they carry the visions of their ships are involved in the citizens otherwise they will defer to the wishes of the ship owners to see universally backed off let us pay the ransom so you have the people in the ship don't want to get them in for fear of escalation. so there's a number of reasons. >> host: we are down to the last couple of minutes i'm afraid there's also difficulties you go in and arrest the pirates you can identify them, you can arrest them on short but if you brought them back to say the u.k., unless you had that evidence because they would be going to a civilian court you wouldn't be able to convict them and if you did convict them and said he wants to deport them there would be those who say yes but they can be executed if they go back home, in other words they are less likely ones in the u.k. to end of pain than public housing and on welfare. there's many more complexities. ..

>> if someone looks out their window and sees a prior written have them respond and impress them. in general what you need to do is start giving direct aid and assistance and were those and are located. >> make that day contented two sets up harbor patrol to work on the problem. >> the coast guard now is a big step and is a lot more

expensive. coastal caris since equipped with radar stations and high-frequency radio would be enough to tackle a lot. >> hit should be said that absolutely unequivocal eight against privacy although not effectively but made that clear that he opposes this to think it is bad. >> i mentioned in the book is more lucrative have then take game prior grants them. but it he says day coastal garrison there and equipped flatbed trucks with weapons. the pirates are gone so there is no longer piracy.

they move south. it is like a game of what double. just established more garrisons and make it very uncomfortable for them to launch into a mission. >> thank you for this interview. it is important for policy makers you deserve a lot of praise and courage. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon. would like to welcome you to the new america foundation which is a fascinating discussion of the current state of journalism. we have a team housed within the new american open technology initiative. for just under two years we have been considering changing media of the technological juan -- landscape filled out of texas's participation in a democracy. we use our backdrop for work as in a digital age

concluding individuals needed three things. relevant incredible information, education needed to engage that information, and also to debate in the public life of their community. how this happens in the 21st century is the biggest debate and the engagement of the sec to focus on the changing media landscape. before it was long in the making, 468 pages have received a lot of media attention and makes it very timely. sews specifically on a book the most significant contributions of journalism in the future comes from many perspectives. they have the same title. not particularly optimistic.

will last reporter turn off the lights? >> american in journalism is in the existential crisis. and it goes on to state it is impossible to conceive of effective governance not to mention individual freedoms and social justice and enlightened solutions. with that incredible system of journalism just about everything rides but these are the questions that formed the backdrop and it contains day wide range of scholars and activists. after words we are invited to speak with victor pickard

to hear his thoughts on the book. subsequently we will move to a discussion to be joined i had written down professor at georgetown for several days fishy informs me she is not yet to start. almost. thomas frank, jessica clark clark, and finally craig errant president and ceo of free press. i am glad to see faces in the audience.

before i start the housekeeping this is live streamed on the web and recorded for c-span and everything is on the record forever or at least until it can be indexed. [laughter] if you are on twitter use negative tag we only have twice the audience in the room watching remotely use that event we will pick up your questions in the q and a session in the end. if you do wish to ask a question, please wait for it a microphone we have to respect the on-line audience to make sure they can hear us. i would like to invite victor pickard to the podium. should we be as optimistic as your title suggest? [applause] -- cotte club. >> a great question and i

a.m. thinking and will be an pessimism within the title. i will rely on the panelist to bring it up. it means a lot to talk to you today at the new america foundation. i have not been here since spring 2009 when i was working here full time as a research fellow. would reflect back, there was something in the air at the time as removed into the new offices. not just the fresh carpet smell but the optimism about the media policy reforms that were possible before us in what was also interesting is that this time there was talk of the future of journalism is a problem for public policy. if you recall in the spring of 2009, journalistic institutions seem to be imploding. we have the seattle post and

rocky mountain news going under. jobs and revenue in precipitous decline. but you say great cliche we saw these circles as a crisis as an opportunity to explore structural alternatives for the commercial media model to establish a public service model. that was one of the original motives for the book. what has changed in the last two years but unfortunately the journalism crisis is still here. the hemorrhaging has slowed but the long-term view remains bleak. just to be clear the of conversation should not be just about newspapers but the future of journalism but that is where most most reporting coming from that this undergoing the greatest decline.

according to the research center newspaper newsrooms are 30% smaller than 2,000 and though evidence the advertising revenue that when supported will ever return instead continuing to gradually fade away. this suggest the advertising supported journalism, the model that has lasted the past 125 years has come apart. what comes next? and we had hoped for a transition to public subsidy model but in the tragic irony seeing convincing evidence for the failures of commercial media we your baby maintaining their current meager levels of funding for public media. what is worse is the highly touted alternatives have not paid out.

online description models and like the hail mary pass. it may work for a certain niche markets but not a systemic fix. i recently watched the new documentary page #1. i thought it was generally well done by a distraught -- struck by how much they seem to pin their salvation on the success in spite of the fact that recent reports word showing is not close to offsetting of their losses. other start-ups are emerging but it is questionable how much news is produce giving good journalist employed. i exchanged e-mails with josh marshall and i am sure your familiar with it. it is trotted out as the

exemplar for what the internet can produce. and asking him how many you journalists they were employing? he said my information was stated. and they hope to expand at 17. those on the surface that sound promising but a few juxtaposed with the thousands other journalists jobs at least to the more sobering assessment. i don't want to sound too pessimistic of the new experiments continue and does seem to be a consensus that models are required but it ends there. this crisis is about how we think of journalism and the crisis itself for a group you think of it primarily as a commodity, then the profitability dictates its existence but if it is a public service, then you

recognize it must be sustained regardless of market support. how we understand the problem with a different -- different approach. there has been a pluralism about the future and the assumptions are challenged and new ideas advanced. that is why we put together this book of 32 essays of the future of journalism which i will briefly discuss. we have three basic themes to bring in of focus of the structural nature, organized to debates and also fresh proposals and abiding evenly between the three objectives. we reprinted some classics to give us a sign and capture the more innovative policy proposals and by a

hope this is something we can begin to and the implications of the media landscape who takes seriously the idea people are fake information like "the daily news" and raises questions of accountability. number of contributors who wonder what type of content or are rushing into the void? we tried to represent their aversive views. we have him advocating for a payroll. >> nowhere near wikileaks or the alternative is giving time. the of matt welched its suggest this resume by losers did rear being overly alarmist. we deliver slate -- of the

release of abuse that did not correspond but if we see this as a vehicle to intervene in policy debate to make sure we cannot afford subsidies for sustained experimental media. but for our policies not to be inevitable or natural or ideal. it is one by internationalizing the problem in response to their journalism crisis. both to a great job to show how they are weak compared of the also debunking the myth of the press that it leaves to us dependents and

it shows the exact opposite. internationally solving the problem by placing it in a store called congress seeing as a culmination of longer historic process is it has been in a slow decline. the two showed that the government supported news media. there has been a tradition of subsidies for newspaper distribution and others expanded on this including the chapter they wrote to in our book and even less known are the roads not taken when the government intervenes permanently to create a media system. my chapter focuses on a critical juncture with a

brief ascendance of what this effort -- referred to as the social democratic approach. progressive policy makers to keep part of the system. they called but what is different from broadcast. if they could hear day should hear to strict mandates, they would trigger a public discussion and like the termination of the broadcast license and of course, that is inconceivable today although commissioner michael cox spoke here last week on many issues tries to reassert these ideals back into the process. but ultimately there watered-down or suppressed in in some cases the industry backlash.

that is ben the results of liberal policy makers and fearful of of sounding too radical. there are a number of parallels we could draw between the future of media with regard to the policy prescriptions not being in sync with the underlying media critique. arguably from today as well reflect a media industry consensus. not with the inevitable outcome sperm more for affirmative role remains so today. a lot of this could be condensed into five points. i don't to pretend they would agree but first-come regionalism produces a public good fed is essential to democracy. to. the advertising model that has subsidize journalism over the past 125 years is

no longer viable. in no commercial or profit models are replacing journalists of being lost. four. given what could be seen as a market failure of policy intervention needed to establish journalism. finally international models in just a legitimate governmental role to support the press. that is a an overview of our book. but is in too much premise -- pessimistic it makes the great gift now i am eager to turn back to tom. thank you, . [applause] >> our like the panelists to come up on stage and take their places.

>> this book has many chapters in and the presence to the first, that is it. that works but the chief principal of the sec report, of which? with a new chapter you mentioned -- can you describe it? i am sure you however rich description of one

particular bill you are familiar with and how that works out in your view? >> the title is the british national anthem but instead they are wonderful and bright and frenetic activity. the pros and questioned but there is a couple of different companies, and maybe even dozens that have figured out you can produce journalism that's it is really, really inexpensive. the way you do that is by hiring people through the internet to. you have hundreds of topics and they turn in the 300 words or something like that. what makes it wonderful is they pay the writers very,

very little. i am guessing is it to $0.15? that would be generous. that would be dark and satanic. $15 per story. and this is that a different company called the copy editors kit $2.50 for every story they correct. so you have to do a bunch in the day wore a week to make a living. but people insist it can be done and earn a living this way. you just have to crank out lots of stories. what that looks at what

people are searching for on a gold and put some things will turn out to be more desirable. i assume some topix the advertiser wants nothing to do with that all. but there is your future for you. but that is what makes it so wonderful and i don't think any of these are publicly traded? there has been some activity one sold to another. they do have value and it is a model that can work. but does it work for the public? who does it work for? i was intrigued when i was writing this story columbia's good journalism review had a great pitcher

of a hamster in the mobile. fed is the future of journalism. that is all of the senate hamster wheel. i thought of the image and it struck me that who wins? when it is practiced? is the man who owns the hamster farm. i have another idea. being too optimistic, what about them more expansive

vision? knu explained in the future of those who are paid with $0 and why that may or may not work? fam mckown many people actually know what citizen journalism means? we have a very special crowd. when i asked my friends do don't care what i do all the time they don't know. i like to think of it as people who commit random everyday acts of journalism. sometimes without knowing it. i think good td photo may had been taken by randy m. person and great moments in history that word just

caught as the snap of a photo. it has been not so citizen journalism has been around but the real question is there has been a decline in traditional needs. so what can we do? one thing people looking at is looking to new neighbors to get some content but a lot of the time the content that people want but then that is what you see in the newspapers and on tv. a lot of us have problems with the content and that we see. i like to think about

services -- citizen journalism as some of the things that it could be but is not right now. >> we have jessica. >> is different from the networked environment but if you can talk to us, or around us i could say the for those citizens to be a partial, there is a lawyer who. >> so the excerpt of the book soon reshape of those

and some new psycho negative but how it route goes around journalism and media to jump-start innovation and new ways of operating to fund some six psittacine journalism projects. and to use those as a larger strategic campaign. part of what we look at and encourage our listeners to do in the book is we look at and what we encourage that is the horrible pleasure of riding about that. it is complicated debate that is happening between journalist and the producers or how should the users be positioned?

citizens? and. >> so we look at the ways in which not just the ways they're interacting that phone networks are being activated. in other institutions and individuals who hybrid forms are e merging. >> it does answer my question but the adm that jessica brought up journalism is an audience but a range of roles. in my view we year in a different age where we could

engage with the audience in new ways. can you but as a media historian i find them to comply. >> sure. there is always potential for the audience to be more of but there is a very long tradition of that in to bring it back to the area i have done research especially in the 1940's come at that point* it was generally understood there was not the dichotomy of those creating their own media and policies from up

above that many reformers saw that these areas were linked to focus on policy reform to enable the new ways the audience could create more media. there was the movement that was short lived because of baiting and other political shifts but you can draw a lot of parallels to than and now. one of the benefits is it breaks through the historical amnesia that we keep thinking with the internet is changed everything and everything is new. >> you're the leader of the organization that has 1 million signatures within

the last. >> but once those at the stationery level. >> i think it is more realistic than we allow ourselves to believe. i think there is something that happens in washington where women put on what is possible and the attached from what they want and need a big good side discovered it after there was a survey done, how much of the federal budget goes to support broadcasting? and people say and serb losses 5%. it is actually only $400 million per year that works out to $1.25 but people thought it was 5% and

even more so they thought that was okay. they supported funding. here we're having a political debate where people fight over table scraps but the audience out there have no problem with us been paying argue believe of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars more. they are not aware that while we've spent at $1.27 now, it is $80 now or in the scandinavian country. so when you begin to think if we sold $5? that is a more interest gain conversation and it is one the institutions themselves have been afraid to have. they bought into the idea of

the scarcity and they should not ask for more every time a republican members sneezes they have to fire somebody. this is their approach but i think there is a better approach where we step back and look at that important role journalism plays. how we have the use huge gaps? but what we need is a lot more money and poco will to support but our group in support of maintaining public funding and the institutions themselves in that many. look at those who support you.

talking millions of people who are potentially a political force but yet all we ask them to do is when we are really in trouble, there is a far more this session? that would build the media system going beyond the be our to those that creates online nonprofit experiments and those that the other panelists talked about. think it is often day's show we can do is fight over the pocket change. >> it sounds optimistic. [laughter] >> that may be the take away line. i will go back to tom frank.

[laughter] in your chapter but are we left? >> i don't feel and hope. [laughter] i feel bitterness citizens of alienation and anger. [laughter] >> i was just trying. but those producers doing anything could hear but waddling behavior for others? >> i did not go two journalism school but a history school that fell apart even before journalism.

when they were cranking out historians like mad in the 1990's. people with ph.d. san english, there are more of them. we went out on the job market. there should have been a content though. and some of the still cannot get tenure and rear in our forties. i could make more money for the alternative newsweeklies in the chicago. i did. that was the end of that. and academia. what do you say? >> [laughter] >> i thought about this the model for the future is the model content bill. that is one system that works and people are paid. but let me take a step back.

reason i wrote about it is that to the face we have in the markets and they will speak with our voice anti-democratic to deliver the wondrous results. the way the of american dogma fails and fails and fails, what you say with journalism is the most spectacular failure. but what model? what will take its place? hamsters getting paid $15 per storey o.r. the public

subsidy ever and i know that is how it works in the scandinavia where the newspapers are heavily subsidized. that just seem so awesome until i thought about the world that we live and. you have one of two political parties. they would destroy that in a matter of minutes. they talk about the debt ceiling just to send it into the tailspin they think that it should be so the gold will be valuable. [laughter] that is my joke. what will succeed? it is ultimately horrifying and clear voice and which is a biography of volume randolph hearst. this was the guy. his model is first get yourself a gold mine.

and be born into a really, really wealthy family. buy them up the writers and pursue your idiosyncratic political vision which by the way was pretty much on the left has a war going all on his own. then moved to the right and in the thirties watched a bizarre set this breed but that model will survive and thrive in the fox news model. that is how they take pages from the biography of william randolph hearst.@÷@m i have another model i thought would work. no.

[laughter] >> thank you. we have commissioner copps here last week but in prior decades the sec is regulating from afar so perhaps you could bring context where we are in what you said the also about to the sec report about perhaps giving demand more than at has been i think it interesting thing for me is it did its job. in some ways was the capstone on top of the

debate we have been having and collapsing pieces a in all may world demand but here we are. the report the when i got to actually read stock about what can we do? they drug their hands said it has become something i was joking that we cannot do anything about it. the obama doctrine has been infected the way they seem unwilling to use the powers that they have to say you are using the public airwaves for free that comes with responsibility. even when we're getting a call it is part of what they

do each and every day.

it is important to recognize people do and don't need to be told. some are already chronicling in every part of their day and what they see in their towns and communities. and then use the local news. it is not defined that way but part down the street has some news. but they don't call with that. it is important although an expansion of what it means to have the public involved. and it doesn't quite resemble good journalism we would like it to replace. >> wait for the questions.

the microphone is here. >> a couple fast comments. i have been a journalist 50 years. piano like to should dress briefly what she said about citizen journalism. that merges into the wonders of blocking which i look at with a johnññ desai at least one that comes to a traditional replacement but second, what she is suggesting how will the possibly work? with a national and international news requires people who have access, training, funding, w hat will this ascent journalist do about that? nothing.

my second point* good gentlemen who was talking about the public broadcasting, i think that is a great idea but what does that do for the print media? frank said i don't think there's any chance at all at least one party of congress but if you answer that question. >> but i think nobody out there is arguing you orme will somehow suddenly become the next white house correspondent but some of these organizations are.

said of if their people covering and when news of the community but it is important how much we could ask. it is not about asking a current journalist and a civic act as they end. >> i think my new those stingless but for those that continue to invest. >> one of the more innovative policies stems from the university in sean powers with the dissertation research, he looked at the funding for international broadcasting.

like the voice of america the u.s. puts out almost $700 million per year and this is the log that to prevent any of the international broadcasting to air within the united states and shows that is outdated and at least look at ways to provided to national coverage through those sources. >> publix serious media for print? >> [laughter] that probably will not happen but subsidizing reporters is a good idea. >> reporters? >> and then in terms of print journalism, of course.g@gú we are talking about a journalism but still the written word. we do need to be supporting that and subsidizing.

but as far is the political environment, i am not blind. >> greece of this incredible response than there were six or seven senators asking me to send money because if we could demonstrate the broad public support and organize that, then those political realities can change. so how do we mobilizes? the answer this plant increasingly they will talk to each other rare from a policy perspective, we don't do that good old fashioned organizing saying that will

be part of the politics then we really don't stand a chance at all. that is the best i have found so far. >> >> just one but i want to challenge the panel to do with a question of whether the idea of giving holla but for them to be in different stages of development. the model suggested the closest thing of what we would like to see was from the 1940's and all know there have been a few

generations of change in the wrong direction for a very i would like to argue is what we are dealing with in this country is changes which translate into political changes that transcend putting forward the idea more money for subsidies seen journalism as a solution. we need to organize to do with political issues before we go to this kind of solution. >> i will just part with the few general reactions to what i think is a very provocative and true comment that this we need a transformation in the political culture before we

can get to the solutions that we are calling for. when we start off in 2009 there was an optimism we thought was the window of opportunity of the paradigm shift of the critical juncture. i don't want to say the of window is totally close but it is ironic to see market failure all around us, the tea party movement calls for less intervention in public policy.r the first is stop buying into the logic that government has no legitimate role to which s the crisis of journalism . >> we have chicken and egg problem in order to bring about that change of course, we need to reform the media because

they have an incredible role to play to shape those perceptions. there is no question we have to tackle those problems but i am also thinks there may be relatively simple things or an expensive thing this in the millions and billions we could do to help bring about the shift. on the other hand, i think we're living in a tumultuous moment to find ourselves in a couple of years may be fighting about the teapartiers something else that the least be ready to seize on those opportunities. we passed almost $1 trillion stimulus package and the public media institutions and did not even ask for have a package together to say the government will put in trillions of dollars why aren't journalism jobs just

as important? they had nothing to put to and which was a missed opportunity. i hope the next time they will not make that mistake. . .

i think if we the people are going to be investing in the media, there are some flaws in how the media has performed until now that should be a way of mobilizing more support. my own work as the u.s. foreign policy and i am dismayed at how the media covers where the united states does outside of the u.s. with three and you know, last week and one about hillary clinton was horrible. sunday 60 minutes repeated the same mistake were basically there is no telling the american people some of the things that the u.s. government is doing wrong outside so the people are not well informed about it.

so my plate is i do agree with the thrust but if we are going to be asking to invest in the media, and i think we should the media should also find ways of correcting some of its falls and the support of dictators from africa so that is very important to me. in the american people have no clue about how much the misgovernment dictators in africa. whitworth >> we think about it if it was pessimistic about commercial media and i share some of his pessimism then we are left with community media which hasn't had the greatest of the tension in the past and the public media has been let's face it brought in some fatigues this year.

if there's anything niki or jessica would like to invest. >> one thing should be clear. i don't think everybody on the panel should assume to be -- i every in public media i don't think everyone in the panel should necessarily be construed as supporting broad public investment for all sectors of public media or of media because i certainly don't think i should be giving subsidies to "the new york times" or "the wall street journal" as much as i love them very much like media literacy and how can we make sure the public in a time in the media is increasingly fragmented and increasingly confusing if there's more and more of it and your attention is limited even less people as we learn from an sec report this past week people spend nine months nine minutes per month's reading local news

and and how can we make sure those are the best nine minutes they can spend reading local news so how can we make people the smartest readers that we can so there are definitely problems with the media and that is what the role of academics and the role of the public policy folks are to point out to hold the media accountable for some of those things but i think it's important to realize that part of what we are going to see in terms of this dark and scary future is not necessarily a future of public support, but perhaps a future where there are bigger media institutions and then and much smaller than they once were so i just wanted to free calibrate that a little bit. >> well, on government i think obviously we are going to seriously talk about investigating public media we

have to address who is handing out the money and getting the money for short and the start by removing the public media system from the annual appropriations process and i think one of our big problems is the public media is at the mercy of the political whims of washington and i think a better strategy would be proactive policy that would create a public trust, something that would fund the public media for the long term and avoid the cyclical nature of funding depending which party is in charge how much are they being hammered as not the case may be that is a governance problem and ultimately the problem also includes changing the way that we appoint these people where maybe the president shouldn't be taking all the members of the corporation for public broadcasting and we need to look as the reforms there and how the money is spread out. there's a lot of turfy this in the field and i think obviously bringing more money and might

help some of that but we have to look at the institutions and how they relate to each other and that is probably a whole other discussion that we have to get the government because if you're asking the american people as i would like to invest their tax dollars in the media they need to have good reason to believe that might actually be spent more responsibly. >> i would just mention a suggestion made in the report last week of directing advertising dollars that the u.s. government spent which is around a billion dollars a year by the calculation at he more actively directing it towards areas of media aware journalism is likely to be created and he was thinking about local journalism, so it's a lot more than the $15 the demand media and i just wonder if anyone has anything to say that in the panel.

>> hi there. my name is souci, reporter for the mother jones magazine in d.c.. there has been a discussion about how booktv kaput six of funding the media and i want to turn the politics to the focus of the media. one of the most interesting developments here in terms of washington and political journalism is the fact there has been a big rise in coming you know, organizations, media outlets that leaned left or right and they aren't just producing commentary and what's traditionally considered blogging but the original reporting. a lot of what even folks at "the new york times" and the post in that falling the need of these you have the daily kallur, the huffingtonpost.com and all these producing original reporting online. but at the same time i think along with this development of the utilization of the media is one, you have a lot of increasing public distrust in the media in terms of the left

and the right on where the news is coming from and even if it is based on the solid reporting they recognize the come from the outlets with a particular bias and sensationalism overlaps with the fact politics are involved and the stakes are political and you have complaints from both sides of that so i guess my question is what is the place for the disinterested ennis? i guess it is a better return than the object devotee in media and who should be promoting that? is this a value that someone in an institution whether it is publicly funded or not should try to stay in the midst of all of these developments in the news. >> i've never done this interested journalism. i've always been a columnist for opinion after these guys.

jessica? >> i've studied the centrist disinterested media and partisan media and so i would say that ideally he would have a set of people who are trying to establish some common facts or the range of opinion. often inside the beltway that range is not characterized probably enough which is part of the reason there's been growth in partisan media and obviously a devotees or do with as our corporate interests of political interests so so moving from object to the transparency and the media literacy question i think you brought up how can we understand how the different ways in which the news is used is a tool characterized how can we make that more transparent on the face of it and how can we use the money that goes into the federally funded public broadcasting as a tool for developing the standards of

ethics more explicitly and then try to hold these other outlets accountable. we saw from npr to in b.c. nbc recognized here's a smart woman, she's innovative, she is forward thinking. the smelter up and she was able to go there because she wasn't held under the same scrutiny and the next commercial space as she has been in the last year will and i'd like to see equal standards across the board and even as michael argues in his chapter and serving as a primary news source for younger users. islamic my question is where is the union, the voice of professionalism and what is happening to them in this massive decline has been going on. >> and we are decimating i think. a lot of them are losing a lot of union jobs and gone i think

craig can speak to this as well. but i don't think they have been silent on these issues at all. >> there's definitely been attempts to the pre-worker newspapers and some have been successful. there's another business models that has been attempted where sometimes the union members are actually exploited in the deal like with the tribune. so there are other -- i don't think that the have been absent. i think they have been engaged but -- >> i would agree a think the newspaper deal has been outspoken while of course decimated. the journalist's coming of the association of black journalists have been far from and often challenging frankly the companies that they have been relying on for their survival organizations which put an uninteresting positions. that said in terms of truly mobilizing all of the

journalists there is a long way to go, and i think that knee-jerk skepticism of not just government involvement but even politics in the news room presents a big challenge in very often, you know, working therúíi defense. nw journalist, i shouldn't saywavúq again, those do not apply to the bosses. the are happy to come and lobby and push for a certain kind of policies and eventually they were looking around and there was a handful of them left. >> having done some research in this area i can actually tell you that journalists who are often union members a lot of journalists who are in these situations where they see the news rooms emptying out around them are often the least likely to innovate. and that's something to remember as we think about this. when we think about journalism and crisis there's often a fear and panic that goes through the

heart and mind of journalists and they tend to think backwards instead of thinking for words. what we need to be able to do this face the crisis on its head and encourage innovation. instead of worrying about clinging for jobs and circulation and for the readers, we need to be thinking about how to move forward. >> we are getting to and so i will take a couple more questions. the gentleman on the right in the white jacket. >> al milliken a and m media. what have you spoken about the assault on wind media watchdog blockers and filmmakers and social media users who have been monitoring and correcting the so-called mainstream well-paid and still influential network broadcast and print media who have made some very serious mistakes in recent years?

today all of the christian media that i feel very closely i have noticed an uproar about nbc coverage of the u.s. open, the national golf championship yesterday that edited out the reference to god i believe in the pledge of allegiance. nbc i heard did issue and on air apology yesterday, but that was not sufficient to the commentators are have been listening to. >> jessica? >> i've written about it quite a bit. i think the dynamics holds no matter what your ideology is. there are many more ways to hold the media accountable, and there are many more opportunities to create responses from people you don't agree with. i think that that is a signature at this moment and it's about free speech. i don't know how else to answer the question.

>> i would respond a little bit the fact checking movement because i think it's a very interesting unit of journalism that is emerging and the role that will play is i think a very open question and whether it will succeed or just become another aspect of he said she said but it's an interesting point you make. final question. the gentleman in the back in the white shirt. >> very quickly, if we are ever going to move this beyond the think tank and the academic circles, i think for a buddy in journalism that thinks this isn't an issue put some skin in the game. has there ever been any talk about a month long strike where all the journalists who want to principate put their pens down, put their camera down.

of course like any union are will tell you what everyone is going to agree to participate in that. you maybe get 40%. but the point is you can try to address the issue close and call public attention to it and everyone can spend the mumbai prefer august because congress can do the least damage to us then and we can all enjoy ourselves. but following the end of the period, everyone can have their articles ready and we control the line in the sand, condemning those broadcasters, network sandpapers that didn't join the strike or didn't cover the strike. it's time to take some actions of the evangelist talking to ourselves. >> would be a reminder to let everyone know that if we are doing anything important some people might notice its absence. >> with that question, a strike

in august alaska the panelist to answer the questions they would like or provide some closing comments. >> weasel the writers' union strike and some of the things that came out of that more online video and more reality television. it is a very dangerous proposition. there's plenty of content for people to consume so i would see the other means might work well. have we made you more optimistic? >> it's my business, right? of the solution is my business. what was likely to see? the guide asked about the bias critique this is actually a really fascinating sort of fast of the culture in the last 30 years. i used to read a magazine called the baffler and we had an essay

by chris lehman and he traced the history of the media bias critique and was basically more or less invented by spiro agnew in 1969 and, i'm sorry, this was the history of the liberal media. before that the bias critique always with the other way because we are talking about guys like lyndhurst and mccormack in chicago. these were very right wing the gentleman. as of the bias was that these guys were coming you know, doing the newspaper was always doing the bidding of big money or something like that. but spiro agnew deliberately flip it on its head identifying instead of the publisher, the guy like colonel mccormick in chicago, the problem with journalism for the professionals, the problem was with professionals, these people that have irritated the power of the publisher to themselves and their little, you know, clich, their little clique of professional writers or whatever it is. and are making his decisions for

the entire country and what is funny is that as that has become less control over the years and now you have fox news and the a.m. talk-radio that's almost completely conservative with an exception here and there. as this has become a less and less valid description of the media environment we live in it is now everywhere. the critic is everywhere now as it has become less true. it's a fascinating story.wpíú >> would you join the strike --x >> i'm going to defer toqp jessica's comment on that.súypwp but i do want to see somethingsp pressink.org.

understand the issues going on and there is the partisan backbiting. ties. do that. but in d.c. that's what people do i find. and so, you know, when you think that can serve people and talk instead of having a she said she person you're quoting is a skeptic on global warming is necessarily hedging on the question of this objective or not object if it to say one

thing about where the liberal media critique began, there couldn't have been a liberal media critique until spiro agnew because there was no official path so it kind of -- anyway. yeah. thank you. >> five not quite ready to endorse the strike but i think that, you know, that is going to be the key to turning the tide has really engaging the public and engaging working journalists in these political questions. if that means we have to live in a world where parties can talk about the future of journalism and willing to accept worse parties for this change and i do think we have a lot of public education to do and people think about the media and journalism as not just something that happens to them but something that the actually can influence whether that is doing their own journalism or getting involved in these larger political

questions and if we can get to the point those discussions are being had we are a long way down the road. >> to ensure you have some thoughts. >> i am intrigued by the strike. i will just leave it at that. the idea of the partisanship or abroad by is in the media, there's a couple pieces in the books that deal directly with that. chris hedges sabotages the idea of this and laura raises the important question which i agree with. it's not so much about partisan journalism i don't think we need to panic about that as much. it's about these partisan hacks like we may describe them as james o'keefe and andrew blight part who are not constrained by the facts and they are rushing into this void. laura talks about this in the book but i want to end on just an optimistic note which is i think this idea about market

failure in the public subsidies. it's never so much about protecting our think that would be an honorable objective here and i will end on that note. thank you. >> thank you, victor and to all the panelists. it's been a fascinating and very vibrant discussion. as victor ensure just about everything right on how this plays out. i hope you will continue to be engaged in the questions and if

you are interested in further work on these issues, please go to newmediapolicy.newamerica.net. we will have wine and cheese and there are copies of the book for sale and if you're lucky you can snag at least six signatures. thank you again to the panelists and if you could put your hands together. [applause] >> i always read in the summertime and in the summertime is a great time to read because you get to catch up on something you want to read and one book i just got through finishing is too big to fail and that's by

sorkin to read this book details the financial crisis of the last few years. i've read a lot of books on this topic, things like the big short and financial shock and a number of other titles but the last 1i read, too big to fail kind of details the series of defense the lead to the financial collapse starting from the early crisis borneman sub prime lending, no dhaka loans, no income, no job type of loans and how people actually make money selling those and those mortgages are sold on the idea that they would be refinanced but of course it now became a possible and goes into a lot of

detail has a fascinating book i really enjoy reading it. of course and on the financial services committee so i kind of lifted, but it was really fascinating to see this tape on it and i also have read hank paulson's book on the financial crisis as well so this is an area that i really want to become a much better student of and this book helped me do that. too big to fail. another book by reading right now and this is a book i am just about done with is allah, liberty and loved by irshad manji. she's a good friend of mine and i admire her willingness to question tradition and convention, and she promotes this idea of the jihad the beans and query, question, and at a

time when you find people who offer ideas based on tradition and precedent and what happens she is one who says there's this other tradition of inquiry in questioning and her book is basically talking about how the modern islamic world has an opportunity to incorporate ideas of liberty and freedom. and as we look at the end of spring there's no doubt the book she's writing is actually an important perspective because that is exactly what the people to deer square and to nisha and oliver the region are saying that they believe that when they can have their faith and they can have liberty. they don't have to live under the offer today in government, and she is one who is really

raising those important questions. so i -- reading is a huge part of my life. i do it all the time and ensure we will be done with this book in a few hours or maybe even quicker than that but then i will be onto something else next and i always have a bunch of books in the queue. i have a book and getting ready to read. i have it open it yet but it has to do with the history of goldman sachs, the investment firm and that is in the line of the other books i've been reading about the financial crisis. and i just got a whole list of other books setting up their getting ready to crack open. in august i hope to read a few books, too. there is a book i read it years ago called 100 years of solitude, and i just kind of think that if i get my vacation

all this i'm going to crack that book open and read it. i also have the history of an empire i want to read so those are not yet been read but i hope to get to them. of webster at the age of 25 house this best seller and he's very brash and always thinks he knows everything and sometimes he really does. in '75 he decides what's wrong with america and he was spot on. the problem he says is under the articles of confederation, the federal government didn't have enough power so he writes this pamphlet called sketches of american policy and we know when webster has an idea that he does something and he takes it to mount vernon and he takes it to george washington. and washington wasn't a coll