Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  April 16, 2011 9:00pm-10:00pm EDT

9:00 pm
last two years, but you know it is really an overview of her life in politics and since then of course. >> so with all of the books that have come out about her since zero wait what you think is going to be knew that we haven't heard before? >> yeah i think that our book or by book has a chapter on her faith that i is i think unique among the other books, specially i think what is significant is this is really the closest that somebody coming from a pentecostal background sort of the wing of christianity has come to this kind of high office and they think there are ramifications that are very interesting that i explore in the book. >> did she assist in the book or did she participate? >> no, no it is independent. >> thank you very much. ..
9:01 pm
>> like the introduction said, i was an extremely unlikely foreign correspondent. shortly after 9/11 we needed more reporters to go overseas, so i walked into my foreign editor's office, and i said, hi. my name is kim barker. i have no children, and i'm single. therefore, i'm expendable. [laughter] you can send me wherever you want. [laughter] he then held up an enve elope, and he said, we know who you are. get ready to go to pakistan. and, sure enough, my name was actually on the back of the envelope. so i got ready to go.
9:02 pm
on my first trip to pakistan, i made the mistake of ordering sushi from room service. i, um, i -- [laughter] i thought it was a really good idea to go running off to the madras saw where john walker lend, the american taliban, was from. and my editors were just saying, no, no, no, slow down, slow down. so they sent me to afghanistan instead where i, i forgot my money and started off by asking somebody where the nearest cash station was. the then that i learned that there was no cash station in a war zone. that left me at the mustafa hotel. does anyone here know what that is? all right. there are some afghanphiles here. it's one of the first hotels to open in kabul, and it was basically a series of rooms separated by windows where you could hear everybody inside, you know, the next room, and everybody got, basically, a bike
9:03 pm
lock that you put on your door, and the price was about $50 a night, and you could hear every conversation that everybody was having. so i went to the guy at the front desk, his name was weiss. and i said, weiss, we've got a problem. he said, what's your problem? i said, actually, i have no money, so i guess it's your problem. at which point he opened up his drawer, he was a new jersey-born afghan, and he said how much money do you need? and i said, $400. and he just peeled it off and handed it to me and said, i know you're good for it. which basically gave me two lessons about afghanistan. the first was the hospitality and incredible generosity of afghans, and the second was the large rolls of $100 bills. eventually, i was assigned as the south asia bureau chief for the chicago tribune. it was an assignment i took with excitement, and i figured i would stay there two years,
9:04 pm
three years at most. but i fell in love with these places, and i grew to care about everybody i worked with from the translator who, basically, guided me through everything in afghanistan so my driver in pakistan who would follow me around and pick up my passports when, you know, i had several of them, when they fell out of my bag. and he would just, you know, he's always like, you're leaving money in the car, you're going to be taken advantage of. but he always had my back. as the years went by i became more and more dispitted with the direction that -- disspiritted that i saw these countries taking, with the lack of attention in what was happening. and i really felt almost heart broken. and at the same time where it seemed like there was finally renewed attention on the region when president obama in his run for office, basically, said that, you know, afghanistan and
9:05 pm
pakistan is where it's at, not iraq. and just at that time when it became really an important story, the crisis in american newspapers finally hit the bankrupt chicago tribune, and i lost my job. how addicted was i in march of 2009 when they told me to come home to chicago and be a metro correspondent? a perfectly decent job? i was so addicted, that i decided it was a better idea to quit my job and stay in if afghanistan unemployed. i would figure it out, i said. and so i quit, and i stayed there. and thank god the council on foreign relations actually ended up giving me a fellowship in new york, because it finally got me out, and i was able to write this book in which i try to use dark humor to pull you through it and the whole idea of a very new person going over there so readers might actually be able to follow what happened. and, yeah, and that's the book.
9:06 pm
and now i'm a reporter, an investigative reporter at propublica, so i do have a serious side, but i figured i would read a couple things from the book this evening and then open it up to questions. and you can ask me whatever you want, except i'm not going to do that dance. i should say that the book is divided into two sections. the first section is afghanistan, and it's called "kabul high." for obvious reasons of anybody who's been there. [laughter] and the second section is called whackistan. now, it's called it for several reasons not just because it is wacky in pakistan, but also because i kind of feel we've pelt a gigantic game of whack-a-mole where we hit the insurgents, and they pop out in another place. so that's what that section is about. er single chapter is -- every single chapter is named for a song in my ipod. that's another part of the
9:07 pm
taliban shuffle, not just going back and forth across the border. this chapter is called the deadbeat club, and i am with farooq. as soon as i landed in kabul, farooq and i drove to the defense ministry. farooq parked the car, we started walking. i had always regarded this long path leading past half-heartedly practicing afghanistan soldiers as my own personal march towards sexual harassment. i thought happy thoughts. farooq talked our way past the first checkpoint, but then we reached the second checkpoint. keep going, farooq muttered. i kept walking staring straight ahead, but it was no use. the women had spotted me. one lifted up the lacy curtain over the door in the concrete guard hut. she started yelling. i kept walking. finally, i was stopped by a man
9:08 pm
with a gun and sent back with the women. one took my purse and opened up every single zipper pilling out every lipstick and crumple led bill. another took me. i held my arms out to the sides and grimaced. she ran her hands under my armpits, grabbed my breasts, squeezed. nice, she said. [laughter] just give me one example of an american woman who would blow herself up, i said to her. just one. doesn't happen. we could never commit that much to anything. [laughter] in response she smiled, grabbed my butt and ran her hands up my inner thighs all the way to my crotch. she was barely as tall as my rib change. then -- rib cage. then, she pinched my cheek, announced, "very pretty," and patted me on the back. i walked out feeling dirty. for years whenever people asked how foreign women were treated in afghanistan, i always said better than in pakistan. we were rarely felt up in
9:09 pm
public, and we had an easier time that the male reporters. we could interview women who would never reveal their secrets to a man, and we got bizarre access to the men, even the conservative mullahs who seemed secretly charmed by the idea of western women running around. we were the third sex, immune to the local rules for women and entitle today a more exclusive status than western men. but the checkpoints were bad. we were felt up roughly and searched far more than our male counterparts -- by women, no less, who tried to take my lipstick and held up tampons in a threatening manner. it was a problem in be pakistan and india as well. it was as if women hired for these jobs were told they were being hired because women had different parts than men, so they figured their primary duty was to search only the female parts. at every checkpoint for every foreign woman, it was the same. walk inside some darkroom with several women drinking tea,
9:10 pm
assume the position. arms out to the sides, legs spread. grit your teeth through the groping. often a security check consisted of a breast squeeze, a crotch grab and a slab on the back. sometimes male guards would come watch the show. meanwhile, afghan men like farooq were barely touched. the presidential palace where the women had shoved me up against the wall once good goody becoming alarmed because i had neglected to wear a bra, and the defense ministry which featured five checkpoints, two with very assertive women. so on this day farooq and i pushed on to the third and fourth checkpoints. both men, both easy. then i faced the last and worst checkpoint inside the ministry headquarters. a shriveled woman with bright orange hair waved me inside. she grabbed, pulled, yanked, squeezed, searched. i turned to go, but not fast
9:11 pm
enough. she pointed her cheek and puckered her lips. she wasn't letting me leave until i kissed her. good, she said. she patted my cheek. thing finally, we made it to the office of a defense ministry official who was nicknamed the silver fox for his hair and manners. he stood up, laughing and raising his hands when he saw us. he pointed to one cheek. i kissed it. this was not afghan protocol, and most places an unrelated woman kissing a man on the cheek was akin to having sex. but it had always been silver fox protocol. he point today the other cheek, then the first one. three, he announced. i couldn't seem to go anywhere today with kissing half a dozen afghans. that's it for that particular excerpt. [laughter] [applause] i'm going to read one more excerpt, and then i'll open it up to questions. and if you guys have no questions, then you're going to
9:12 pm
be forced to hear me read yet another excerpt, so i hope you're thinking of a question now. this chapter involves the first time i met the former prime minister of pakistan al-sharif. and so this is right after benazir bhutto had been killed in a suicide bombing, and it's january of 2008. i needed to meet the lion of punjab or maybe the tiger. no one seemed to know which feline al-sharif was nicknamed after. some fans rode around with stuffed toy lions strapped to their cars, others talked about the tiger of punjab. by default he had become the most popular opposition leader in the country. he was already the most popular politician in punjab which was the most powerful of pakistan's four provinces home to most of the army leaders and past rulers. some people described sharif as the homer simpson of pakistan. others considered him a right-wing wingnut.
9:13 pm
still others figured he could save the country. i called everyone i knew to try to get an interview. you only get 15 minutes with him, shaf sharif's press aide finally told me, maybe 20 at most. i flew in on a friday morning, and we drove for an hour towards sharif's palatial grounds. the place might have well been called la la land given the fact that his name and picture were on everything from the hospital to giant billboards. everywhere i looked, sharif, amiable, slightly pudgy topped with hair plugs stared at me like the cheshire cat. guards checked me at the gate searching my bag me tick rousely -- meticulously. several football fields of manicured grass and wild animals in cages leading up to a miniature palace that looked slightly like a wedding cake
9:14 pm
with different layers. the driveway was big enough for a limousine to execute a u-turn. i was told to wait. the inside of the house appeared to be designed by saudi arabia, a hodgepodge of chris call chandeliers, silk curtains, gold accents, marble. a verse of the holy koran hung on the walls of sharif's receiving room along with photographs of sharif with king abdullah and former remember -- lebanese prime minister. kim, sharif's media handler said, gesturing toward the ground, come. i hopped up and walked toward the living room past two raggedy stuffed lions with rose petals at their feet. so maybe sharif was the lion of punjab. inside the room sharif stood up wearing a ca meese, a navy vest and a natty scarf. he shook my hand and offered me a seat. the sitting room was a study in pink, rose and gold with golden
9:15 pm
curly cues on various sliding fixtures and couches and crystal vases everywhere. many of the knickknacks were gifts from world leaders. his press aide tapped his watch, looked at me and raised his eyebrows. i got the message and proceeded as fast as i could. but it soon became clear this would be unlike any interview i had ever done. you're the only senior opposition leader left in pakistan. how are you going to stay safe while campaigning? in pakistan campaigns are not run through tv and pressing the flesh was a requirement. holding rallieses of tens and hundreds of thousands of people. even though sharif was not personally running, his appearance would help win voters. sharif looked at me, sighed and shook his head. i don't know. it's a good question. what do you think, kim? [laughter] i don't know, i'm not the former prime minister of pakistan. [laughter] so what will you do?
9:16 pm
really, i don't know. what do you think? this put me in an awkward position, giving security advice to sharif. well, it's got to be really difficult. you have these elections coming up, you can't just sit here at home. what should i do? he asked. i can't run a campaign sitting in my house on the television. i had to find a way to turn this back on him. it's interesting, i said. you keep asking me questions about what i think, and it seems like you do that a lot, ask other people questions. it seems like you're also willing to change your mind if circumstances change. i do take people's advice, he said. i believe in consultation. after 20 minutes sharif's aide started twitching. i fired off my questions about musharraf, the man sharif had named army chief only to be overthrown by him. i do not actually want to shay much about musharraf. he must step down and allow democracy. he is so impulsive, so erratic. come on, you named this man army
9:17 pm
chief, then tried to fire him, then he overthrew you and he sent you into exile? and now your back. what do you think about him? sharif nodded and tried to duck the question. appointing mr. musharraf as chief of army staff, that's my biggest mistake. i stood up, sharif's aide was already standing. i should probably be going, i said. thanks very much for your time. yes, our schedule is very busy, sharif's handler agreed. it's all right, sharif said. she can ask a few more questions. i sat down. i had went through most of my important questions, so i recycled them. i asked him whether he was a fundamentalist. he dismissed the idea pointing to his friendship with the clintons. i tried to leave again. [laughter] fearing i was overstaying my welcome, but sharif said i could ask more questions. one more, i said, wary of sharif's aide. then i asked the question that was really on my mind. which are you, the lion or the tiger?
9:18 pm
[laughter] sharif didn't even blink. i am the tiger, he said. but why do some people call you the lion? i do not know, i am the tiger. [laughter] but why do you have two stuffed lions? they were a gift. i like them. [applause] with that, i'm going to open it up to questions, so unless you want to hear me read and overact more, you're going to have to ask some questions. [laughter] i'd ask you to wait for the microphone to get to you so that people here get a chance to hear the question as well and i don't have to repeat it. there's one in the corner all the way over there. >> hi, can you hear me? >> >> no, i think the microphone, is it on?
9:19 pm
can you -- >> [inaudible] >> really? can you not hear me? >> no. >> you couldn't hear me at all? >> like this? like that? does that help? >> well, yes. >> well, you know, somebody could have said something beforehand. [laughter] okay. >> [inaudible] >> i'll repeat the question as well. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> [inaudible] when you weren't wearing a bra, can you tell us a little about what clothing did and did not work for you? >> bras worked. yeah, i learned that that particular time. i mean, i always, i always dress very conservatively in afghanistan and pakistan. i would wear long-sleeved clothes and always would wear shirts that covered me and wear baggy panels and try to be at least when i was going to meet people in public. and there was the one time where farooq actually had me wear a
9:20 pm
bier ca on a trip to kandahar, and he was really embarrassed and ashamed to ask me to wear it because he was so proud when -- he was a pashtun, and he was so proud when his mother and his sisters got to take off their birkas after the taliban left. so to have to ask me to wear one was a tough thing for him. but it was june of 2006, and we were driving to kandahar. and the situation was bad. so i said, fine, farooq. pick me up a birka. and he throws one at me, and i put it on. and the back of it -- those of you who know afghanistan is know how wrong this is -- the front of it hit me about here, and the back of it hit me back here. so, in other words, i was basically walking around wearing the equivalent of a miniskirt in kandahar. and every elder i met with said it's really great you're trying to observe our culture, but it's very short. [laughter] is that the style in kabul now?
9:21 pm
[laughter] so, i mean, i would just try to wear what made people comfortable. you know, we went to parties in kabul, i'm not going to pretend like i was wearing those outfits. i would wear them over what i would wear there, but then i would wear normal western clothes inside parties. all right, next question. yes, you in the pack. wait for the microphone -- you in the back. wait for the microphone. >> yeah, i'm just, i'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about the way "the chicago tribune" and so many news organizations are shutting down bureaus and the total meltdown that's going on now and what you think is happening. >> i told you so. no, seriously, i do have a part of that feeling. i mean, i feel like it's very important, foreign news is very important and having a lot of different voices cover foreign news is very important. the advantage i had with "the chicago tribune" is we were not "the new york times" or even the washington post or "the the l.a.
9:22 pm
times." we were a second-tier, third-tier newspaper that didn't care if i did every single story that came up which meant that i could do important stories, and i could take time to do stories that actually really mattered which meant that i had deferent cover -- different coverage just like "the boston globe". and now that you've got many fewer voices, you just get the same stories coming out. and i think you saw that with what happened in the mideast and even japan. everybody was really scrambling to see what was going on, my god, the muslim brotherhood, they're going to kill us all. and is lots of people who just didn't know what was happening on the ground. and that's important. >> [inaudible] >> one second. okay. >> you write in the book that there was really no green zone. >> yeah. >> and it doesn't appear that you had any real protection other than your guide, farooq. >> yeah. >> um, was there any sort of in
9:23 pm
the back of your mind among you and your fellow journalists like what happened to daniel pearl and, you know? every day you went out -- >> yep. >> you know, did you ever wake up and think, you know what? i shouldn't go out today? >> no. if you thought that, you would never be the person that went over to pakistan and afghanistan because you wouldn't be able to leave your hotel. but like i always said to my parents, bad things can happen in chicago, and they can happen in new york. and i think it's all about taking necessary precautions and, and trusting that things will work out. you know, i trusted farooq. i never would have gone off to meet people by myself, and i was more of a chicken than a lot of reporters over there. so i was safe while i was still able to cover the news. but definitely anytime anything happens to a journalist over there, we all communicate back and forth, and we're all checking in to see what's happening. it effects the entire community.
9:24 pm
there's a question here, and then we can go back over there. one second. >> i wondered if you could say a few words about being a female journalist in a conflict, postconflict environment. you know there are things that have happened in egypt, but in other things too. >> sure. >> did you have to take special precautions, and how did you deal with those difficult situations? >> a friend and i decided that we wanted to invent something, you know, that we could sort of put bebeneath our ca meese. never quite got around us, how it would shock the person pinching us and not ourselves. yeah, it was a constant problem. when you were in a crowd as a woman, you would be grabbed, and as a lot of people know who read "the new york times" op op-ed, i just started punching people. i got angry.
9:25 pm
and that's something that happens to women that doesn't fessly happen to all men -- necessarily happen to all men. my friend bob who's a photographer said, no, kim, it happens to us, too, we just don't talk about it like you women. so who knows if that's the case. i mean, i think the good thing about being a female correspondent in those maces is the idea that we were the third sex which meant i got to talk to afghan women about all the things that happened to them, and they felt much more comfortable sharing their stories with me than they necessarily would with a western man. and then we, also, i think, i can't remember the last male journalist that karzai talked to, but i think if you count up the men versus the women, it's going to be a much longer list for the female journalists. hey, you use what you've got as a journalist, right? the men go for drinks, whatever. everybody uses what they have. and as long as you get the interview and you're professional about it, if somebody wants to see you just because you're a crazy woman
9:26 pm
running around the countryside, i'm kind of fine with that. but i think that it's very important to go back to your original question that there are female correspondents over there, and i don't know if you guys read the story that the four new york times journalists recently did about what happened to them in libya, but if you haven't, go check it out. i think it's one of the best things written on the ground there especially since they got taken by folks that were allegedly in charge, and lindsay was very brave in that story. anyone else? i know there's a woman back in the back with a question. can you hear me now? am i doing better? okay. yes. >> so what are you going to do at pro bubbly ca? >> well, if i told you, i'd have to kill you. [laughter] >> propublica is a nonprofit for those of you not familiar that does, specifically, investigative reporting and long-term reporting, and we're based online, but we partner up with mainstream organizations to run the stories.
9:27 pm
and i'm working on domestic stories now, actually, and a couple of them should be running in the next couple weeks. but we can't talk about what we work on because then, obviously, you'd know what we were working on. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> not now. i mean, i made a decision for a specific reason to come back and to stay in the states. last may as i was coming to the end of my fellowship at the council on foreign relations, i had two job offers. one was from a news agency to run its bureau in kabul -- it was a great job, paid a lot of money -- and then was a job at propublica. and for me it was a much scarier decision to take the one nestically, to do -- domestically, to do something completely different. but i think for my sanity, my family and to get some balance in my life, i had to step off that train. there's some people that can do it forever, and i respect the hell out of them. i'm one of them. if you read this book, say you read this book, i become very
9:28 pm
unlikable at a certain point. [laughter] i mean, very unlikable. i did that deliberately. i was punching people, i was dismissive, i was drinking too much. those of you who met me when i first came back to afghanistan and pakistan who are in the room know that i couldn't sit still at night. it was almost like i was a junkie coming off something, and now that i'm better, the last thing i want to think about is going back, although it's, obviously, very exciting what's happening over there now. next question. >> what's very exciting that's happening over -- [laughter] >> you didn't wait -- >> what's very exciting that's happening over there now? >> nothing in afghanistan and pakistan. that place has fallen off the radar. we only have so much space in our international heads to wrap them around, so right now it's all about the middle east, it's about what's happening in libya, yemen in terms of these revolutions happening very democratically-motivated and what's happening in libya with, you know, this decision by nato
9:29 pm
to go in and the decision for there to be a no-fly zone and what that entails and, essentially, opening up a third front for the u.s. military there. so that's, obviously, a major story. and then there's japan, you know? a very major story at the same time. so there's a lot going on in international news right now. a friend of mine from "the chicago tribune" sent me an e-mail, and he said, you'd be so happy. for the first time since you left, there are two foreign news stories on the front page. [laughter] and i said, that kind of makes me sad. but, yes, i'm happy. >> kim, did you, did you feel the need to change the identities of anyone that you wrote about to protect them for any reason in the book? >> yes. yes, most definitely. because i didn't want to get anybody in trouble. there's a deliberate reason i do not write about any afghan women in the book because it seems to me a lot of times when you write about afghan women, it comes back to bite them in the rear, so to speak. i know we're on c-span, so i don't want to swear.
9:30 pm
and i had an instance where an afghan woman ended up having to take shelter with me in india. i put her up for a couple months. she's now in a really bad situation. and, um, a lot of that happened because of this book that was written. so i wanted to be very sure that everybody i wrote about was either, a, comfortable with it or, b, protected, or, c sharif who is a public figure. man, you've got to own it if you're a public figure. sa mad, my driver in pakistan, his name has been changed because he's still there, and i want to make sure he's protected. a couple of my ex-boyfriends, i changed their name because i thought it was fair. they didn't sign on when they dated me to be in a book. one of my exes -- actually two of them -- were totally fine with it.
9:31 pm
the others are journalists, and then this is the case of farooq. i don't know if -- does anybody in the room know farooq? >> yeah. >> i had farooq's name changed. you know, i did not want to name farooq, and i actually let him read the entire book, and he's now studying in a western country. and he just said, no, kim, i am farooq. [laughter] you're going to name me. so, you know, i said, fair enough, farooq, you know? and i did. yes. one of you. >> [inaudible] >> oh, come on. really? [laughter] journalists, c-span. i mean, i don't think -- my answer is really important. the u.s. is getting out of afghanistan, right? and then we'll see what happens. do i think that there's a way to go forward in the region that
9:32 pm
would provide more stability than the path we're on now? yes. but i think that the situation is getting so dire that i don't know if switching our path at this point will gain anything. i have to, i have to think that it would because i've got a lot of very good friends who i still care about very much over in pakistan and afghanistan. >> you admit to a certain, on your part, obliviousness at the beginning to the sort of sensitivities and culture particularly with your guide. you know, how sort of prevalent was that among your fellow journalists about the sort of typical american arrogance? and how did the afghans, did they let you know right away that, hey, you know, this is not proper? >> afghans are not quiet seethers. [laughter] i mean, they'll tell you, yes, but they'll let you know through actions when whether they do
9:33 pm
something how they really feel about it. and the truth always outs. i mean, was everybody like me when they went over there? probably not. everybody's an individual. but i think a lot of journalists just want the story, and they go in there, and they might offend certain sensibilities. i've certainly seen it time and time again. and i wanted to write a book where i didn't seem like i knew everything, where i was honest about the fact that i didn't want. so that people could really come on this journey with what it was like to be a new person there and how it was to find everything out for, you know, one's self. i've read those books by foreign correspondents where they know everything, and i'm always kind of bored. no offense to people who have written those books. [laughter] they probably do. >> i'm sure you're familiar with greg mortenson s and i was wondering if you had ever met him over there, and with what you said about the insurgents popping up, you know, you put
9:34 pm
'em down and they pop up another place, do you still believe -- if you ever did -- that his mission is accomplishing seeing the front lines in afghanistan and all those schools? i don't know, for the girls? >> wow. on tv. [laughter] greg more -- mortenson, i never met him in pakistan or afghanistan. i have huge respect for him and his mission. you'd think i would have met him because he's also from montana, but, no, we've never run across each other. anytime you can make a small difference in anyone's life, it's an amazing thing. so if you can start a school that gives children in a village back to school, what a great accomplishment to have. is that a way forward to solve all the problems in the region? no. you can't three cups of tea your way out of that. you just can't. and i think even he would admit that. there need to be more. all right, more questions.
9:35 pm
>> if u.s. does get out of afghanistan, can we forget about it again? >> again, that's not necessarily the question, can we forget about it again. the question is, will we forget about it again? um, i think that i would like to say that i would hope that we didn't forget about afghanistan again, and i think that it would come to bite us if we did just sort of let it fall off the, you know, map like it did after the soviets first left. and i think we, really, 9/11 and a lot of what happened in the last, since 1989 and the soviets left afghanistan can be traced back to the tact that we just abandoned -- fact that we just abandoned the place. and i do think there are people in the american government and, you know, europe who believe that that's a bad idea. i just don't know that they'll win, you know, considering everything that's happening right now. >> um, chicago tribune lost its resources for international, and
9:36 pm
you got brought back. i know you got this gig at propublica, but how are you feeling about the future of in-depth story coverage? >> feel very good about the future of in many-depth story coverage at propublica, and that's one of -- [laughter] seriously. it's one of the gaps that we're very much trying to fill. and there are other places trying to do the same thing. in terms of how i feel on the it at mainstream newspapers, some of the places with lots of resources, it's very difficult to do these long-term stories that are very important. you know? it's, it's really sad to me looking to see what's happened to newspapers that i grew up with which i will not name. what's happened to their coverage and what's happened to the fact that they just don't have investigative teams anymore, they don't have the same sort of respect for story telling and narrative stories that there used to be because there just aren't the bodies to cover the news and look for those stories that are not covered.
9:37 pm
>> excuse my ignorance, but what is the taliban shuffle? >> oh, man, i'm not going to do the dance. >> no, is it a dance? is it a -- what is it? >> i named it the taliban shuffle for several reasons. number one, i felt like that's what the journalists were doing a lot of the time, we were just shuffling back and forth between the border of afghanistan and pakistan. that's what the taliban were doing, going back and forth. that's what the western governments were doing, going back and forth. and then, also, it sort of worked with the fact that the one thing that would keep me sane in this a lot of places this was music. so i thought why not come up with a taliban shuffle? it starts off with the welcome to the terrordome and ends with "hotel california." [laughter] >> hi, kim. um, just wondering if you could talk a bit about -- i think you talk about this in your book, but the difference between
9:38 pm
reporting which has become a lot of the culture in the last few years and a lot of the reporting that you did and the difference you see in between that. >> between that and what? no, i get your question. no, no, no. >> [inaudible] >> with i get the question. the program for those of you not familiar with it, and i think pretty much everybody is at this point is it takes a journalist and puts them with a particular military unit, and you go out with the military unit, and you see things through their eyes. a lot of people hate the whole idea of embeds, and they've hated it since it started, really, in the iraq because they say it gives you unilateral reporting, you don't get the other side and on and on. i thought embeds were great as long as you saw how limited they were. they were one-sided reporting. but how else would you be able to get with the u.s. military and to see what they were thinking about what they were doing, to hear some of the
9:39 pm
things they've said? i mean, did anybody read the story today in "rolling stone" about the kill team? it's a story, if you haven't read it, you should read it. it's about this company that, basically, killed afghans, it seems, almost for sport. and went out with the intention to do that. you know, when you're with the u.s. military, you get a sense of what the culture is like. not that the culture is like that because most definitely that is an aberration. but you hear how guys talk to each other, and how the women talk to the guys. you see what it's like. and you see what their interaction is like with the afghans and how in so many ways limited it is. because you'll see translators that have been dropped in there you know are the wrong guys. you'll see taj jibs in the pashtun region. they'll say, yeah, i have no idea what that person just said, and they'll just sort of go with that. you know? and if that's the people you're relying on to explain what's
9:40 pm
happening, a problem. so i always viewed embed reporting as one part of the larger story. and it would also allow you to go to places that otherwise it just wasn't safe to go to, in the south most of the time. >> [inaudible] you talk a bit about your addiction to the living there. and i'm just curious about when your job was no longer available there how long between that time and when you left, and what did you imagine yourself doing that could keep you there? be and how did you finally decide, okay, it's time to go? [laughter] >> can anybody say ptsd? [laughter] i mean, i got the call in afghanistan in march of 2009 that it was time to come home, you know? we've decided to bring you back to be a metro reporter. again, a great job at the chicago transcribe pube that most people -- tribune that most people in journalism would say, of course you would take that
9:41 pm
job. and i quit, and that was the end of march, beginning of april. and i came back to the u.s., and i had some sort of vision that i was going to be this new sort of person that would write a book while i was over there, and i would also become a freelancer, and i'd just sort of stay there and live in kabul and make enough money to somehow i live, and it would be great, and i could still continue with this life sometime. -- lifestyle. two weeks later i was offered the knellship at the council on -- fellowship at the council on foreign relations, and i just thought to myself, okay, that gives you money. you can come and do the fellowship, but you'll still be able to go back and forth between there and afghanistan, and it's not like you're really leaving afghanistan. it was almost like i was bargaining with myself like, no, you're going to still be here, but you're just going to come back for the fellowship. once i got back here i realized how unrealistic it was to try to do a fellowship in both places, and i realized i was kind of messed up, and i needed to get
9:42 pm
out of that particular situation. and i think that comes through in the book, if anybody's read it, how i was kind of messed up. [laughter] >> so when you say, like, maintain your lifestyle in kabul -- [laughter] like, what does that mean? like, if did you have an apartment? did it have running water? what did you eat? is like, what kind of lifestyle did you want to maintain? >> well, earlier that year, actually, we had gotten power in kabul, so it was actually great, you know? the we actually had electricity without generators there. i mean, the lifestyle is like this. everybody works really, really hard. they go to work, they come back, they work six or seven days a week, and then they start hanging out and drinking and hanging out and going out to dinners, and like it's this -- you are an adolescent again. you are in college or kabul high, and that is what it's
9:43 pm
like. you go to maybe eight restaurants, but maybe it's the french restaurant, and it has a garden and a swimming pool. that's what we did. on thursday nights -- she might not have done it, but she knows the whole lifestyle. on thursday nights somebody would have a big party, and people would go to that big party. it's crazy, i mean, it's crazy how we lived over there. a friend of mine in the corner back there, i knew her from pakistan, and she referred to it as being frogs in boiling water. we had no idea we were boiling. we thought this was perfectly normal, and it was a perfectly normal way to live. >> [inaudible] >> showers. okay, sometimes you would have running water. um, but if generator was running, you oftentimes didn't have running water. sometimes the water would not be hotment so -- hot. so there were the occasions where you would have to boil water and sit in a tub with a little sort of pail and go like this. i've got to tell you, in the
9:44 pm
winter hygiene wasn't good, you know? you'd just sort of shower what you needed to shower. and when you were out on an embed, it was baby wipes. if that. you know, i was the idiot who decided that it was a good idea to bring only contact lenses to helmand. [laughter] in june. when anybody who knows anything about helmand knows that's when the winds come in. so it's, basically, like i'm trying to put these contact lenseses in, and it's like rubbing my eyeballs with sandpaper. she hates the fact that she hates that restaurant. he wants to get up here now. i liked it. >> [inaudible] >> the food wasn't great. [laughter] okay. any other questions? >> with you, you mentioned that you came up with the idea to write the book before the cfr fellowship. >> yes. >> what inspired you to write the book? >> well, it was something, actually, we had talked about, the correspondents had talked
9:45 pm
about in kabul about how crazy the life was and that somebody really should write an absurd book about what it was like to live there. and i just sort of felt like if i expanded it a bit, if i did both pakistan and afghanistan and tried to tell it in the same manner and wrote it in a darkly comic way that's occasionally, hopefully, very sad because it most definitely wasn't laugh riot being over there, that it might get people to actually read about pakistan and afghanistan and start talking about it. so it was something that i'd always thought about doing, but as soon as my job came to an end, i knew that that was what i wanted to do. any more questions? okay. >> i think she might have been alluding to this earlier. what's the impact of you losing your job and of papers cutting back? what's the impact on our policies there, what's the
9:46 pm
impact on, you know, the unite knowing about what's going on over there? >> i think that we don't know what's going on over there. when you have only a few people covering it and that, basically, what controls the dialogue at that point is what's coming out of washington d.c. and what people say there is going on or what people are saying is going on in the embassies. but you don't necessarily have a lot of people out there on the ground actually covering the story. i mean, look at the tv coverage over will and how tv bureaus slash their staff over there. there's almost nobody covering things over there. thank god for al-jazeera english, to be honest. you know, and newspapers. "the new york times" does a great job, but they've got to cover every single thing that's happening, and i think that it's important to have other voices to get to the stories that not everybody gets at. the same thing propublica does, try to go after the different stories, you know, that would be a great thing if you could do that all the time. one of the stories i was working on before i lost my job was the
9:47 pm
kabul bank. and all this stuff that's been coming out, i'm like, man, i've known that for two and a half years, and i never got that story done. those are the sort of things you miss. anyone? what time is it? [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> oh, okay. i think that we're supposed to go until eight, right? >> i haven't read the book, but i intend to. >> one sold. selling one copy at a time. >> i do have a question. if you were given the question, would you describe yourself as the lion or the tiger? is. [laughter] >> that's a good one. you can't really improve on the line, i am the tiger, can you? [laughter] no, i'm the tiger. yeah. [laughter] thanks very much for coming here this evening. really appreciate it. [applause]
9:48 pm
>> kim barker is a reporter for propublica. for more, visit propublica.org and search her name. you can also follow ms. barker on twitter at kim underscore barker. >> well, with federal judge denny chin's rejection of the 2008 google book settlement, the future of a complete online library is in question. joining us now to discuss this issue is sarah weinman. she's the news editor of "publishers marketplace." ms. weinman, if you could begin by giving us a brief overview of what the google book settlement was, and who are the parties involved? >> sure. it arose from an original lawsuit that was filed by the association of american publishers and the authors' guild. they objected to the fact that, in their view, google was scanning primarily out-of-print and orphan works, those works whose copyright status was not
9:49 pm
entirely known, and they felt that this wholesale scanning was infringement, and they didn't like that. so they sued. as it made it way through the courts, however, the parties all decided to create what is known as the google book settlement, and what that would entail is coming up with some means of giving copyright holders some monetary value for their work. and what they elected to do was to create what's known as an opt-out process where if authors did not want their works to be scanned by google, they could write in and opt out, and those who did have their works scanned by google would get about $60 per work. as it made it way through the court, judge chin last heard about this approximately 14 months ago, and then he was confirmed to the second court of appeals after which nobody knew exactly what was going on with the set almost. and then when the news came in
9:50 pm
last week that he rejected it, that sort of created a wave of surprise among many parties and especially in the publishing community. >> what was judge chin's rationale? >> he, ultimately, believed that the settlement was not fair, adequate or reasonable. he felt that the numerous objections that were lodged by about 6,800 authors as well as 500 other parties were substantive enough to rule that the way that the settlement was created contravened current copyright law and that there was, perhaps, a better way to do it. so in his view, he thought that the majority of the objections could be nullified by instead of an opt-out process, using an opt-in process where copyright holders could say, no, i want to be part of the settlement instead of assuming that if, unless you opt out, that you're automatically in. he didn't like that, and he felt that this was not a good way of doing it. the other portion that i've
9:51 pm
addressed earlier related to orphan works. and he felt that the google book settlement could not adequately address this. and, instead, this was a matter that should be taken up by congress. >> so, sarah weinman, during this entire legal process, google has been scanning books into it system. what happens to those books? >> that's a very good question. and, in fact, because is the settlement has now been rejected, no one really knows what the next move will be. there is supposed to be a status meeting in court on april 25th at 4:30 at which time, i guess, the parties are going to state their claims as to why they should come up with a revised settlement. that's what the aap and the ag are both on record as saying. and google will have to figure out exactly what they want. there are multiple ways of looking at it. some commentators say that this actually hurts google because,
9:52 pm
you know, this puts their scanning ability in doubt. other commentators say that, no, this is, in fact, fine because in another separate program which is the creation of google e-books, google's already scanning works that are in the copyright with various permissions. you can go to google's e-book site online and download for a price any current e-book that's probably available for sale. you can even go to various independent retailers that are affiliated with the google e-bookstore and do it that way. they do it through what's known as a partner program where publishers and authors as well have opted in in order to make these books available for sale. so there's some rationale that by implementing and instituting this particular program that this is, perhaps, a model for what the google book settlement should be. the other thing this puts into limbo is that the settlement was supposed to create what's known as a google e-books right registry, and google publishers
9:53 pm
had spent, i think, roughly between 12 and 15 million already in terms of getting this up and running. how can you have a rights registry for a settlement that technically doesn't entirely exist? so it remains to be seen, will the aap and the ag relaunch their lawsuit? be will other parties litigate? will google want to continue the suit? i have a feeling we'll know a lot more on april 25th. >> now, what was google's reaction and the american association of publishers' reaction to judge chin's suggestion that they use an opt-in system? >> um, pote the aap -- both the aap and the ag were understandably disappointed that the settlement was not approved, but both parties seemed to express some optimism that they could find a way into the settlement. like, for example, mcmillan ceo john sargent who issued a statement on behalf of the aap essentially said they're prepared, that is the
9:54 pm
publisher-plaintiffs, to enter into a narrow settlement along the lines to take advantage of its ground breaking opportunities, and they hope other parties will do as well. and the president of the ag, he said along the lines of, you know, regardless of what the outcome of discussions are, readers want access to unavailable works, authors need every market they can get. there has to be a way to make some kind of settlement happen to make these works available. and so they hope that they can, in fact, arrive at a settlement. with respect to google, um, they were, as i said, kind of disappointed, um, but essentially said they hope to be able to continue their scanning work and make as many books available. so, essentially, i think it's disappointed but cautious optimism seems to be reigning the day. >> sarah weinman, what about google's competitors, amazon, microsoft, yahoo, etc.
9:55 pm
what was their reaction? >> um, to the best of my knowledge i think the reactions were mostly lodged within court documents. from what i understand, though, they were certainly pleased that the settlement was not approved because each of those parties, or certainly the majority of these parties did lodge objections with the court. amazon, for example, had essentially said that if you give google this unfair advantage, how is this good for copyright? and that was actually another big issue of judge chin which is that it's a good idea to have a digital library, to have these works scanned, but should google be the arbiter and the decision maker, the entity that decides how it's scanned, what is scanned, which books are, essentially, made available? and i think in judge chin's opinion he felt very uncomfortable that one entity, one corporation could have that much power and an unfair advantage over any either
9:56 pm
corporate entity or public entity. >> sarah weinman, recently in "the new york times"es robert daughterton, who's the director of the harvard university library, wrote that the decision is a victory for the public good, but insisted, quote, we should not abandon google's dream of making all the books in the world available to everyone. instead, we should build a digital public library which would provide these digital copies free of charge to readers. is there any viability to that? has anyone stepped up? >> it sounds like a wonderful idea. um, yeah, the only entity that's stepped up is google. and, unfortunately, it's especially with the current economic state of play the priority for a digital public library that wasn't already in progress, i suspect, is not the highest of priorities. i mean, already look at the money that's just been spent on the rights registry alone which may have to be abandoned in this a worst case scenario. but in a best case scenario,
9:57 pm
taken up, but who by? google, with the tremendous market cap that they have, were really one of the only corporations or entities, public or private, that had the clout and the muscle to be able to make this happen. so i think, ultimately, that was why a settlement was a good idea for the aap and the ag because they recognize there is value in the work that google did, and they wanted to at least get something off the ground and that could be built on and built on. will the library system be able to come together for a nonprofit entity when they're facing such massive cutbacks at a state and federal level? is i'm not entirely certain. so even though there's disappointment and there's cautious optimism about reviving the settlement, there's also understandable skepticism that this can happen. so some people are looking at it from, as a win/win. i'm looking at it as more of a
9:58 pm
neutral, potentially great loss, i suppose, if something doesn't move forward. >> does judge -- or will judge chin continue to have a role in this issue? >> from what i understand, he will not, especially now that he has moved on to the second circuit court of appeals. this was actually one of the last outstanding cases on his docket. the 14 months that it took seemed, at least in publishing circles, a little long. but in light of the complexities of the issues that were raised, it makes sense in hindsight. so then the issue becomes who will take this up? will it have to be litigated from scratch? will it be heard again? are there other court cases that may factor into how, what kind of potential outcome is reached at a later date? will this drag on for years? we just don't know at this point. as i said, i think a lot of things will become clearer at the status meeting on april 25th. >> and we look forward to
9:59 pm
talking to you after that meeting. finally, sarah weinman, do you see congress maying a role? -- playing a role? >> that's a very, very good question, peter. certainly, judge chin hopes that congress play a role. i'm not entirely certain that they will play a role since from a priority standpoint looking in the greater context of budget cuts and health care and various military activities going on whether the issue of orphan works or having a digital library is going to even rebel city or -- register on the current congress. they also, i think, traditionally haven't necessarily been the most willing listeners in terms of trying to change current copyright law to make it more accessible to everybody. so i think it remains to be seen what congress, in fact, will do. >> sarah weinman is the news editor for "publishers marketplace." we'll talk with her again a

125 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on