the first time i met juan was when we're going to be doing a special together, and i don't know if it was the state of being or something but we have some time and we had a lunch together that day. and again it was about a three hour lunch. and we spent the entire time talking. and it would quickly from surface issues to deeper issues to deep personal family issues, the kind of philosophy of life. and the thing that impressed me the most, wiping juan so effective at what he does is that he is a listener. i could tell he was listening and deeply interested the entire time. he was more interest in what i was saying and what he was offering me. and i think that's the mark of a great reporter. i don't think there's any question that juan is that. >> thank you. [applause]

>> juan had something that i want. he has an emmy. did you know that? >> what? >> the seven books of charles mentioned, "eyes on the prize," "thurgood marshall," my soul looks back in london, black farmers in america, leaders, that's a lot. and he covered washington spectacularly for decades. we are privileged to have you on our team, and i'll tell you, that our panel you will never be muzzled. [laughter] >> thank you. >> juan williams, ladies and3 >> thank you. >> juan williams, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> thank you all, and brett, thank you and thanks to you and amy for putting this on. we really appreciate it. we are always in your debt for being such a good friend.

and charles, steve, you know, i've worked at the "washington post," i forgot cnn. i've worked at npr. i've worked at the hill. these guys are the best. i am truly grateful to have you as my colleague. so thank you very much. [applause] >> and i want to also say thank you to ed rogers, shannon green and sheldon greene, who are here tonight. you know, steve just touched on this briefly, but there was a moment back then when i thought my career was over, and i thought that, you know, a career that had taken many careers on 10 years to go to washington, and today many people thought we're going to a book signing but, you know, you're really here for a celebration but i don't know if it celebrations in

those survivor tv shows, but this is what it feels like to me. hey, i, head back above the waves, i'm standing. and you can't get to that point without people who care about you, people who love you, and people who take aside and tell you when you're wrong and how to do with the situation and give you kathleen hicks only people entering tonight are my friends, especially those of you who are professional journalists, you know how tenuous our profession is. you know how things go up and down, ratings, editors, relationships it you never know. so tonight i just want to take this is a celebration for me, a celebration of love. i want to express thanks to my friends, my family, to my wife, my son tony. tony is here. but, you know, you guys are the best. you been a light on my side, thank god.

[applause] >> how are you? >> good, how are you? >> i am good. >> we've got to do more baseball. >> yes. have you gone this year? >> yes. we love going. [inaudible] >> i want to do something atop traumatizes debates. >> there is so much to that. >> and talk about honest debate.

maybe have you moderate it. >> we'll be in touch. >> how long have we known each other? >> about 30 years. >> that's true. 1982. almost. >> the funny thing is we're still young. >> some days my back tells me otherwise. >> well, don't talk about the back. my back hurts. >> chris, nice to see you.

[inaudible] >> you were in another zone. >> god bless you. thanks. spent this is great. >> thanks for stopping by. what's up, man? >> all right. >> how are you? >> we have a book. [inaudible] >> this is matthew. >> hey, matthew.

there you go. it was nice to meet you. how is your internship going? >> good. >> you are in a great spot. if i can ever help, let me know. >> i will. >> here's the real deal. here's my hero. >> i had to come all this way to get a book.

>> you are my favorite interview next to bobby woods here. >> thanks for coming over. nice to meet you. >> i'm a recovering journalist. >> that's tough. >> congratulations. >> thank you. the rest of the book is about how difficult it is to have an honest debate. [inaudible]

>> congratulations. what a nice evening. >> lad you made it. >> oh, i'm glad to be here. >> funny, my son said he had his eye on the prize. [inaudible] >> when i get back i'll bring it in to have it autographed for him. >> show him this, he will get a kick out of it. >> that's great.

>> juan, thanks very much. >> thanks for taking the time. >> my pleasure. >> i thought you were out of town? >> i want this to go on my facebook. >> here it is a. all right. >> i started facebook about a week ago. you want to have pictures on your facebook. i did realize this was her seventh book, that's amazing. >> you were ahead of your time. when was the book on civil

rights, was that the late '80s? >> yeah, late '80s, "eyes on the prize." the "thurgood marshall" biography was late '90s. >> it takes gonads to write it. >> how are you? >> it means a lot that you showed up. talk about real journalism. c-span, this is the real deal. >> he is the real deal. i hope he signs a book for my daughter. one for me and one for lisa, is that possible? >> that's possible. tell me how to spell caroline.

>> the same as caroline, except without the french accent. >> thank you for doing this. >> thanks a lot. >> god bless you. >> it's an honor. >> you're watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2's booktv. up next picture book art, co-editor of "will the last reporter please turn out the lights," and a panel of experts discussed the problems facing today's industry today. and what can be done to preserve the. it's about an hour and 20 minutes. specs are good afternoon. my name is tom and i would like to welcome you to the new america foundation. two will be a fast and discussion about the current state of journalism in today's the last day.

just under two years with and considering how the india, technological landscape affects citizens participation in a democracy. it is used as a backdrop in our work. a report that an concluded in a democratic society. relevant and credible information, the education need to engage with that information at an opportune to participate. how this will happen in 21st century has brought a bigger debate and even engagement and fcc. notably at least a report on tonight, the changing media landscape in the broadband age. the report was long in the making. it's one of 68 pages, has

received a lot of media attention. and it makes our event today very timely. so our event today folks specifically on a book that brings together many of the most significant contributions to the debate about journalism and the future that come from many perspectives. the book and our event today has the same title, not particularly optimistic. "will the last reporter please turn out the lights." as the co-editor's note in the first of introduction, american journalism is an existential crisis. and if it doesn't make you think, it goes on to say it is impossible to conceive of effective government and the rule of law, not to mention individual freedoms, social justice and effective and enlightened solutions to daunting problems. without a credible system of journalism, in short, just about

everything rides on how the crisis in journalism plays out. these other questions that form the backdrop to the book and our event today. the contributions of the book contains a wide range of perspectives from journalists, scholars, activists. to introduce the book we have invited victor pickard who is a research fellow with us and a professor at new york university, to share his thoughts on the book and what it covers. subsequently, we removed the round table discussion at be joined by four additional chapter authors, nikki usher who i had written down here as professor at george washington university for several days, but as she informs me, she has yet to start. so she is almost a professor at gw. thomas frank, a former journalist, and the economist at harper's magazine. jessica clark, a fellow at the

new america foundation as well as a professor at american university. finally, craig aaron, a former editor and now present and ceo of free press but i'm also pleased to see some funny faces in the audience. especially professor michael. and also a chapter out of it before i start, a little housekeeping as a mission before it event is lifestream and on the web as was being recorded for c-span. everything is on the record forever. our lives as long as c-span, google, or wikileaks can index it. [laughter] for those of you on twitter please use the hash tag if you're watching remotely and would only have about twice the audience in the room watching remotely. please use that event and we'll pick up your questions in a q&a session at the end. if you do was to ask a question in the final session of the event, please wait for the

microphone. we need to respect the online audience to make sure they hear us, too. so without further introduction out like to invite victor pickard to the podium. victor, you would be as optimistic as utah's just. [applause] >> thanks. that's a great question and i'm afraid my talk will be a little bit in keeping with the pessimism of the title, then we will rely on the panel is to bring it back up. it means a lot to me to go to talk to you today at new america foundation. i haven't been here since the spring of 2009 when i was working a full-time and the research fellow. and when i reflect back on that period, i remember that there was something in the air at the time as we are moving in to these new offices. it wasn't just the fresh smell, but there's a sense of optimism about media policy reforms that

were possible before us. and was also interesting was that at this time there was a lot of talk about the future of journalism as a problem for public policy. and if you recall in the spring of 2009, journalistic institutions seem to be imploding. we had major papers like the seattle coast and the rocky mountain news going under. jobs and revenue were in precipitous decline. but to use an old cliché, we also saw or at least there were certain circles are in new america and within d.c. can, saw this crisis as an opportunity. and opportunity to explore structural alternatives to the commercial media for establishing a public service model for journalism. and that was one of the original motives for this book that we co-edited. a lot has changed in the last two years, but, unfortunately,

the journalism crisis is still here. the hemorrhaging has slowed down. the long-term view of these journalistic institutions remain bleak. just to be clear, the conversation should never just be about newspapers, of course. it's about the future of journalism. but it is still with newspapers were most of our original reporting comes from. it is the newspaper industry that is under -- undergoing the greatest decline. according to the pew research center, newspaper newsrooms are 30% smaller than they were in 2000. there's little evidence of the advertising revenue that once supported these jobs will ever return. but instead will continue to gradually fade away. so what this suggests is that the advertising supported journalism, the mild satisfaction for the past 125 years or so, has come apart. what comes next? that's the court questioned. bob and others and i had hoped

for a transition to some kind of public subsidy model. but in a tragic irony just as we see convincing evidence for those of commercial media all around us, we as a society are barely maintaining the current meager levels of funding for current me. what's worse is that many of the highly touted alternatives have not and how, specifically pay walls were online subscription models where readers pay for content. what some like into a hail mary pass for the newspaper industry. it may work for certain niche markets but doesn't seem to be a systemic fix. they recently watched new documentary, page one, has anyone had a chance to see that yet? a few of you. i thought it was generally very well done but i was struck by how much the new york times journalists seem to be in punitive celebrations on the success of wallace. and this despite the fact that recent reports are showing the revenue that is being generated

by that is not come close to offsetting other losses. at the vigil are emerging but it's questionable as to how much news there producing given the number of journalists they employ. just give one example. i exchanged e-mails recently with josh marshall, the founder of talking points memo, i'm sure a lot of you are familiar with it. i'm a big fan. it's often trotted out as the exemplar for what the internet can produce in terms of news production. and i asked josh, journalists they were employed i always heard it was somewhere around 10. he told me that my information was dated. they are now employing 14, and they hope to expand to 17 very centers of 17 journalists on the surface. that sounds promising, but then if you just put that with the thousands of journalists jobs loss in just the last few years, it leads to a more sobering assessment. so i don't want to sound too pessimistic. there are reasons for hope, new

experiments continue. and there does at least have seen be dashed in new models are required but the consensus ends there. this crisis really is as much about how we think about journalism as it is about the journalism crisis itself. if you think of journalism primarily as a commodity, then it's probably dictates existence. but if you think of it first and foremost as a public service or as a public good, then you recognize it must be sustained regardless of market support. and how we frame and understand the problem, different approaches. there's been compelling to listen to these debates about the future of journalism. a lot of assumptions are being challenged, ideas advanced. that's why bob mcchesney and i put together this book, 32 as his own future of journalism which i'm just going to briefly discuss in my remaining time. we have three basic names for the last reported. to bring into focus the

structural nature of the christ, to organize to be according to many of the major positions on the future of journalism, and to advance the discussion with fresh proposal. the book basically divides evenly between these three objective. we reprinted some classic pieces from 2008, 2009, to give you a run up to the early stages of the crisis. we tried to capture some of the more innovative policy proposals for supporting journalism. this is something i hope we can get into more in the discussion. we also have pieces that look at the implications of the changing media landscape like bruce williams and michael who take seriously this idea that people are increasingly giving up local information from fake news like the daily show, and that this raises troubling questions about accountability. there are a number of contributors in the book that look at what kinds of content are rushing into the void left by departing traditional journalists. we try to fairly represent the

first views. many of which we did not agree with. we have steven simon advocating for cables. we have suggestions that networks a new media like wikileaks t who organically produced an alternative is given time. and editor-in-chief of libertarian reason magazine suggest that journalism crisis is written by its losers and people like us are being overly alarmist. so we deliberately sought views that didn't necessary correspond with our own. yet like many books resolve them as a vehicle to intervene and policy debates, and we make that we come down in support of public subsidies for sustained experimental and independent media. another aim was remind people that our current meager policies are not inevitable, nor are the natural nor necessarily ideal. the book does this in two ways. one is by internationalizing the problem by showing what other democracies are doing in response to their journalism crises.

rod and craig aaron who you will hear from later both a great job of showing this by showing how the u.s. is unique among democracies for how little it spends on its public me system. rod debunks many of the miss associate with the governments supported pressed like the idea that it leads to less journalistic independence, or a totalitarian society. his research shows the exact opposite happening. in addition to internationalizing the problem, if we have processed a day, crisis, and see it as a culmination of longer historical processes we can see the internet did not simply breaking news a few years ago. it's been in a slow decline for decades. one could even argue that there were structural vulnerabilities built into the commercial systems over a general design. history also shows us the u.s. government has always supported news media. the historian richard john has uncovered a tradition of large

postal subsidies for newspaper distribution and others have expanded on this scholarship including jeff howe and it was followed in the chapter they wrote in her book. and even less done on the roads not taken when the government nearly intervenes permanently create a less market dependent media system. my chapter in the book focuses on one of these critical junctures which saw the brief distance of what might be referred to as a social democratic approach to media. and in response to the crisis with some similarities, to the one we're facing today, progressive policymakers sought to lessen profit pressures in key parts of me system. for example, they called for experiments and nonprofit print media and more of a public interest model for broadcast media. so let me give one example of that. if broadcasters didn't adhere to strict public interest mandates, they would trigger a public discussion and likely termination of their broadcast

license. that's of course inconceivable today, although commissioner michael copps who spoke you're just last week, and on many of these issues has often tried to reach of some of these ideals academia policy process. these initiatives in the '40s ultimately either were watered down or suppressed by other pressures. in some cases the result of an industry backlash. in other cases then as now, the result of liberal policymakers made nervous by the own conclusions and fearful of sounding too radical. indeed, there a number of parallels we could draw between the recent fcc report on the future of media, at least with regard to its policy prescriptions not being in sync with its underlying media critique. so these outcomes especially in the '40s, although arguably from today as well, reflect a media industry consensus. not necessary the broader public script if we are not inevitable outcomes, a more affirmative role was possible then, it

remains so today. so i think the conclusions that bob and i draw from a lot of this research can be condensed into five points. i don't want to pretend all the contributors would agree with these five points, but they go as follows. first, journalism produce a public good that is essential to democracy. second, the advertising model that is subsidized journalism for the past 125 years is no longer viable. third, neither new commercial no nonprofit models are replacing the generals and being lost in traditional media. fourth, given what can be seen as the market failure, policy interventions are needed to establish public service journalism. and, finally, international models as well as u.s. history suggest legitimate governmental role for supporting the press. so that's an overview of our book. i hope it wasn't too pessimistic. if you're looking for some light beach reading material, and make

for a nice gift for yourself or a friend or family member. on that note i'm eager to turn back to tom and the panelists. thank you. oh, i sit here. all right. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you, victor. i would like to invite the panelists to come to the stage. take their places. thank you, victor, for that informative introduction. this because many chapters. we'll have a stage of a certain size, so i will rely on the authors present to represent their views and victor to represent the other 26. so first, tom frank. i will turn to you with a question.

test the mic. that's it, it works. thank you. the principal author of the fcc report talked of the hamsterization of journalism. in your chapter you mentioned the bright frenetic mills. can you describe -- i think you probably have some rich description of one particular mill, and i'd like to hear your thoughts on how that's working out, any of you. [inaudible] >> the title is a british national anthem, whatever it is, but instead they are all wonderful and bright and frenetic with activity. ..

is that they pay these ride is very, very little. i've got the amount somewhere in my story. $0.15 to five know, that would be really generous. that would be dark in satanic if they give them that much. they get $15 per story. and the copy, a company called the manned media. that was on average people get $15 per story. the story is 300 words. the copy editors to $2.50 for each story that the correct. so the nba is you have to do a

whole bunch of these in a day or something or a week or whenever in order to make a living at this. but people insisted can be done. you can earn a living this way. you just have to crank out lots and lots of stories. what really intrigues me about the content mills is the way they choose what stories to assign to people. they do it with a computer program. it looks at what people are searching for uncle will and then assigns stories on that basis. they combine it with another story which is what an advertiser would update to associate themselves with a given topic. some things turn out to be more desirable than other things. i guess i am sending some topics an advertiser would not want anything to do with all. those things just don't get written about. there is your future for you, god damn it. but that is what makes it, you know, so wonderful.

these companies, you know, i don't think any of them are publicly traded yet. am i right about that? there has been some activity. one was sold to another company. presumably they have some value and it's a model that can work. the thing is, does it work for the public? is it works for. i was intrigued by the cover when i was writing the story about columbia journalism review working along similar lines with this great image of the cover of a hamster and one of those we'll things. answers love to run on those things. does the future of journalism they said. all of us on a hamster wheel. i thought about that image and it really struck me. who benefits from these? who wins when journalism is practiced along the model of the content know. the answer it is the guy that owns a hamster farm. that is the only winner. i have another idea. the other idea.

>> before we get too optimistic -- >> says. >> $15. that was 300 now. >> so you're coming from a different perspective. journalism, your chapter explorers the way journalists have been perceived. perspective. i say the more expansive vision. i hope you can explain a little bit about journalism. the future, i suppose, folks who are going to get paid $0 in contributing and why that may or may not work. >> sure. how many people in this room actually know what journalism means? okay. well, we have a special crowd here. when i asked my friends who don't care what i do all the time, they don't know what citizen journalism means. so to get us all on the same

page at like to think of a citizen journalist as people who commit random everyday acts of journalism, sometimes without knowing. so, this has existed for a long time. if you think of -- i think that -- mine has been taken by a random person. if you think of great moments in history that have just been caught on the snapple a photo and handed to a newspaper, it has been less to the editor. citizen journalists have been active in what they have given the newspaper advice columns a tetra. cesses in journalism has been around for a long time. the real question becomes, okay, there has been a decline in traditional. so what can we do to get some news out there? and one thing people of looking toward is people like you and people like your neighbors to get some new content.

but the problem i have with this is a lot of the time the kind of contents that people want citizens like you to be producing is very much like the kind of content that you see in your newspapers and on tv. and i think a lot of us have problems with the kind of news conference that we see in newspapers and tv. so i'd like to think about this as a little bit more expensive and to think about some of the things that journalism could be that it isn't right now. >> thanks. and jessica my question. the allowances of the context of where we are, how journalists operate in a networked environment is very different from the chapter, and perhaps you can talk to us around that. we have seen the demand future

offered a partial gap. tell us more about the context as you see it. very useful. >> so, the chapter from the book is an excerpt from a book i wrote. the echo chamber, reshaping politics, available at your local friendly bookstore. rewritten it about the new cycle from 2004-2008 looking at how money was flowing into the progressive arena around journalism to try to really jump start innovation and new ways of operating and to find some success in journalism and some interactive and dated driven journalism products and use them as part of the larger strategic campaign. so, part of what we look like -- look at what we encourage journalists into has become truisms. part of what we look at ammo we

encourage them to do has been debunked by this point which is kind of the horrible pleasure of writing about the current events. self it is complicated debate that's happening around what is the compact between journalists and their users and how should these users be positioned as citizens, cheap labor, ambassadors, activists. it is kind of depends on when you're trying to do with your journalism with is a point it is often missed, kind of a monolithic definition. it so in the book we take a look at the ways in which not just individuals and journalists are interacting, but how it is -- how networks have been activated. activists, networks of organizations, networks of other institutions and how hybrid forms of journalism are emerging as a result.

did an answer your question. >> it does. al turn to victor. this idea that just has brought up around not people who -- journalism as an audience, but playing a range of roles. in trade. we can think of engaging with an audience in new ways. i just wonder if you can generalize from many of the other chapters or perspective you have as a media at the party. the role that the audience can play in whether there are limits to that. hysterically. >> sure. there has always been potential for the audience to be more of a media producer than just a media consumer. people assume this is something that was invented with the

internet, but there is a long tradition of that. to bring it back to the area i have done research on, especially the 1940's. at that point it was generally understood, i think, that there wasn't this dichotomy of people who were creating their own media and in the policies from above. media reformists' saw that these areas were very much linked in that to focus on media policy reform was also enabling the new ways that the audience could create new media. there was a vibrant media form in the '40's that was short-lived buys a because of other political shifts. but i think you can draw a line parallel between what's happening then and now. one of the benefits of doing that is that it is sort of -- it

breaks through this a historical amnesia. we keep thinking the internet has changed everything and everything new and that's why it seems good to bring history back. >> great. millions of signatures in favor of service media within the last six months. the budget battles that have gone on here in d.c. to continue the funding. a stationary probably thew=óñób rescue.ñz you know, how realistic is that >> well, more realistic and wew< allow ourselves to believe. i think there is sort of this.x thing that happens here inçu washington where limits are really put on was possible. detached from what people actually want to be interestingp not in my chapter because i discovered it after turning in. considering how late i turn my chapter in, but there was a

survey done of people asking how much of the federal budget did you think goes to support public broadcasting. under attack.3u republicans in the house want to get it. people's answer was 5%. 5 percent. of course it's actually only&p $400 million a year. essentially divide that by taxpayers and it works out to about 25%. people thought it was 5%. even more so they thought that was okay. they thought that was a good idea. they supported funding. here we are having a political debate where people are fighting over table scraps and yet the actual audience out there, the actual voters out there have no problem with the spending arguably hundreds of millions o÷ billions of dollars more. that's just never the way it's been presented. they are not aware that while we are sñqpending that dollar 25, dollar 37, whenever it is coming in england it is $80.

scandinavian country, $100. even in canada its $22 per capita. so when you begin to think what if we spend $5 per capita here, what might that look like? think that is a more interesting conversation and one we need to have. unfortunately one that the public media institutions themselves have been afraid to have. they bought into this idea that there is this incredible scarcity and they should not ask for more. every time a republican member of congress sneezes they have to fire somebody. this has been there approach, but i think there is a better approach, and one where we step back and look at the important.h role that journalism place in our society.?8 we ask ourselves, how will we fill these gaps, huge gaps that victor described. in looking at policies there arx interesting things we can do around the edges. tax policy changes, but when it comes down to it what we really need is more money and the political will to say our money

should go toward supporting the social good, which is journalism. i think there is actually a surprising amount of energy out there for it. our group along with a few allies to come million petition signatures in support of maintaining public media funding. the public media institutions themselves but in that many or more. the people who give support or are part of this fan culture around public media. millions and millions of peopleq who are potentially a political force and all we ask them to do is give it time and your toe tag and when we are really in trouble helpless defend this tiny, tiny slice of the pie. i think their is a far more interesting discussion to be had. what if we put these people to work building that more robustfp public media system and one that goes beyond just pbs and npr to the broader universe including community radio and nonprofit experiments and many of the things that the other panelists

are talking about..x i think that opportunity is staring us in the face. we let ourselves believe that all we can do is fight over, you know, this tiny little bit. >> thank you. filling out drastic. >> optimistic. hamsters of the world unite. >> that might be the takeaway line. you in your chapter basically -- there is a critique of commercial media. the you see any hope but all? are we -- are we left with -- >> i don't deal and hope. bitterness, cynicism, and alienation, anger, that sort of thing. >> of was just trying. i am conscious.

you have some tough words. doing research about journalism. producers of news. d.c. in the hope of modeling behavior on others to back. >> journalism schools, i didn't go to a journalism school. i went to a history school. that was a discipline that fell apart. they were cranking out historians like mad. the 1990's. people with ph.d. in english, even more. we went out on to the job market. you know, there should have been something like content. all of my friends are doing. to this day a lot of them cannot get in your jobs. we are in our '40's. i lifted this situation and i could make more money writing for the alternative newsweeklies in chicago.

i did, and that was the end of that. academia. you want to know -- what did you say? any optimism i thought about this. you know, the models for the future is the model, the content know. that is one system that works. and people get paid. but look, let me take a step back. throughout my career i have had -- i have been documenting the way market populism, which is this term by made up for the face that we have in markets that we think markets are going to speak with our voice and be perfectly democratic and deliver these wonders results. the way that this sort of all american bachmann fails and fails and tails and tails and tails and what you're saying in journalism is not a spectacular

failure. well, this man into a crisis. one after another. what model to five and but we are seeing, the demise of the professional model. what is going to take its place? hamster's getting paid $15 per story. the first time i heard about the public subsidy model i thought that was the greatest idea ever and and and that is how it works in scandinavia where the newspapers are heavily subsidized. that just seems so awesome until i thought about, you know, the world we live in where you basically have one of our two political parties. they would smash that. they would destroy it in a matter of minutes.

okay. that is my joke. what will succeed. you know what i have been reading? is ultimately horrifying and yet soda of clairvoyant. a biography of william randolph hearst. this guy, this was the guy. citizen kane. his model of journalism is first kid yourself a gold mine and be born into a really, really about the family. and then buy up all of these quality riders and pursue york idiosyncratic political vision. by the way, when he started out he was pretty much on the left. he got of war going on his own. an amazing man. he moved to the right. he launched these bizarre red hunting sprees and witch hunts. a fascinating man, but that model is going to survive.

that model is going to thrive. that is the fox news sort of model. in fact, all kinds of ways in which they take pages from the biography of william randolph hearst. you see them doing this all the time. i had another model that i thought would work.@=@?@m no. [applause] [laughter] >> thank you. the head the commissioner here last week talking about the role of the sec. in prior decades he played a role of the public obligations. this was a lapse. i wonder if you could talk, bring some context to the audience about where we are right now and perhaps talk about

what you said in the book. also about that sec report. interesting to be said there. perhaps the demand media to do more than a has. >> one of the interesting things was that it did this amazing job crackling the problem. the phone book on top of the debate. classic pieces from 2008 and 2009. only in the world demand mediate and as the classics. the sec report did a great job of defining the problem says. very vocal. when he got to talking about what we could do about it they threw up their hands. it has become this thing where i was talking earlier with a colleague that we can really do anything about it. the obama doctrine. i think that is sort of impacting the sbc in a way that

they seem very unwilling to use the powers they have to say, you know what, you're using the public airwaves for free. that comes with responsibility. even the fact that getting a call from the sec used to scare a local broadcaster. make them nervous as this report chronicles. they have not taken away a license in something like 30 years. eventually that toothless watchdog does not scare you anymore, and i think the failure in some ways the the current sec has been in not reclaiming that role. they have a real opportunity.gñz the crisis to take something and say we really do have a problem. let's do something different.á> innovative policies, some things we can do. they threw up their hands. our response ability to say that's not good enough. god bless the panel discussion. you know, we have to at some

point get beyond that and engage with the public. a lot of discussion about doing that. if we don't engage in local communities and journalists, and this question we are not going to get anywhere and we're going to be left with william randolph hearst model.ñé that will be the onlybn alternative. i have not given up hope. a lot of opportunity, and i see a lot of energy. it's going to take a different attitude and a different attitude from journalists themselves. i actually did get to journalism school. very unsuccessfully be out all these opinions. it did not quite work for me, but others see it said that you can be involved in politics. should not cut if you're a journalist. you know, very good reasons for being objective or fair. don't really believe in a nativity, but fair in your reporting. of course the bosses never played by those rules« they spent the last 30 years of

the sec consolidating and concentrating and becoming so big that when they toppled over there really took the rest of us within. i think, again, out of crisis comes opportunity, and we are at one of those moments of opportunity, but it's going to be a fleeting moment. if we don't activate now and get out there and engage the public in this discussion, began to reintroduce these crazy eddie is contained in this wonderful book, we believe austin this chance. >> before we engage the public in the room and on line, the last couple questions. you are sort of working more. the community journalism. what promising models to use the out there, the behavior cc up there have changed within the journalism profession. whichever.

>> all the different functions the contacts between that checking, coming three databases, trying to not just go out and find the news stories, but to call together collections of data it and anecdotes that tell a larger story. helps to fill in some of the gaps. actually on the university of chicago at the same time. trying to make up my own discipline. a multi disciplinary program. i think i have a certain faith in innovation and piecing together the old and the new. seeing a lot of that. also part of the deeper history

of what we now think of as this public broadcasting. just a bunch of amateurs, small educational stations, people trying to do something good for the public that got rolled up into a larger entity. that same thing needs to happen now. take a critical look and sometimes a very critical look at what these new technologies can do for journalism and rewarding good behavior is to represent real innovation. >> some building up between communities. >> consolidation. >> so, one of the points i want to make is it is really important that we don't patronize the public and say that the public needs to be told about how important information is. we think about journalism not just as journalism, but as affirmation isn't that the commission report put out. what that means is not sub ask

citizens to be replacements or to serve as models for good journalism or to look for them to be journalists standing on guard for what's missing in public media, but to see people as acting, civic actors and seeing journalism as part of what they do each and every day. i think that it is really important to recognize that people to want these. people don't need to be told that they want peace. people are already chronicling every part of their date. already chronicling what they see in their communities. if you look at the facebook feed use the local news all around you. it's not defined as local news, but it is, hey, my part down the hall, down the street has some graffiti in it. that's local news. we don't call it as such. it's really important to take a

much more expansive notion. not necessarily be so concerned of what the public is giving back, does not quite resemble the journalism we would like it to us the replacing or to supplement. >> thanks. >> we have to wait for the night because is not here. it's the audio. there we are. the mike is here. real ticket. taking questions from the john and. stand-up. >> a couple of fast comments, questions. i've been a journalist for about 50 years. citizen journalism. i think the wonders of blocking, which i look upon with a veryññ jaundiced eye.ññ at least when it comes to

anything like replacement for traditional journalism. secondly what you are suggesting might work with local news, but how is that going to possibly work with national and international news that requires people who have access to training, funding? what is this is a journalist going to do about that? i say it's going to be nothing. the second point to, the gentleman who was talking about the behalf of public broadcasting, i think that is a great idea. what, if anything does that do for print media? frank said i don't think thereñ is any chance at all that congress, at least one party in congress would call for a moment, appropriate any money for print media. >> thank you. and if you could please take a strike at that question. another is a chapter by sean powers in the book is well that

looks at international coverage. >> right. well, i think that nobody is arguing that you or me is going to -- are going to somehow suddenly become the next white house correspondent. i think that's folly. the question is whether we can supplement some of the news organizations on the decline. news organizations. so, if communities can have people who are in their communities covering news, i think that's a great thing. but it's really important to remember how much we can ask people to do. it's more about encouraging a sort of journalism as a civic act than it is about encouraging particular types of journalism, and that's the difference of like to make. in no way am i suggesting that citizens journalists should be replacements. i think that many of the things we talk about today are ways that we can sustain and provide alternatives for funding to make

sure that the good journalism we care so much about continues to exist. >> thank you. its definition. >> sure. one of the more innovative comes from a professor from georgia state university. part of the dissertation research, but he looked at the funding for international broadcasting. for example, the voice of america that the u.s. puts out almost $709 a year tours that. there is a law from 1948 to a small impact would princess anne and that international broadcasting to areas within the borders of the united states. he's suggesting that, perhaps, that is an outdated law and we should look into that the ways that we can provide international coverage through those sources. >> thank you. and public-service media for print. >> well, i think in terms of the

old broad sheet, that is probably not going to happen. in terms of subsidizing and supporting reporters at think that's a very good idea. it's absolutely what we need to be doing in there will be multimedia. in terms of print journalism, of course we are increasingly talking about on-line journalism, was still talking about the written word, andg@ that's absolutely what we needgú to be supporting andg@ subsidizing. in terms of the politicalg@ environment, you know, i am not@ blind to who is in charge of certain agencies and houses and parts of congress. i also saw that when we saw this incredible response to theg@ attempts to cut broadcasting there were six or seven senator@ and in your quest for money because of their rig support for public media. we can demonstrate the broad public support and organize thatg@g@g@g@g@g@g@g@g@g@g@gúg@gú

radio is not so tipping over stages of development. you know, the model that was suggested, the closest thing to a good model of what we would like to see was from the 1940's. we all know that there have been a few generations of change in the wrong direction for obvious -- well, maybe not obvious, but fundamental reasons. and so what i want to argue for you to respond to is that, we are dealing with in this country is fundamental social and economic changes which translates into political changes that really transcends the sort of, you know, putting forward the idea of more money for subsidizing journalism as a solution. we need something -- we need to start organizing to deal with

the political issues before we go to this kind of solution is my suggestion. >> any thoughts? >> just start out with a few general reactions to what i think is a very provocative and very true comment that the gel and just made, which is this idea that we will need a transformation of political culture in many ways before we can really get to some of the solutions that we are calling for. aming, when i start out my talk earlier saying that in 2009 there was this kind of optimismr we thought that was a window of opportunity where there could be is a paradigm shift. this was a critical juncture. i don't want to see the windows closed, but it has been ironic that at the moment where we see market fell you're all around us what we often hear the most is from the tea party movement calling for even less government intervention in public policy.

so i think the first step will probably be liberal policy makers to stop buying into the logic that the government has no legitimate role in trying to address this crisis in journalism. >> we also have a kick in that neck problem. i think in order to bring about the political change we need to reform the media. they have such an incredible play in shaping those perceptions and we're going to do. i don't think there's any question that we need to tackle the problems. i guess i ultimately believe that there may be some relatively simple things and relatively simple inexpensive things in the, you know, billions and billions that we could do that might help bring about that shift. i don't think there is

together to see the government is about to put in billions of dollars to stimulate the economy. why aren't journalism jobs just as important? that had nothing to even put in there. that was a real missed opportunity. i hope that by the next time they will make that mistake. >> the gentleman and black shirt. the back of the room. that judgment. >> when the commissioner was here i came, and i'm so glad that this follows because i also

think that the media is easily important for all kinds of reasons i won't bore you with, and i'm glad that this institution, in the space of one week it's done too. and i agree with the thrust of the discussion that public investment in the media has all kinds of uses, and that's where we should look. given that everyone is saying that i want to point out one thing that i don't think should be forgotten. i think if the people are going to be asked to invest in the media there are some flaws in how the media has performed until now. that should be looked at. might even be more support. my own work is u.s. foreign policy. i am dismayed at how the media covers outside the u.s. you know, last week i mentioned

the new york times. this, i talked to a horrible. sixty minutes repeated the same mistake where basically there's no telling the american people some of the things that the u.s. government is doing wrong outside. people are not well informed about it. if we are going to be asked to invest in the media, and i think we should, the media should also find ways of correcting some of its flaws. one of the biggest is long-term u.s. support of dictators. i'm from africa. that is very important to me. the american people have no clue about how much the u.s. government props up dictators in africa. >> i think of this.

pessimistic. i share some of his pessimism. then we are left with community media which has not had the greatest reputation. public media has been, let's face it, embroiled in critiques this year. i wonder if this doesn't bring up a broader question of government. >> i think one thing should be clear. i don't think that everybody on the panel should be assumed to be -- well, i believe in public media. i think that everyone in the panel should be supporting broad public investment for all sectors of public media or of media because i certainly don't think that i should be giving subsidies to the new york times and the "wall street journal" as much as i love them very much. but i think there is a really important question about media

literacy. how can we make sure the public at a time when the media is increasingly fragmented and in fact recently confusing and more and more and more of it in your attention is limited to my people as we learn from an sec report, people spend nine months, i think it's nine minutes per month reading local news. what can we do to make sure that they are the best nine minutes they can spend. how can we make people less-began. so there are definitely problems, and that is what the role of academics and the role of public policies, so sorry to hold out and netflix it is important to realize , part of all we're 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 a lot smaller media institutions that are much smaller than they once were. so i just wanted to reach calibrate and a little bit. >> well, i think obviously we're going to seriously talk about investing in public media. we have to address to is handing out the money and who is getting the money. i think that starts by removing the public media system. more robust public media system from the annual appropriations process. you know, what about big problems is the public media is at the mercy of the political winds of washington. i think a better strategy would be proactive policies that would create a public trust, something that would really avoided the cyclical nature of funding depending on which party is in charge. how much are they being hammered

or not hammered as the case may be. i don't think this the way to do it for the long run. that is a government problem and it also includes changing the way we appoint some of these people. maybe the president should be picking the members of the corporation for public broadcasting. we need to look at reforms there and how the money instead of. obviously bring in more money and might help some of that, but we have to look at these institutions. that is pro the whole of the discussion, but we have to look good governance. if you're asking the american people, invest a lot more of their tax dollars in the media, they need to have a good reason to believe that might be more responsible. >> and just to mention a suggestion. directing advertising dollars that the u.s. government spends, billion dollars a year.

we were actively directing it toward areas of media where journalism is most likely to be created. local journalism. so it's a lot more. and i just wonder if anyone has anything. i will tell you, i have a question. the q&a section. the lady at the back, great. >> hello. i am a reporter here in d.c. my question, you know, a lot of discussion about the politics of funding. i want to turn the focus to the politics of the media. one of the most interesting developments here in washington is the fact that there has been a big rise in organizations, media outlets tamale left lane right. they're not producing commentary which is traditionally

considered blocking. a lot of what even folks like the new york times in the following the lead of some of these organizations. the post, all these folks producing original reporting. but at the same time, you know, along with the development, one, you have a lot of increasing public distrust and media in terms of the left and the right and where this is coming from and even if it is based on original reporting. i mean, they recognize that it comes from outlets. and sensationalism. i mean, sort of overlapping the fact that politics are involved. stakes are political. a lot of complaints from both sides about that. so my question is, what is the place people -- i guess better than under activity, but in media. he should be promoting at? of fat you that someone, an

institution, she returned to sustain in the midst of all of these developments. >> i'm not going to answer that because i have never been to see interested in journalism. i have a question. after these does answer that i have another question that i'm really going to get them. >> okay. >> and have stayed both the interest in media and part of the media. i would say that ideally you would have a set of people who are trying to establish some common fax and established the range of opinion. often inside the beltway that range is not characterized broadly enough for people which is part of the reason there has been. and then obviously everyone is going to argue from their interest, whether corporate or political. and so this is into a larger

question of moving from object to the transparency and the media literacy. how can we understand how the different ways in which news is used as a tool to characterize. how can we make that more transparent and how can we use the monies that go into federally funded public broadcasting as a tool for developing the standards of ethics more exclusively and then trying to hold some of these other outlets accountable. moving from npr to nbc. nbc recognized. here is a smart woman, innovative, you know, a forward thinking. this after up. she was able to go there because she was not held under the same scrutiny in that commercial space as she has been over the last year in the public space. i would like to see equal standards being applied across the board. even as michael argued in his chapter, some of the fake news release serving as a primary new

source. >> you had your hand. >> my question, the unions and all this, the voice of professionalism. what happened to them in this massive decline that has been going on? >> in a word decimated. i think that a lot of them are, a lot of union jobs. craig can speak to this as well. i don't think that they have been silent on these issues and all. >> ideas, suggestions? >> well, there have definitely been attempts to create worker owned newspapers. some have been successful. there have been other business models that had 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 there have been absent. i think they have been engaged. i think the newspaper guild has

been very outspoken in particular will of course it has been decimated. the unity groups, nationalization and journalists, actually far from an often challenging companies that they have been relying on for their survival as organizations which has put in an interesting positions. that said, in terms of to be mobilizing all of the journalists is a long way to go, and i think that knee-jerk skepticism of not just government involvement, but even politics in the newsroom for them is a big challenge in very often working journalists have really been the last ones to speak up in their own defense. even as all the tests were lobby and push for policies. eventually there were looking around. just a handful of them left.

i can actually tell you. >> journalists, lot of them who are in these situations where they see their newsrooms antimatter around them are often the least likely to innovate. that is something to remember as we think about this. we think about journalism in crisis. often the fear and panic that goes to the hearts and minds of journalists. they tend to think backward instead of thinking forward. and what we need to be able to do is to face this crisis on its head and to encourage innovation and so instead of worrying about circulation and readers, we need to think about how to move forward. >> just a couple more questions. this gentleman on the right in the light jacket. >> what have any of you ridden

inner spoken about self anointed media watchdog blockers and filmmakers and social media users who have been monitoring and correcting so-called mainstream well-paid and still influential network broadcast and print media? some very serious mistakes in recent years. all over today all over christian media that i follow closely the have noticed in a poor about nbc coverage of the u.s. open, then of that edited out a reference to god. they did issue an on-air apology, but that was not sufficient to the commentators i've been listening to.

>> i've heard about it credit bit. that dynamic holds no matter what your ideology is. there are many more ways to hold media accountable, and there are many more opportunities. i think that is a signature of this moment, and it is about free speech. i mean, i don't know house to answer your question. >> i will adjust respond a little bit about the fact checking movement because i think it is a very interesting unit of journalism that is emerging. the role that it will play his, i think, very open question. whether it will succeed or just become another aspect of he said she said. an interesting point that you make. final question if we have anyone yes. the gentleman in the back in a white shirt.

>> if we are ever going to move this beyond the think tanks and academic circles i think everybody in journalism, they have to put some skin in the game. has there ever been any talk about a strike or work of journalists who want to participate put their pants down, but their cameras down. like any unionist will tell you, not everyone is going to agree to participate. maybe get 40 percent, but the point is you can try tap addressed the issue, dropped public attention. everyone can spend the months -- i prefer august. congress can do the least damage to us then and we can all enjoy ourselves. but following the end of that everyone can have their article ready and we can draw the line in the sand condemning those broadcasters, networks, and papers that did not join the

strike wouldn't cover the strike it is time to take some action other than just talking to ourselves. it would be a reminder to let everyone know that if we are doing anything some people might to noticed. >> so with that question, in august. i'll ask the panelist to answer a question if they like or provide some closing comments. >> we saw the writers union strike in some of the things it came out of that. more on-line video from writers. more reality television. it is a very dangerous proposition. plenty of context for people to consume. i would say of the means might work better.

>> thoughts? have we made you more optimistic? >> oh, my god. it's my business. disillusionment is my business. the guy who asked about the bias critique. this is actually a really fascinating aspect of our culture in the last 30 years. i used to run a magazine called the bachelor. we had a great essay. he doesn't know this kind. and he traced the history of media bias critique. it was basically more or less invented. deliberately in 1969. this was the history of the liberal media bias critique. before that it always with the other way. guys like william randolph hearst. these were very right wing chance. and so the buyers critique was always that these guys were, you know, the newspaper was always doing the bidding of big money or something like that.

but he deliberately flip it on its head identifying instead of, you know, the publisher, a guy like colonel mccormick, the real problem in journalism was the professionals, the problem with professionalism, these people who have variegated the power of the publisher to themselves in their little black of professional writers or whenever it is and are making news decisions for the entire country. what's funny is as that has become less true over the years. fox news, a in talk radio. almost completely conservative with an exception here and there. as this has become less and less valid as a description of the media environment we live in, it is not everywhere. the liberal media bias is everywhere as it has become less true. a fascinating story. >> well, i am going to defer to jesse's comment. i do want to say something aboup

this idea, this interest.zpzp and i think there is really gooú about is not so allows people to understand the i just moved here from l.a. and parties. you just don't do that. in d.c. that is what people do, i find. and. [laughter] that talks about journalism it

instead of having a he said she objective or not the objective. to say one thing about your idea of where the liberal media bias critique began, there could have been a liberal bias critique because there was no professional class of journalism. so it kind of -- anyway. >> gaps. thank you. >> okay. not quite ready to endorse the strike, but i am ready to ask. i think that is going to be a key to turning the tide coming days in the public and engaging working journalists in these political questions.

if that means we have to live in a world where we talk about the future of journalism, i'm willing to accept this broader change. i do think we have a lot of public education. people think about the media and journalism as not just something that happens, but something that they are actually -- they actually can influence, whether that is doing their on journalism or getting involved in these larger political questions. i hope with if can get to the point where those discussions are being had, a long way down the road. >> you edited the chapters. >> i am intrigued by the idea of the strike. i'll just leave it at that. the idea of partisanship or bias in media. a couple of pieces in the book that deal directly with that. chris hedges savages the idea of objectivity. lauren again raises the important question which i agree with, not so much about partisan