending, stupid. we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

[applause] and when american families across this country are having to sit down at their kitchen table and balance their budget and cut back to make ends meet, why is it that our federal government, our congress is up here and our president is up here with our credit cards just charging, charging, charging? it needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. you and i, we are the ones that are going to stop it. look, the fact of the matter is if you truly want to affect change, you need to change the players. you cannot leave these people here and expect them to do something different because they have proven over and over again they just don't get it. [applause] so we can have rallies until the end of time, rallies, gatherings, but never, but at

the end of the day if you truly want to effect change you have to get involved in the political process and that is the tea party express did over the past election cycle, and we are very proud of the work that we've done, engaging in -- sifry but use it you can't get involved in the primary. that's not the politically correct thing to do. well, let me tell you what. i mean, we are not about being politically correct. [applause] this is about principles and values and seeding this country. [applause] we have to rein in this out of control spending. it's not us, then who? it is up to us. we are the last line of defense, and you know, we've been called a radical and we've been called the fringe element and this and that, but the one thing our armor that allows us to do what we are doing is the u.s. constitution, and i don't think that there is anything radical about the u.s. constitution. [applause]

.. . >> we can't change this overnight. we can't change it in one election cycle. it is going to take us several election cycles to change this, turn things back around. we can do it if we all work hard together. this movement, you know, they said we are going to go away, this allowed. guess what? we are going anywhere. we saw what we can do and we are going to do it again bigger and

better. we just announced a debate with cnn, at tea party partnering with see an end to do their first-ever tea party presidential debate. the amazing thing, the amazing thing about that is that one year ago who could have fathomed that there would be at tea party presidential debate? they didn't even think this movement was going to last. we are here to stay. we are going to hold these people accountable, and we are going to make them tow the line and reign in this out of control spending because it has to stop now. these new members that we brought to congress and to the senate, i mean, they are amazing. they really are amazing. we had this big town hall. [applause] congressman alan west. [applause] nt no one of my favorite lines of that town hall was allen was was asked a question about the debt ceiling.

his answer was, just say no. just say no. and so we need to all continue to at work together to rein in this out of control spending. you know, we have all been blessed to be raised and the -- you know, have america as our home and be part of this great country. i want my child and my grandchildren to have the same things that i have had. i am sure you all due to. that is why there are so many people involved in this movement that relate to this. it is about the american dream. we want america to remain that shining city on the health. [applause] that is what we need to do. so we need to march forward. we need to hold these people accountable. at the same time continue to work tirelessly with one another to bring more change in 2012 and take that -- take back this country. not only do we need to take back

the u.s. senate, but we need to take back the white house. we need a conservative in their that will stand on principles and protect the american dream, protect that shining city on the hill. i am not ready to speak chinese jet. i don't want to speak chinese. this is america, and i am proud to be an american. i know all of you are proud to be an american, and i promise that i will continue to work tirelessly with all of you standing shoulder to shoulder to make change in 2012 and to let the establishment know that we aren't going anywhere. [applause] god bless you all. [applause] >> i am delighted to be here to talk about the tea party and spending as a critical issue. two years ago this country was heading to hades. the republican party was heading

to collapse. the conservative movement was discarded. org going to become priests. the government was going to run the banks. there were going to run the auto companies. there were going to take over health care. there was nothing in their way to stop that. when you look ahead from two years ago because i was in the meetings, we were going to lose another three. we would lose more house seats, more governorships. there was nothing stopping turning this country into something between france, greece, and east germany. what happened was that the party and the introduction of spending as of vote moving issue an american politics. and we all know that what has happened so far, the radical changes of losing three senate seats, we gained seven over the course of that season. we picked up the house. governorships and over 700 state legislative races.

this is central because before that tea party movement there was a hole in the heart of the conservative movement. there was something missing. thinking about the modern reagan republican party, the conservative movement. people were sitting around a table. they are there because on the boat moving issue everybody is there because of their vote moving issue that wish to be left alone. different people for different reasons. taxpayers, leave my income alone. businessmen and women, leave my business alone, professional life. home schoolers, leave my kids alone. on the board at the nra. second amendment voters to believe my second amendment rights alone, the my gun rights alone. we don't go around insisting, knocking on people's doors saying he should be a hunter. we just want to be left alone. all of the various communities and faith, people, the most important thing in their life is practicing their faith and transmitting it to their kids. evangelical protestants,

conservative catholics, orthodox jews, muslims, mormons, they don't agree to it to get to heaven or how, but they agree that they all want to be left alone so that they can get to heaven if the guy across the table misunderstands scriptures and is going to hades. it is not necessary that all of us agree why we are voting for liberty. we vote for the same candidates and the fellow who wants to get to church all the looks across the table at the guy who wants to make money on day and they say, well, it's not how i spend my life. they both looked over at the guy wants to fondle -- fondle his guns all day. everybody is there because on their key vote moving issue they wish to be left alone. that was the reagan coalition, and there was a problem with it. as george bush taught us, you stand in the center of the circle. leave your kids alone, your faith, your business, your guns, your money, i'm going to spend a little too much. and there was nobody at the table do through anything heavy

or walked out of the room the. there was not a vote moving part of the modern conservative movement that said spend too much is my vote living issue because i know if you spend too much it will affect me. you cannot leave me alone if you are spending too much of other people's money. [applause] the tea party movement completes the reagan coalition. it brings to the table that which was not there, and we paid dearly for that missing piece. it is also central to have the tea party movement and people focused on spending because the spending, in order to compete with the other teams. the other team is the taking. leave us alone coalition. want to be left alone. we don't want other people's money, time, we don't want to run other people's lives c-span.org just want to be left

alone to run our lives and to have liberties. the other team, however, is the taking coalition. if you the proper role of government is taking things from some people and giving them to other people. usually they want money, your's and it goes to them. that is the taking coalition. sitting around the table, trial lawyers, labor unions, big city political machines, the two wings of the dependency movement, people who are locked into welfare dependency, and people who make $90,000 a year managing the dependency of others making sure none of us get jobs and become republican. [applause] you also have all the people who get government grants. what did they get the money for? to come by the the rest of us. these are the people who invented cars too small to put an entire family and to, toilets too small to flesh completely, the light bulbs that don't really light very well. they have set up various things

such that on the sabbath you have to separate the green glass from the white glass from the brown glass for the recycling priests. the national has this incredibly long thou shalt list of things that you have to do and things you are not allowed to do. their list is the longer and more tedious than leviticus. [laughter] so around the left table is a bunch of people who live off other people's money, your's. when we focus correctly on spending we not only complete our coalition and make it internally consistent, but we get to the other teams table. the first thing that obama did as soon as he showed up with state $800 billion throw it in the center of the table and then 350 from start. you have a trillion plus dollars. our friends on the left can get along. but kind of like in that scene after the bank robbery

in the movies, one for you, one for you, one for you. they are all smiles and they are all happy. but as soon as the pile of cash in the center of that takings coalition table begins to dwindle and get smaller and if we do our job right and say no new taxes and minute and put our foot on the air hose and stop throwing money in the center of the table then the left begins to look at each other a little bit more like the second or the last scenes in those movies. now they are wondering who they're going to eat or who they're going to throw overboard. the left is not made up of friends and allies. the left is made up of a competing parasites. [applause]

if we say no to tax increases, stop throwing money in the center of their table, they will just as cheerfully not on the guy sitting next to them as on the taxpayer. [applause] our job is to say no to tax increases, not give them more money so that two years from now when we meet them in the next election there are fewer of them and their shorter. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i would like to go ahead and open it up for question and answer. we will be taking questions on the microphone directed to any one of our three panelists. >> yes. hi. i'm sorry.

>> i'm sorry. yes. tow. >> yes. you talked plenty about the spending and the dead. i think one issue that has not really been addressed is the elephant in the room which is what is a feeling that, the fact that we are printing currency unconstitutionally in the federal reserve. my question is where does the tea party stand on the fiat currency? >> and. >> okay. i'll take this one. here is my strong suggestion on speaking with and working with the tea party. what does the tea party think is kind of like asking what the people in indiana think. there are many leaders of the tea party movement. there are thousands of tea party members. i think the central truth that they grasp that was missing from a lot of smart people in

washington who were trying to build a republican party in a conservative movement was, guys, front and center, spending. there are many challenges we have and not having money that sticks to something of real value is one of them. what we need to it -- you can tell the two-party anything. anybody tells you to tell the two-party what to do, don't listen to them. the tea party is not following anybody out of their common sense, which is a pretty good thing. do speak out they have panels cannot talk to people, share information. ron paul has done a very good job of it. [applause] just this topic. so it is a 1-and-1 education process. [applause] >> my concern is this, the lack of organization in the tea party. you were talking about, we have a plan. those of us in my tea party are

worried about is becoming an organization in which certain people seek to be leaders. there were rumors that filtered down to us in arizona about a schism in the two-party involving amy among others. are we concerned about this generally so that if somebody seeks to become a leader and start controlling the rest of us we will be able to level them back with the rest of us? is this a concern of the national people? >> i would answer that question, no, it's not a concern. this movement cannot be controlled. there is not one leader, one organization, and the important thing to understand is that while there are tea party organizations out there and liberty live in groups of there we have been labeled the tea party movement. there are other organizations

out there that don't use the name tea party. the movement that is focused on the issues. quite frankly the people in this movement are not loyal to any one organization. they're loyal to the cause. that is what they are loyal to. that is what they're going to work on. while my organization can go through one. if people will turn out and have huge rallies. work with groups on the ground to target a senator or congressman, there are other national groups that go in those same states and to advance and work with the local groups. i mean, the people are loyal to the cause. we don't have to go out and tell, you know, these deep party people, these activists with the causes. they know that the cause is we stand on principles and values. free-market fiscal responsibility and limited government. that is why we are all focused on and working toward.

that is all that matters. this movement is like herding wildcats. in the end everybody is focused on the issue, and that is what happened in november. everybody just worked toward sending conservatives to washington, and that's the bottom line. i'm not worried about it, and i don't think many people are. [applause] >> keep in mind, the group that keeps trying to find a leader for the tea party movement is the establishment left. why? is then taken place that as the quarterback. one of the strengths of the tea party movement is that there are millions of members and people who subscribe to their values. tens of thousands of leaders, meaning bring somebody else into the movement. that's a leader. and if we ever offered up one, believe me, they would sack the quarterback and take him out. they want to announce that it's one guy and they have plans for that one guy once the picking.

[applause] >> yes, ma'am? >> i am from new jersey. [inaudible conversations] >> i can honestly say that i am hopeful that governor chris christie is going to take the initiative to control spending. however, mr. norquist, once obama kick kick sand and the state is hurting with additional medicaid costs i fear that his efforts will be for naught and our taxes will possibly sore. he may possibly because of that spoil his reelection bid. what are your feelings about that? >> you are quite right that once of the plans of the obama administration was to put spending burdens on states to force governors and state legislatures to raise taxes.

discredit them with their own team. the other team is not stupid. they are evil. we should never fool ourselves into thinking that the of the team are idiots. they thought this through. they have been planning to move forward and make government bigger in a country that does not want that. it doesn't have to be terribly clever to pull this off and sweden are france. you really have to work at it to get the american people to put the halter on themselves. what your governor has done right and change the world, the country, the conservative country is change the country. he said, we aren't raising taxes. we are only cutting spending. that is the beginning. with the left wants us to do is say they have run out a trillion dollar deficit, and they want to focus on the deficit which is the difference between spending and taxes brought in. the tea party movement and

governor christie said the problem is pending. the problem isn't whether you take or borrow, but that it's gone. whether you borrow it or take it is not as interesting as how much you have at -- the government has of our money at the end of the day. if we focus on spending went. if we focus on the deficit than the liberals come and say, oh, we have a solution to that. we will raise taxes. the washington post much prefers the raise taxes solution than the cuts spending solution. step one is exactly what christie did, take tax increases off the table, not an option. if the problem is spending the only way to fix it is to spend less. if we make the mistake of saying the problem is the deficit, there are two ways to fix that, raise taxes and then spending which they will never get to. >> thanks very much. [applause] >> down in front. >> could you update us on the

status of the pledge and if necessary brief the folks on exactly what that is. >> thank you. the taxpayer protection pledges of pies that we put together in 1985. we asked all candidates for federal and state office to make a commitment in writing, but preferably, eight is accepted. they will never raise taxes. we have all but seven republicans in the u.s. house of representatives and all but seven of the republican senators have taken the pledge and kept it. the state legislative level there a 1300 state legislators. the list is at 80 are got org. you can see it. ask your state legislators, congressmen, senators, anyone who wants to run for president, 13 governors have made that commitment. because of that we are really going to see a lot of spending restraint. if they had not made the commitment not to raise taxes when they went to the state capitol there would be 100 people explaining why this one time we need to raise taxes.

>> all right. the gentleman to my left. >> the really like what you have been saying on this panel. we obviously need to restrict spending and lower the size of government. at the same time he said the same things that the republicans always say when they are out of power. in the 90's when they took control and newt gingrich was speaker of the house and they had the contract we essentially betrayed all of those points in the contract with america in 2000 when george bush was elected. he ran on small government free-market not interventionist foreign policy and promptly ran the largest deficit and largest in history and enacted tarp, the bailouts and even ronald reagan who ran these things who ran on the same principles ran deficits and debt similar to jimmy carter and then had military interventions in

nicaragua and sold arms to iran. i like what you are saying, but we have been betrayed far too much by this dialogue. how can we trust you now? bad that is exactly the right question. just for the record, when i was in high school i had a ponytail and used to be cool. after seven it was a while ago, but it's true. that is why this is spending and the tea party. that is why spending and tea party are both with this panel is about. what's changed is the creation of the two-party movement. it was always out there. there was a huge amount of common sense, but it is like rush limbaugh's listeners to read a bunch of guys out there thinking like rush limbaugh, but intel was limbaugh but the mob by radio nobody accountant. before the tea party may have had some sense that people did not want to spend too much, but there was not believed -- belief that if he spent too much it

would hurt you in the next election. there are people who used to be in the senate who are there now because they spent too much. ten years ago they would have been advertising how cool they were about bringing earmarks back. the tea party is the fix for exactly what you pointed to. enemy number one are the appropriators. as you know, the republican party in washington, democratic party, and the appropriations committee, they don't wear our jersey's. the discipline that the republican leaders have put on the appropriations committee as a result of the tea party movement has changed the dynamics that undermine what gingrich was trying to do and what reagan was trying to do. >> i would simply add to that a few points. i disagree with grover on certain margins. i don't believe that the left is evil, but i do see that once the money is on the table it is in the interest of politicians on both sides of the aisle to start grabbing. at think what is an interesting

aspect of the tea party movement and what we have seen change a lot amongst the youth is really a demand for changes in rules. rules can strictly limit politicians on both sides of the aisle. when we talk about these reforms and if we are serious about spending cuts the need to talk about not getting particular cuts here and there in the budget, but changing the rules of the game such that it makes it more difficult for the state to grow into the future. [applause] >> the one thing i would add, how can you trust? i would feel that as trust but verify. when you vote for somebody and send them to washington and the state capital you can't just washed hands and go back to running your business and living your life. the unfortunate reality is that is oftentimes the people center by do pretty neat to stay engaged. it is about that mechanism of accountability don't vote

republican and trust that they are going to tow the line on spending. hold people accountable. if they don't do what they say there going to do on the campaign trail, and. >> and the one to add something. i heard recently somebody say that the tea party movement is the conscience of america. i agree with that. we are here. the difference between when reagan was here and talking about the contract with america and earlier times when the republicans regained power and we lost our way again, one of the biggest difference is is that we have technology now and we are using the technology to connect. before it might have been through talk radio that these people connected, but now we have twitter and facebook and social media. people are connecting that way, and we are alive and well. we are responsible for what is happening right now and it is because we are living on lives

working taking care of our families, going to school, and not paying attention to what is going on in washington. now we are awake and say no more. [applause] >> we will take a question from the far left. >> thank you. yesterday we had a panel on family values. husband and wife, father and mother on the family. particularly with the husband and wife thing instead of cohabitation. the problem, about two and a half years ago i get married and found that there was a marriage penalty. our income tax jumped by a whopping 500% from what we had paid as two single people. now, it's fine that we don't have any tax increases on the very wealthy, but we are definitely middle-class. this took a cut into our standard of living. i want to know if any of the tax

avoidance people or the tax table people by doing anything about it. it's not the penalty for getting married. it's a punishment at the rate they are charging. >> a very good point. thank you. they thought they were solving this back in 2001 when they really just minimize did. you can, with income splitting, eliminate the challenge. i think that is a fine idea. you both attacks is at the rate of your own income rather than have them together and give him in a high one. it is a real challenge. step one, let's just keep pushing the tax rates down and, you're right. when you have taxes as high as they are and people throwing deductions and credits in order to try and fix this problem was fixed that problem, the problem is they are spending too much which means they have to take too much. there is no pleasant way to take 20 percent of what the american people aren't from them.

there is no polite way, no pleasant way, no fair way to do it. fairness is not -- the government takes and gives it to people who didn't. fairness is not necessarily part of that equation. you are right that the high level of taxation least all sorts of punishing effects including institutions of government that you think they would try to be helpful to. lower taxes, less spending, and the focus of the tea party movement on spending, i think, gives us hope that we will get to solve that of a challenge. >> yeah. >> i'm over here, too. >> zero. >> standing up. >> you are next. this gentleman right here. >> amy. i'm a college student and a typical liberal campus, in the process of starting my own teeth party. [applause]