sourcing and care and attribution behind, behind us. [applause] so thank you so much. >> a question for geneva -- >> but, but you're a bright spot, sweetie. >> how do we as a -- well, this organization and others, how do journalists navigate these waters these days? >> you need to have the microphone -- >> oh, still? like that? >> maybe angle it? >> how about ha? >> [inaudible] be good for you. [laughter] >> you know, it's loose. it keeps dropping. is that better? all right, good. >> first of all, one bright spot is these traditional media like national public radio which, by the way, is thriving, that's a bright spot. and newspapers are far from over. we're a little bit mark twain, you know, overstating the death about newspapers. they're far from over. they're very important.

it's true their economic underpinnings around challenges -- are challenged, but they're far from over. my credentials are all newspaper, i'm 62 years old, i get the lament, but there is much to embrace. we used to leave out a lot of people. i edited a newspaper. there were certain areas of town we didn't report on nearly enough, certain voices who weren't heard nearly enough. there is a great democratization going on that is scary and wild west feeling but is very promising. so i think part of the responsibility we all have as journalists and i believe we are infusing in our wonderful students who completely embrace the future and believe in the same way that we believed we were going to go out and enable society to be better educated about what's going on around it, better informed,ly more -- live richer and fuller lives, that's

what they believe. they are going to be having a world where they will bring these enduring values and enable people to find information in a whole lot of different ways. but we can't assume that people who find information through social networks are always ill-informed. i mean, people make interesting decisions themselves. and i think one of 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 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'd say is there is so much change, but there has been change before in the media world, and while it's important to talk about these concerns about, you know, we love voice but we don't like rants, i mean, they're important things for us to talk about here, but i do want us to not lose the fact there's an awful

lot of promise going on if not scary. >> because there is so much public input now, you could harness that. news organizations are able to harness that in a way that couldn't happen before. before as a traditional print journalist, nobody saw what i looked like, people would read it, and that was the end of it. somebody might write a letter to the editor. right now i get feedback, i get comments, and i can interact with people who comment. sometimes i find them so interesting that i'll post them. the public is a great source, as it always has been a great source of news, and now we just have other ways of tapping into that. so that's one of the exciting things going on as well. >> may i tell a little story about it, and it builds or links to the idea of intimacy of the radio and of the voice on the radio. in my all things considered days when i used to get a cold, listeners would send me chicken soup. [laughter]

now, that tells you how long ago this was, right? because it could come in a package or be left at a desk downstairs, and you'd drink it, you know? you wouldn't have any question as to whether -- [laughter] or how it would be. but that's a connection, really, i mean, you're getting that in a different way without the scoop right now -- soup right now, but it's something about the medium of radio and that kind of personal connection with listeners partly because of where y'all listen to us. sometimes i don't want to think about how -- we're in the shower with you in the morning, you know? we're in the bed with you in the evening or in this early morning, but we're -- or in the car, especially here. but there we are, it's sort of that wrap around of sound that becomes the soundtrack of your lives and becomes personal in a way which i wonder whether anything online or anything in cyberspace or anything that's tweeted can be. what do you think about that? >> i want to jump in there on

this one because think, first of all, what a change that was. people complained you were the first woman national news anchor. people complained that your voice was too high. listen to this voice. she's no squeaky-voice name, right? people complained that your voice was too high. it was untraditional. people were use today the voice of authority speaking down -- >> that's good. [laughter] >> and one of the differences, that helped revolutionize people saw authoritative voices, and that was a great thing. >> yes. >> we now have another opportunity to be even less top-down. it's not really always good for me as the editor to decide what you need. i mean, on the one hand you do want people who are able to make these curetorial choices -- >> yes. >> but not just me deciding and not giving a fig what you think. when i was ombudsman at "the washington post," i would listen to readers as was my job, and my colleagues would come by and say, you're listening to those

people? [laughter] so we now do listen, and there is an intimacy in the listening. we now listen to them. you hear from your readers, i'm sure. >> right. >> it's that kind of intimacy. >> of course, no one -- one time when i took a sick day, i went ahead and posted a photo of some medicine and cough drops and just excuse me, guys, i'm out sick today. no one sent me chicken soup. [laughter] but there is, you're right, there is a different kind of relationship and a different kind of warmth that builds. it's not always warmth. sometimes you have people who just want to yell at you. >> sure. >> and that's the way it's been, but that's the way it's been, you know, ever since, you know, newspapers opened up to comments, so it's been that way. so i don't know if you really get that on the radio side. >> oh, sure we do. roses and brick bats, it's always part of the brew, of the mix that's out there, sure. >> so i guess, you know, we've come a very long way, and this is a very general question you

can both answer but, you know, 40 years, god, my lifetime give or take. >> oh, please. [laughter] show off. >> but from a time when npr broadcasts were literally put together by editors who would literally slice them with razors, put them back together to a medium which is moving at light speed. what has npr's role been in terms of changing the media landscape, changing our society, changing the way we understand our country and our world? >> good heavens, what an enormous task for us. >> it's a big one. >> well, i think we've certainly been part of the changes. and, again, it's that carry along with you voice in the car, keeping you informed pretty much throughout the day. and that's a different experience from a newspaper, or it's not so different now from computers and 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's been something different. surely a reinvention of the medium itself of radio and sort of the raising of etc. profile in a way that had never existed before. but also the pervasiveness across the country, and that was true from the very beginning. we had these member stations, we've got almost 900 of them now. when we started, we had 68, but still they were everywhere. it wasn't just on the, in particular, on the east coast, it wasn't only in washington, it wasn't only in new york and near wall street. but the commitment from the beginning was to cover murphies borrow, tennessee. and we had a station there, and that station had people who could get on the radio and bring their listeners.

you're reminding me, really, that it's still the kind of global village you were talking about before as one of the bright spots. there we were doing it at the beginning, i now it's being done through keys and screens and all those various devices. but listening in on -- listening to the america and listening in behalf of america by putting those up toes and people from those -- those towns and people from those towns on the air, we did it from the very beginning. and those are places where we remain an owe basis because there's no competition. the local papers are shrinking or they're not doing the breadth of reporting that they might be able to. television is from some other centralized source but never local, and so what they're getting from national public radio in those towns becomes a vital, vital source of information. >> i would say a couple of other things adding to what susan has 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. >> yeah. we were the and radio. >> the book is full of wonderful stories like this, i do commend it to you. so partly because of that, i think, and partly because there has always been an effort, always imperfect, i mean, it always is, what is objectivity, and what is balance and what is proportional and fair. there has always been a commitment by national public radio to deliver the news, you know n a balanced and proportional way. and, of course, there have always been complaints, more from the right, perhaps, but there have been complaints from the leavitt. but the -- left. but the record of credibility that has been built up by npr is exceptional, and the continued growth of national public radio. so what do we do now, what does

public radio do now at this juncture where, you know, a couple of things we've already mentioned -- one, the speed of news so, you know, you've got to embrace twitter. these are important tools, but how do you incorporate them and maintain the sense of thoroughness and how to you incorporate voices and maintain the credibility? the other one is the means of support. the public supported public radio. that's been huge. and as we look at how we're going to sustain good journalism moving forward, that is one of the models. >> yes, i i think it is. >> because fundamentally -- >> you look at us now as a kind of business model, can you imagine? we thought we never would have done -- [laughter] >> and yet it is true that, you know, fundamentally we have taught people many this country to believe that the news will come to them through you. plunged down a quarter for the

paper, believe me, that didn't pay for much. and when people got cable there was just this feeling, i don't have to pay, it'll come to me. but the concept of national public radio was that the public would be supporting it which i think is a terribly important -- >> and it's so astonishing that people will pay for it. you don't have to -- well, you do, but you don't. it's not like somebody's going to take your radio away if you don't become a member. but, in fact, it's because you value it, and you want to participate and have ownership in it and be part of the stewardship of it. that's what's such a miracle here. >> you know, there was a question, geneva, you brought up prior to this which was, you know, as some of the more traditional newsrooms do shrink, do you think that public radio's going to be filling more of a void, and if so, what does that mean in terms of funding perhaps? >> well, i doubt that public funding is in the -- anytime soon. 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 a big piece -- >> federal. >> no, any kind of -- >> individual. >> government funding for the most part, it doesn't look promising to me. but i think philanthropists are more and more concerned and likely to be, you know, more joan crocs would be a good thing, right? and local philanthropists, i think, are going to take on -- >> i do too. >> -- a stronger role. >> and businesses, corporations. and listeners who more and more value this. and if it comes to a dollar for this or for a cup of coffee, people will decide that the radio really is more important. maybe they can, like myself, buy a mr. coffee machine for a mere $16 at target, make it at home and turn your radio on. [laughter] >> and i think public radio will partner with more people.

we're partners of kppc at the annenberg school of journalism, we both benefit more and more. i think there will be collaborative work that will enable the public to receive the same quality of information. >> there's a greater online presence, you know, there's a goal to bring in a younger, more diverse audience. there's a goal to have a greater local presence with more local reporters, more partnerships with local stations. now, now, how do you go about doing this and maintaining the nprness as this all grows? >> that's my favorite new expression, the nprness. i feel i'm the walking nprness. >> i think so. i think so. >> i keep trying to define it, what is our mission, you know? those of us who do it and fly the fields of it know our missions very well, and how you do it is you keep doing it. and more than that, you keep listening to each other and reading each other and say, no, that's wrong, and, no, you didn't get it right and, no, you

sound as if you're reading. and we do this day in and day out, self-criticism, self-reflection. listening to ourselves, listening to one another and saying why don't we try it this way this time. i stayed with it for 112 years now, and the reason is the medium itself of radio is so extraordinarily, wonderfully creative, can be, and expansive. and i feel i've not come to the end of it. i don't know where else it canning go for as much as i've done it in this all of these years, how to make sound a little bit different, how to put in a pause, the kinds of pauses that hourglass builds in sometimes into those stories that get told on this american life. just the art of it, the creativity of this medium. and that's how it will sustain and those values will be applied to all these new technologies and new devices, i hope. >> i do think it's more challenging to figure out how we bring it forward when we're doing it in different ways.

if i think -- the same question faces newspapers. one thing i thought very long and hard about is, okay, which of the things we always did were our traditions, you know? we wrote a certain kind of lead, we had an inverted pyramid, we played the most important story on the right, you know, those are traditions. they're not our principles. >> hmm. >> what are our principles? and that's what, seems to me, you really have to go to because if you're going to translate radio, the nprness into, you know, into the web and mobile, then you really do have to think, so what are the things that are particularly significant about what we do? what is our compact with the public is really, i think, the best way for most of us to think about it. >> but i'll tell you something. i think that's absolutely right, but it's so shifted because of what's happened in the media landscape that that nprness which used to be duls her playing, you know, in the '90s and people -- '70s and people

talking over their back fences and mother-in-law's cranberry relish recipes -- [laughter] thank you very much. have you tried it, by the way? >> coolio is a fan, by the way. >> a rap singer who helped me present my mother-in-law's relish this year who rhymed relish with fetish. [laughter] it was really a high for me as a broadcaster. but there's a far higher burden on it now given -- i'm glad you think newspapers are healthy. my new york times looks anorexic because it's not getting the advertising it needs. >> it looks about the way it looks when bernstein and woodward were at "the washington post" doing what they did, and "the new york times" was doing amazing work on the pentagon papers. >> you mean, the advertisers fled? >> no, i'm talking about the news hole. it's always a trick to look at the graphs, right? everybody goes, oh, you know, there were 1400 people at the l.a. times x number of years

ago, but i'm not just saying, oh, we don't need to worry that now there are only 550, but i am saying that there is plenty of good work left at these newspapers, and we shouldn't just judge by whether it's -- >> oh, no. oh, no, absolutely. the reporting and the depth of it is superb, but my point was geffen the fact that -- given the fact that our responsibility now at npr has really shifted over these years in ways that i never could have predicted, nor bill who was the man really who created all things considered or we founders could have imagined. we certainly wanted to be authoritative and solid and as good as we could, but we didn't think we'd be the last man standing, you know? [laughter] that we would have become at this point people's primary source, and we are, for in-depth information not just electronically as broadcasters, but anyway at all. and so that does, could, can and often does edge into the time

slots because we're so fixed by time and the clock as to how much time there is to give these cranberry relish recipes and as to how much time there is to do music. i used to do 12, 20 -- not 20, but 15-minute music pieces on the air. that doesn't happen anymore. but thanks to new media, we have wonderful online music sites where that music can get played. so that's a bright spot, i suppose. it's a way of reallocation. >> you've increased your depth of what you can offer. >> yes, that's true. and i can put outtakes from interviews of mine on -- because if i've got six minutes and that's all there is for a story that i have which is major time in any other broadcasting organization but never enough for me -- [laughter] i can put outtakes, things that i just didn't have time to put on the air in my story online and guide people and be say if you want to hear more of that conversation, this or that, and we can do that too.

so it is a wonderful expansion. oh, i'm cheering up. [laughter] you know, i came here quite depressed. thank you, geneva. [laughter] >> that leads me to another question. >> wait until the q&a. [laughter] >> oh, they're all -- >> that does lead me to, young, talking about personalized content, as people cherry pick the news that they want to hear, how might this affect content, and in a larger sense what does it do to us as a media-consuming society? >> i would put it to you because if you say you don't want the editor-in-chief to say this, this, this, and this, doesn't somebody have to make the decisions as to what the content will be and what it is that the listeners, the readers, the clickers, the tweeters, the woofers -- [laughter] should know? in a democracy and to get through the day? >> i wouldn't say i don't want editors to make decisions. i do say i don't want them to

make decisions without the input of the public. >> ah. >> it is scary if public is making so much input that the editor becomes nothing but somebody with a finger to the wind. i believe the news organizations like npr and "the new york times" and the l.a. times will make decisions that do include the thinking of people formerly known as the audience but, clearly, will bring their own editorial judgment to it. others will make decisions completely by popularity. but news, you know, i hate to say this within my broadcast brethren, but an awful lot of that has been going on in television for a long time. it's not as be if we invented this on the web. i believe we will distinguish among news organizations exactly this way. >> uh-huh. >> and we'll go to trusted sources of news because we do believe the judgment exerted there in combination with thoughtful listening from readers and listeners will be

valuable -- >> but let me ask you this, and i'd love to hear you talk about this a bit, leslie, because you're not 40 yet -- [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> one of my concerns is how you build consensus anymore in this society. and if, if people are only going to the things they want to hear like national public radio, god bless you, but there's more many this world than us. i sometimes don't like admitting it, but that's true. and others who only want to go to their blog with lonely girl, whoever, whatever the most current thing is. how does, how do people ever come together when they're riding individual hobby horses and that's all they want to know about? i mean, i think that's a real issue these days. >> you know, i'll have to say, it pains me. it does. i mean, i'm old enough to really miss -- i mean, i still do it, but, you know, picking up a

newspaper and getting my information about the world, you know, from the national, from the international. that's, that's -- it's not that way anymore. we do, we go to different places for different things and i think there's a degree of cherry picking where, sadly, some media consumers miss out on some good stories, and that's just kind of the way it is. >> i think i'm talking about something different. it's not just the absence to have newspaper. i'll take a giant leap back to the days of the three commercial television networks. and at night people sat down and mostly listened to walter cronkite. so you've got a universal -- it may not have been the most diverse assemblage of information -- >> now, that's an understatement. [laughter] >> but we were receiving it, maybe it was received wisdom, maybe it was received something else at the same time that we were as a nation experiencing

something all together. and that doesn't happen very much these days. it doesn't happen on any of these platforms really. >> but i think that in some ways -- now exposing myself as a child of the '60s -- that what happened with civil rights and with women's rights and, you know, erupted partly because there wasn't a broad enough conversation in that very narrow living room. >> uh-huh. >> that you describe. i do understand your concern. i, too, am very much concerned with the level of civic discourse and lack of civility. i do think we have seen this in previous parts of our history in the u.s., and it's not necessarily only a product of what's happening in the media. that opportunity mean we -- doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned, but think of eras of american history where there have been terrible periods of inability to gather round one idea. i mean, obviously, civil war not least among them. but i don't think we should think that, you know, the only

time in history of the u.s. in which we've ever had this kind of incivility, but it's particularly awful right now, that's for sure. what can the media do about it, is a really important question. >> yeah, you know, and i should mention to clarify, i wasn't bemoaning the loss of newspapers, it's the loss of the broader exposure really. if you want to sit in front of your computer and listen to any -- >> expose you to ideas that are really different from yours that you don't agree with and that make you think, that push you in some way or pull you or make you have to reevaluate some old saw as i'm doing in public this evening as i listen to these brighter spots. >> people going online, we shouldn't assume people aren't going online and only reading their own stuff. because they're doing information gathering differently does not mean that they're doing bad information gathering. most of the people who are shouting at one another on talk radio are not exemplars of what is happening when people go online and search for information or when people share

with one another through social networks their information. we shouldn't assume that because these are new methods of delivering information people are delivering only poor and rants, you know, poor quality of information. >> yeah. i don't think i'm assuming that it will necessarily always be poor, but i am assume hag the ranters will -- assuming that the ranters will only listen to one another and that they'll talk louder than anybody else. >> but the way they've done that is mostly on radio. [laughter] >> here we go. actually -- >> guilty as charged. >> this is interesting, i want to read from the book. quote ago software designer for google who's devising an npr application for android, and he says i'm much more likely to listen to webcast radio streams and increasingly only want to listen to the artists i find interesting, says michael. in the past radio was something i tended to listen to when there were no alternative, now i can listen to relevant programs and stories when i want to.

content, time and place can all be completely of my choosing. he may be articulating the next media model. he's devising an mpr application --npr application for android helping it will lead to more colleagues designing their own application. >> who wrote it? >> this is -- oh, my gosh, you would ask me. this is the most recent section, whoever wrote the -- >> yeah. [inaudible] >> yes, it was in his section. >> but that's very good, actually, and what it does is put programmers out of jobs, and maybe that's okay. i, myself, love making radio programs, giving them a shape, deciding how we begin. it's sort of that inverted pyramid business, i like doing that about -- with a radio program. taking you through some sort of an emotional journey in the course of an hour. but that's, obviously, i know that that's very old-fashioned now. and this kind of scatter shot thing is really what seems to be

the prevailing business and that the radio pieces are being downloaded and listening to, listened to at the time anyone, an individual wants to hear them. >> with well, we no longer continue to have -- >> an hour. that's right. >> we have a shapely show any longer? i mean, at the end of shapely shows? >> the makers of those shows will continue giving them that sort of shape. >> yeah. >> you know, we do focus groups all the time, we put 20-somethings in the room and say show of hands, how many of you own a radio? 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 radios in their car, but they will download to other devices in the car rather than turn, push that dial, turn it, whatever it is. so the makers will continue giving that shape to it the way you give the shape to a drama or a poem. i really do feel it is an art

form in many ways and something else that distinguishes our work. but how long before it will be cut into bits and pieces for personal consumption, i don't know. >> okay. well, then, let's see. let's move on to something totally different because we're still talking about report anything the digital age, and let's talk about keeping up with the information and the misinformation. i mean, we know this weekend, you know, 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 giffords had died. in fact, she was critically wounded. and part of the problem was, apparently, it was also being tweeted by other news outlets, it was making for this very fast, hypercompetitive environment. i'll read part of what executive news editor dick meyer wrote in his apology. we've been reminded of the challenges and professional responsibilities of reporting on

fast-breaking news at a time and in an environment where information and misinformation move at light speed. it is very challenging. what are these challenges and how to do it better? how do learn from this? >> well, we've always had these challenges, you know, how many different sources should we get before we report something? we've always made mistakes. do you remember dewey defeats truman? [laughter] now it's happening at lightning speed. so what happened, i think, with npr and it was really very unfortunate, i mean, when you report someone's death, obviously, it's a grave mistake, but what happened was that there was somebody in the pima county sheriff's office who said it, and there was somebody else who said it, and it becomes one of these things, well, i heard that, and people tweeted and other people tweeted. >> right. >> the good news is now we also have the ability to really air exactly what happened, and npr did that at great length and with good transparency. and i think increasingly this will be part of our news

literacy as news consumers. we will ask ourselves well -- and i hope news people will be very careful to say in the tumult, you know, there was -- say exactly who said it, but there were reports, it's -- i mean, be straightforward about the level of assurance and confidence that you have in it. >> uh-huh. i've always felt it was really important to raise the curtain and tell exactly what the wheels looked like and how they got yes, sirred and how we really -- greased and how we really 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, as i said before, the best truth he had in that moment, but making mistakes and having to correct if i knew something that he was saying was incorrect, having to jump in the 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, real quick-wittedness to be able to do that. the cracks are enormous, and the risks are huge. but i think a 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 you just have to -- that's the future. >> and the media are better, much better. >> much better. >> i remember "the new york times," oh, good lord, to publish a correction was -- >> unbelievable. >> a sin. now they have huge correction columns in there. [laughter] either they've got p very sloppy or they're much more forthcoming. >> more forthcoming. >> in fact, some news outlets actually did withdraw their tweets -- >> oh, let's talk about that. let's talk about that because this was something i had to think about today really almost for the first time since i don't live in tweetsville. >> but, you know, one of the interesting things, actually,

social media strategist for npr wrote an interesting post on this one web site explaining the blow-by-plow of what the decision was, actually, the decision to not erase the tweet. because some outlets did. and he just felt, actually, it was a pretty simple answer. he wanted to just keep it transparent. so he just wound up tweeting again, you know, as it turns out, she's alive. >> it's a historical record question. andy carvin who wrote a really nice thing, i commend it to you, it's a real kind of examination of what exactly happened. >> yeah. >> because everybody is struggling with this. if you think the answer is, well, then don't both we are this twitter stuff, that cannot be the answer to the organizations that are trying to embrace the future because these are reporting tools, ways of receiving information, and these are ways which a lot of us use. i use them, and i'm an old bat. [laughter] so we've got to be out there, but it does mean it's going to be a real struggle to figure out how we now define accuracy and

attribution. >> this is part of my learning process just reading through some of the stuff today getting ready to come and talk to you. my first impulse would have been, not understanding that world of tweetdom not very well, take it off, erase it. you've published a mistake. pull it, get rid of it. but it doesn't disappear. and so in order to keep the historical record, you leave it there, and then you -- however many tweets later -- make the correction so that you can see what the process has been. the problem is so many of the people who will have looked at the first tweet and won't catch up with the correction. that's always an issue. and we do it on the air too. we make a mistake, but you correct it. our program roll over across the country, and there are three different editions of it, and we will correct for the middle of the country or for you get the perfect program every time. [laughter] by the time it gets out here, we are flawless, i'll tell you. [laughter] the only question is what gets

kept and what happens if you've only heard the first draft? >> but one thing we should know while we're beating up on the twitter part of this -- >> no, i don't mean -- >> we're not, but we're saying, oh, what happened on twitter. >> i love twitter. do it all the time. >> the first tweet came because the social networks guy was listening to the radio and heard on the radio that congresswoman giffords had died. >> yes. >> so the tweet actually followed the broadcast. >> yes, no, that is correct. the scoop, npr, i mean, it's a horrible scoop to have, but we were first out with the story of the shootings. but then the death business came, first, on the radio and then, you're right, went to the tweets. and this is another burden now when you get out there and become that kind of primary source is that other news organizations then think, oh, npr's reporting it, we'll go with it. and that's just what cnn and "the new york times," even fox, went ahead and did. [laughter] that day. so it was -- there are a million lessons to be learned, and no

one will learn them more carefully than we will, believe me. >> and, basically, you know, one more thing that i'll throw out is, you know, back to, again, back to as this landscape shifts and we have so much information out there and coming at us, kind of to counter a bit about the cherry picking, you know, one of the best things about it is that, yes, you can pick and choose, but you can also choose to be flooded with information because it's coming in from all places including the social networks. and so, and that's, actually, a very good thing. i'm turned on to stories every day that i wouldn't be turned on to otherwise, wouldn't happen in daily life ten years ago, and i incorporate this into the way i report and how i think and what i wind up doing that day. and so it actually, you know, all these different approaches that we're using toward disseminating news and toward fartherrering news are very valuable, and they're valuable to npr and everyone really. >> amen, for. >> and on that note, let's have some questions. are we done? [laughter]

leslie? is it time for questions? >> i'm glad you're moderating, leslie. [laughter] >> we're about two minutes from question time, so we might as well -- >> that was such a great way to stop this. >> we have two microphones. >> oh. >> okay. the first happened i saw was -- hand i saw was over there. >> then we'll go to -- [inaudible] >> okay, over there. all right. >> hi, and thanks for a great conversation. i run a discussion group called deep thinkers. at one time it might have been called a salon, and we're getting together this saturday to talk about journalism. and the question is, i'd like to hear your thoughts on it, which is what is a journalist? is it julian assange? is it jon stewart? is it keith olberman? is it glenn beck? >> great question, great question. >> yes. >> can and regarding wikileaks, legally speaking, how does wikileaks differ from npr? [laughter]

>> oh, my. well, in if every imaginable way, i would think. an investigative reporter at 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 leads were, where new information was, check them back against their -- all they are are documents in their rare form. it's like pentagon papers, i suppose, in that way. but, but would then try to provide some context for that raw information that was, that was available. i think that would be part of the difference. anything to add to it? >> well, i always turn that question around slightly because i find it virtually impossible to define a journalist. i think it's easier for me to think in terms of defining journalism, and i'd 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 these, as you pointed out, susan, exactly right, it doesn't -- nobody, you know, there's no middle, there's no one sort of carefully trying to think about what parts of this might not be in the public interest because they endanger lives, there's no one trying to figure out, you know, what is the source of this and what are the intentions of the people, no one editing it, nobody -- >> material. >> a lot of public interest, though, in having access to a lot of data we didn't used to have access to, so actually, i hi our question is very important. i think it's less necessary that we define journalists, it's more important that we think about, you know, what kinds 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 just becomes all about context and giving, giving a certain proportionality to the raw material that's out there. i mean, any journalist goes out and gathers, but then it's what you do when you come back and the kind of shape that you give it and the way you choose to tell, to make a story out of the chaos that is life, you know? and give it some sort of a narrative line that will make it clear to your readers, your listeners, your consumers. >> would you say we'd be better off if we hadn't, if wikileaks didn't exist? >> no, i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't say that. but it does need some mediation. >> uh-huh. it's interesting to me that wikileaks went to some news organizations this round. in fact, seeming to recognize that it needed mediation. but maybe not, maybe it just recognized it wasn't really getting attention unless it went to the news organizations. [laughter] >> well, there's that true.

>> some people have speculated, because they still released it unedited. >> yeah. >> does that answer the question? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> no? how would you answer? what do you think? yeah? >> [inaudible] i think julian assange has only released about a thousand documents of the hundreds of thousands that are out there, so there is a lot of misinformation flowing around, and i believe the columbia school -- >> from whom? from whom? whose misinformation is it, what do you mean? >> well, i think that people are saying that there's a document dump and that 'em plies that he's just -- implies that he's just tossed all these documents out. >> oh, you -- >> i don't think that's the case. i think glenn greenwald is an excellent source of information about what's really going on and what kind of legal protections should wikileaks be afforded or denied that npr and "the new

york times" would get? >> i 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, you know, argued about whether, which are the people who 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're going to go down that road of figuring out what kind of information sources the public needs and, therefore, which should be protected. >> but in this age it will become more and more of a question as you can hack, 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, could be inflammatory or endangering raw material out there and available. so that's something really o o think hard about. >> but although it's true as you said not all the documents have been released, when they do release them, they do generally

release them without editing them. >> but they're selecting. >> [inaudible] because of the danger that it poses to life and limb -- >> more this time than the last time. more now than they were at first, i think. it's a bit of a moving target. it's going to be very interesting to watch. i think it's a very important thing. i think giving people access to information like this is very empowering, but the question of how it's treated is very complex. >> i agree. >> you know what i'm -- oh, we should take another question, i suppose. i'm thinking about a very heroic decision you made on "the des moines register". >> huh. >> why don't you tell about that. >> oh, no, that would take very much. it was a decision made by a woman in iowa who was raped, and the woman wanted to tell her story. and it really was brave. but i think we do carve out

new -- >> no, but your bravery was in deciding you would not reveal her name, correct? >> no. no, she wanted to tell her story and have her name in the paper, and that was what was courageous because nobody's name ever was in the paper. that's another program. >> oh, sorry. >> i'm a very avid npr listener, but i guess that doesn't make me special in this crowd. [laughter] >> no, but beloved. [laughter] >> one of my questions was related to wikileaks, but i don't want to beat the dead horse again. the second question has to do with the impartiality of npr, the nprness that we talked about. what i have personally noticed that npr seems to maintain that track record very well when it comes to domestic news. i mean, people can accuse it of leaning toward left slightly, but on the whole you see very impartial, very accurate reporting from both sides of the aisle. but when it comes to international news, sometimes it feels as if the npr is tagging

along the u.s. foreign policy line. it doesn't report on incidents from, let's say it doesn't report the other opinion, opinion from the other side from, let's say, the states which may be considered hostile to united states. so would you like to, like, comment on that, the, that the -- in the name of impartiality, shouldn't npr be making more effort to grab the fuse from -- >> well, you're hearing an absence of a full picture then, yes, we should certainly do everything that we can to, to flesh out a story. but i'm not exactly clear on what it is you are hearing. you know, we have correspondents at the state department, and their job is to report on what american foreign policy is. and we have corps 1307b9s -- correspondents in foreign countries, and part of their job is to report ramifications for an event in that, in that nation

for us back here at home as well as reporting what the government of the place where they are stationed has to say about it. so i feel as if picture's pretty complete. i can't defend this, i'm not on the foreign desk, nor am i the editor, a pulitzer prize winner, by the way. but do you want to be specific? or can you be? >> [inaudible] for example, one of the issues that i personally have felt, the israeli/palestinian issue. >> yeah. >> it gets muddled a lot. in order for me to find proper news, i had to delve into other resources to get the palestinian opinion properly. >> you are huh. >> npr, i feel as if it's -- >> yeah. we could talk about this for the 40 years in which we've been covering middle east affairs.

all i can do is quote to you from thomas friedman who said his experience in the middle east was whichever side you talked to said to you you report it my way, or you die. i mean, that's how hard it is really. i don't mean to be glib about this, but that's how difficult it is to report that story and please everybody who's listening to you or reading you. it's just, it's just really, really hard to do. you make your darnedest effort to do it. >> [inaudible] >> i see a hand up there. >> [inaudible] >> and there's one there. okay. i saw -- well, right there. right there, i guess. i saw a hand right in the middle. okay, right there. >> along the same line i also am an avid fan. sometimes i feel like i just have to move over to democracy now and hear amy goodman and hear a different version, a little more depth, a little more

raw, a little more gritty. and i have a feeling that there are an increasing number of sort of little cute, personal comments often made by not so much the reporters, but the hosts of stories -- i don't know how quite to identify them. so i need a little more grit back into npr because i do count on it as my main news source. >> [inaudible] >> i'll convey that home. [laughter] send grit. >> we have a variety of news sources we were talking about earlier, yeah. you know, next. and we had one over here. >> hi. thank you for this conversation, it's wonderful, and congratulations on 40 years. um, 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 define journalism. it was a topic this week of the public editors' column in "the new york times" about what becomes record and how that record is edited. "the new york times" used to in it print edition have the definitive record. excuse me. but now, you know, it continually revises its stories. and i'm wondering in this, in this blogosphere and even with npr taking on other vendors of news other than itself, pri and all these other vendors, how the editorial process and how the layers of -- the filtering layers will evolve in this new world both online and in the mobile world, but through all of it. how do you, how do you examine the vendor, how do you edit the content? >> i don't know what you mean by the vendor. we're not taking news from other people. we're not taking news from other

news organizations. we do some or we did from the bbc or other very distinguished news organizations, but we're not buying stories from other news organizations. we will use freelance reporters, and then we edit them ourselves. we wouldn't put anybody else's edited material within the context of our news broadcast. does this get at what you're asking? but on all those other platforms this is the daily challenge now, is to convey what those, sorry, geneva, hierarchical standards that we've established in these years as to these are the elements and these are the steps through which you have to go in order to get on the air or to get published or to get an npr story out. and that needs to be shared with the people who write our blog and the people who write columns for us and others, the

nonbroadcast elements that we're working to expand and explore, and that's hard. and it's -- we sort of hard core people there from the very beginning are very concerned about that preectly. >> thank you. >> is there time for another? okay. we had a gentleman -- two more, okay. we had a gentleman who raised his hand just now. yeah, thanks. >> thank you. it's been very enjoyable, very informative. i want to understand where npr's heading because looking backwards to another time when, let's say, the vietnam war where i can relate to we looked for a point of view, for hope, for inspiration, for a way out of controversy. what i see now is a middle of the road, a sterile, not a point of view, but a competition

trying to be like everyone else. is there a possibility that npr can have more editorializing or take a point of view, let's say, against the wars -- >> that's not our business. >> it's not your business. >> to take stance for or against. >> okay. is npr afraid of upsetting the government? [laughter] >> one of our jobs should be to upset the government every day. >> okay. >> i mean, that -- >> because you look at the british -- >> to empower the powerless, you know? >> yeah. >> i mean, that's one of the bask jobs of journalism, to give voice to the voiceless and to make trouble. >> because the british do a good job. they're not afraid of criticizing government, of getting, you know, some point of view out that counters and maybe changes the government's understanding and their policy. i think we need a strong

position -- >> well, you get that on editorial pages. >> yes. >> you get it from commentaries on our air, but you wouldn't get it from are the basic news organization. you shouldn't. our job is to give you the information as to what's happened today in the most factual, clear, objective -- if you can -- but at least fair manner possible. >> one more. sorry, guys. i'd seen somebody -- who was the person that was in the corner before? okay, over there. okay, thanks. >> what a wonderful way to spend a tuesday evening. thank you so much. [applause] it seems to me that in this discussion of transparency, nprness and npr wither goest -- [laughter] >> yeah. >> -- the name juan williams really can't be avoided, and at

the risk of being unpleasant, and i don't mean to -- >> don't be silly. >> put it on the list. >> i'm sure i and many others would appreciate if you commented on it. >> i'll do what i can. darn, i was hoping i'd get away this evening with two things not being raised, one, a request for my mother-in-law's cranberry relish -- [laughter] and, two, the question about juan. but i'm glad to talk about it really. he put in years of good service with us. but it gets, really it's been the theme, one of the threads we've been dealing with all night, and it's the difference between commentary, that is, the expression of personal opinion and analysis which is the slicing and dicing of a subject to talk about its implications and its meaning. juan was hired for us as an analyst in the tradition of daniel shore.

a dan yell shore would -- a daniel shore would never have gone to any news organization, fox, cbs, whatever in a round table format of so-called pundits and expressed his opinion. he would not have done that. he knew he was a news man. and that his job with us was analysis. and could not stand in both worlds at the same time. juan is, was and is perfectly free to express his opinion on those programs for fox, and fox is not the issue there. it's really the job description that's the issue. but to have it both ways, it's a credibility business. then if he's over on this program waving the flag for palestine, how do you trust his analysis of the middle east the next today on national public radio? really, it's that simple. >> i wish i felt it were that

simple, and i greatly admire susan. but i just, i think this is going to be one of the great struggles for news organizations moving forward. in this era when acrimonious expression of opinion is so common, i mean, npr is either going to have to say that you can be a -- well, first of all, i do not think that the line between analysis and commentary is that clear and perceptible to most listeners. i do know that daniel shore didn't cross it, i agree. but most analysts express some opinion when they're making a comment, and i think that if npr really believes that this is going to be a workable thing, then it's going to have no commentators who ever say anything anywhere else, or it's going to have no analysts who are not heard. to me it was not workable from the beginning to have juan williams who's kind of a provocateur and, you know, to say you can't say this over on fox and say it on npr -- >> well, that's just what i'm saying. it was not workable. it was not a situation we should

have permed for as long -- >> ever. okay, then i can buy that, but does that mean you'll never have any analyst who would never say anything somewhat provocative? i guess my main point is i think this is going to be a real struggle for media moving forward and for npr that really built its reputation on this kind of -- >> the last thing that i heard, geneva, and i find it troubling is that our days of in-house analysts are over. and in some awful and ironic way, i guess they died with dan. >> well, then, yeah. that may well be true. >> yeah. >> i think it's a very difficult challenge, and it will be for all media that have really kind of said, you know, there's a clear line between the news and opinion. >> so the way we will do it is to have e.j. deyoung, you know, we'll get outside people coming many and doing that analysis -- >> but what if e.j. goes somewhere else and says something -- >> but, i mean, he's not on our

staff. it gets a little fly speck-y but that's right, he's not on our staff. he comes in the once a week. >> actually to get back to the question, there is this lots of confusion sometimes because what's news and what's punditry because we do have these shows that have really just blossomed, i mean, 10, 15 years, one of which he was on. what's going to happen there? i mean, because in part the the climate, it was the show, the type of show that he was on. it was a provocative environment to start with, so is that finish. >> your talking about the fox -- you're talking about the fox show? >> exactly. >> that's very much a discussion that's going on at fox right now because we have a number of reporters who also show up on such programs, other people's programs. and whether -- i don't know how it will turn out, whether lines are being drawn for them, whether they're going to be told you can't do it, you know, you make your choice. i don't know that. my view is that that is what

should happen. they should be told you're either ours or theirs. you can't do both. >> does that answer the question? okay. is that it? okay. all right. [applause] ..