of hugo glock and he had a hard time sleeping at night when she was credited in on a very difficult face and like to wake up at about 3 a.m. and much her and say it got to talk this over with you i really struggling with this. that is in fact what he really wanted but he felt he could never help himself. he needed her justice first. i love this review is acquitted chief justice roberts write the foreword? >> because i asked him and he was kind enough to do it. it took about six months for me to get the clare to foreword fon and he wanted to read it first and make sure that it was accurate and well done so in a very grateful to him. >> what is your day job? >> and director of publications to the supreme court historical society. i write books about the history of the court. >> what got you interested in the courts in the first place?

>> warren burger called me up one day and said i'm looking for somebody who is young, cheap and good and i said o.k. i think it was later that i felt the order of the adjectives is wrong and would probably be chief and worked out for me. >> here is speed's new book, courtwatchers eyewitness accounts in the supreme court history are the publishers. speed pbs newshour jim lehrer discussing his new book and taking viewers questions at the miami book fair international on the campus of miami-dade college. this is about 40 minutes. >> when is the first time you lost a presidential debate? >> it was 1988 between then vich president george h. w. bush andl michael dukakis who was then thf governor of massachusetts or

vernor, former governor, and he was at:r democratic nominee. >> what do you remember about ey that debate?. >> i it was hairy in every way i had imagined, and even got hairy before the debate began. there was a, in those days the format was a moderator and three journalist panelists. and we had a meeting the night before in winston-salem, north carolina, it was going to be on the campus of wake forest university, and the four of us had a meeting to go over questions. and i was the moderator, the three panelists were peter jennings of abc news, annie grower who was in the orlando paper and john maasic who was in the atlanta paper. and we went over, we had dinner, and it was very secure, it was in a closed room in a downtown office building, and suddenly peter jennings said i've got an

idea. let's forget the debate rules, let's just say, mr. bush, mr. dukakis, go at it with no rules, nothing. and i was stunned. and i got very self-righteous, all of that, i said, oh, peter, we can't do that. we're honor-bound, we agreed to do this and this and this and whatever. i didn't know what we were going to do. fortunately, annie and john agreed with me, and so anyhow, we had, we outvoted him. we didn't really vote, but we -- there were, the majority, majority ruled, and peter went on and all of that. but we, and we followed the rules and all that. but i must say, it was spooky for me and scary, and can it's been scary ever since. >> host: mr. lehrer, you've become the singular moderator for several of the most recent debates. how did that come about? >> guest: well, in many cases it was simply they couldn't agree on anybody else.

and in one case, in fact, it was 1992, i had agreed to do the first clinton debate, and then they were going to have some other moderators do the other ones. and i got a call, i was then at williams burg doing something else. i'd already agreed to do the first one, and i got a call through an intermediary and said, well, they're still arguing about who the other two or three moderators are going to be. they've agreed on you. people want to go to bed, would you agree to do all of them? and i was, oh, my -- okay, okay, how could i say no? and that happened a couple of times after that, and i ended up doing -- once i did all of the george w. bush/al gore debates. in that case i think they just made the decision that the big commission made early on and left it at that. there was some negotiation, but less so than before. but it is, basically, a process of elimination, not of

exultation, okay? [laughter] >> host: how would you prepare? >> guest: well, the basic rule, it took me a while to learn this, the basic rule of preparing for a debate is the same as preparing for a good interview or a discussion you would do on television or even in print, is you've got to have enough information in your head so you can be relaxed enough to react to the answers, to listen to the answers. if you can't, then you're -- if all you can do is just write questions and, again, ask them one right after another, you get caught up in things going right by your head. i use the example in the book, in fact, of a made-up example. i'm interviewing a senator, and i say, senator, should we sell more grain to cuba? yeah, i think we should sell more grain to cuba, but before we do that, we should bomb havana, and i say with my follow-up question all prepared, what kind of grain, senator?

and if you're not careful, you can do that. and in a presidential debate it's critical that you -- it's hard to relax in that situation, but you've got to be calm enough to where you can listen to the answer and make a split-second decision. do i move on? do i follow up? have i got -- what do i do now? and the only way you can make that decision is to be relaxed enough, and the only way you can get relaxed enough is by doing your homework. >> host: mr. lehrer will be with us for the next 30 minutes or so, 202-624-111 in the eastern and central time zones, 202-624-1115 in the mountain and pacific time zones or send him a tweet, twitter.com/booktv. the different formats, were they confining as a host? >> guest: well, the formats, first of all, everybody needs to understand that the moderator has nothing to do with decide what the format is in if any given debate.

they, it's a subject of negotiation between or among the handlers or the representatives of the candidates and the commission on presidential debates. and in if recent cases -- in recent cases the commission on presidential debates suggests or recommends a format that they think would be preferable, and then the representatives of the candidates sit down, and they thrash it out. the difficult thing for a moderator is that when a moderator is invited to moderate a presidential debate, it's a little bit like the seventh grade prom question, you know? penelope, if i invited you to go to the prom, would you go? well, in this case, billy bob journalist, if you were to moderate, if we asked you to moderate this panel, moderate this debate, would you enforce these rules? so you look at the rules, and then you decide whether or not you figure you can do it or not and whether you want to do it or

not, whether they're too restrictive. and some of them have become pretty restrictive, there's no question about it. because the way the negotiations -- remember, so much is riding on this that the people or hold up negotiating for the candidate -- who are negotiating for the candidate, they're looking for an advantage for themself or a disadvantage for the other side. and if a candidate is known to be, say, a really whiz-bang debater, good on the uptake, quick and that sort of thing, well, then that's a different set of rules might apply. if somebody tends to go on and on and on, well, then they would want -- the other guy would want rules, the other person would want rules that make it difficult for this person to stay in the confines. in other words, you'd want one minute, two minutes, 30 seconds, whatever, whatever. and we're, and what some people like follow-ups, some people don't like follow-ups, all that sort of stuff.

and where i always had a problem, i always look at the rules, and i say, okay, can i do this? can i get, can i make the flow work? can i use these rules, maybe construct a way of using the rules and not violate the spirit of the rules, but use the rules as a way to add some follow-ups, stuff like that? it's hard, no question about it. and you've got to make sure that you don't get involved in that. in other words, on the air you don't get involved in trying to manipulate the rules and whatever. but it's not easy. >> host: when the candidates break the rules, what can you do? >> guest: well, you've got to call their hand. and you have got to call their hand in front of millions and millions of people. and it's, that also is not easy. you need to do it in a gentle, professional way. you need to do it on -- also, you've got to tell people ahead of time what the rules are. the very beginning of a debate. okay, here's what the rules are. so the audience is with you when you stop them and say, hey,

billy bob, you're going over, your time's up. the candidate -- the audience realizes, they can tell the two minutes is up or whatever. and for the most part, it's not that difficult. there are very few, in my experiences at least, where the candidates blatantly disregarded or violated the rules. >> host: jim lehrer is our guest. phone numbers are on the screen. glenn in freeline, michigan, you're the first caller. go ahead with your question or comment for jim lehrer. >> caller: yes, sir, thank you very much, gentlemen. mr. lehrer, you're a great man, and i know on your news program you try and get all sides on there to whatever extent you can, so this isn't a criticism of you personally or anything. i was just wondering, though, about these debates, and you kind of talked about this a little while ago. for one thing they aren't really debates, are they? they're more like joint press

conferences. there isn't really much debating, real debating between the two candidates. and also, um, as i understand it, um, these were run by the league of women voters until '92. they let perot in, and he got 20%, and then the big corporations basically bought up the thing so that would never happen again so that we'd have two, um, establishment candidates, corporate america, i guess upper 1% is the current cliche. we'd have -- >> host: all right. you know what? glenn, we've got a lot of information there. let's get an answer from mr. lehrer. >> guest: yeah. first of all, the debate commission just for the record here has a criteria for the candidates, and ross perot -- and the criteria have to do with how he's doing in the polls, candidate's doing in the polls. my recollection is, here again, the moderator doesn't have anything to do with this, but i

think you have to be 15% or more in the polls to be considered a major candidate and make it into those debates. and that, here again, the moderator has nothing to do with that. in terms of what is a debate and what's not a debate, that's all in the eye of the beholder. my own view is, look, if you've got candidates for major office, particularly president of the united states on the same stage at the same time talking about the same thing, the format is almost irrelevant. a lot of people say, oh, my god, we've got to go back to the lincoln/douglas debates. the opening statements were an hour and a half, and each of them had an hour rebuttal. those things went on for six and seven hours. that is not, that is not my definition of a debate. and people think they know what a debate is because of in high school or something like that. there have been very, very few what i would call pure debates where there wasn't a moderator, somebody asking questions. >> host: jim lehrer, you write about this in "tension city,"

but the time ahead of the debate before it get cans started when everybody's sitting around waiting and c-span cameras are on at that point, and you're just all kind of sitting there. what do you write about when you talk about that in "tension city"? >> guest: well, what i always do when i -- in a hall you've got 6, 700 people, some of them not audience, not a town hall, they're just in the audience. chosen or selected or permitted to be there representing candidates or whatever, whatever reason or local people in the community. what i always tell 'em, right, before the debate begins, hey, look, you are not here to participate in this debate, and i'm very ruthless about it. and i tell 'em, look, you want to hiss and boo and applaud, you want to do anything like that, don't do it because if you do, i'm going to stop the debate, i'm going to turn around, i'm going to humiliate you in front of everybody you've ever known in your life, and i'll take names. and it's all kind of fun and

games, but i always designate -- i remember one year, one debate i designated barbara bush to monitor the noise. there was not a peep out of anybody. and, because the debate commission and the candidates, we all -- and the moderators all agree that, that this is for the television audience, for the voters of america. this is not an event that is being televised for the benefit of the people in the hall. they are there at as the privild few to observe from close up, but they are not to participate. and i make that crystal clear. and all of that has been on c-span. because y'all's cameras pick that up when they, when the opening -- there's always the people who run the debate commission and a representative, the college or whatever, they always make welcoming remarks, and then they turn it over to the moderator, and i am, i have, i have set a standard, i hope,

they can maintain of keeping people quiet during the debates. >> host: next call comes from diane in flippen, arkansas. hi, diane, you're on booktv. >> caller: oh, hi. i want to make one statement if you'll let me, please, before i get to the issue that i called about. don't cut me off, if you will. i, i think it's just a shame that with all the information we have out there with our media, the internet and everything why more people, why we really even hardly have to have debates in this age and time. because there's so much out there, it's not like it was in the years before tv and all. and why people don't, why they don't know the candidates before. that's just a statement. i think it says something about either our schools don't get the

people, children civics-minded or whatever. >> host: okay, diane, we got that, now, did you have a question as well for mr. lehrer? >> caller: this has bugged me for almost 20 years about president bush looking at his wash during the debate. i took it that he was saying how much time do i have left to get to the issues i want to talk about, or have i stressed enough? i didn't want take it, him looking at his watch, like the press did, like, oh, well, will this finally ever get over? and a lot -- >> host: all right, diane. we got the point. we've got to let you go. mr. lehrer writes about that issue in "tension city." so the need for debates in the today's media world and the 1992 watch incident. >> guest: i think they're separate and apart. i think the needs for debates is as strong as it's ever been because of so much information out there. the debates are the only time you have a comparative situation. you actually have whether it's

in a primary debate or a general election debate, you have the candidates on the same stage talking, moving, talking about issues, reacting to questions, all of that sort of stuff. and it works on two levels. it's the body language, but it's also the spoken language. and i think the comparative situation is real, and i think it's important in the process. and it is, yes, there's all kinds of information. in fact, in some ways because there's so much information, the debates become even more important because then you kind of take that final measure of the individuals, and you say, hey, can i imagine this person sitting at a table in the oval office deciding -- reacting to another katrina? reacting to another 9/11? making decisions about sending meshes into -- americans into harm's way? and it's all about who these people are as individuals, it's presidential temperament, all that stuff that you also get in addition to that material that -- i agree with her that a

lot of material comes out ahead of time, and that's terrific. the more the merrier. so that's my answer to that. >> host: and the 1992 watch-looking -- >> guest: the watch thing. i did talk to, i was fortunate, as you know, to be able to talk to most of all the candidates, presidential, vice presidential -- >> host: only al gore didn't talk to you. >> guest: lloyd benson was ill, and i was not able to talk to him, but this was over a 20-year period. anyway, talked to them one-on-one about their debate experiences. and what george h.w. bush said to me, i asked him, i said, hey, tell me about the watch thing. and he said, well, he said, yeah, yeah, yeah, i looked at my watch. big deal. that means i'm not qualified to be president of the united states? you look at your watch on television, and you're not qualified to be president of the united states? and i said, you know, a follow up this was for television, for a documentary, and i said -- the it's cameras were running, and i said, well, mr. president, some people said you wanted to know

when the thing was going to be over, and he said, you're right, i wanted to know when this damn thing was going to be over. and he said, you can put that in your documentary. and i said, mr. president, we just did. [laughter] >> host: ralph in chicago, you're on with jim lehrer, we're talking about presidential debates. mr. lehrer's most recent book, "tension city." >> caller: yes, please, thanks. general schwarzkopf said at the end of the first world war that he won the battle but not the war. the king of arabia asked the oracle at delphi whether he should attack the persian empire, and the oracle responded if you attacks, you will see the destruction of a great empire. so he attacked and saw the destruction of his own empire -- >> host: tell you what, ralph, if you have a question for mr. lehrer about presidential debates, go ahead and ask it or we're going to have to move on.

>> caller: yeah. why not debate the history of war in the middle east or 20 conquerors of iraq and of palestine? >> host: mr. lehrer, this kind of goes back to format. >> guest: well, sure, and, i mean, any question can be asked if it becomes an issue. i believe debates should be about issues already in front of the american public and ma matter at that -- that matter at that moment in time. and that question could certainly be asked in a presidential debate if it were relevant at that moment. >> host: mr. lehrer, what about technical problems as the moderator? >> guest: well, technical problems go with the territory. i've had every, i've had -- i've lost audio in my ear, as you know, there are, you know, directors and executive producers that need to tell you certain things, hopefully not very much. i've lost audio. one time, in fact, it was 2008 they had a cover over the teleprompter because they didn't

want to show it at the very beginning where i was to say good evening from oxford, mississippi. they had a black cloth over the teleprompter, and they forgot to take it off. so fortunately, i know how to say good evening, i'm jim lehrer -- [laughter] i had memorized that. also, i had the written script, so i got away with it. but you could tell i'm looking down there for a moment. but there's always, there are always -- some of the cues, the lighting cues, the timing cues are colored lightbulbs, green, yellow and red, and you can miss sometimes those things can go wrong. everything can go wrong. it will. the biggest, you know, remember in 1976 gerald ford/jimmy carter, they lost audio altogether for 27 minutes. and two of them just stood there. >> host: they didn't talk to each other. >> guest: they didn't talk to each other, they wouldn't sit down. edwin newman was the moderator, and he said, you know, i offered

to give them chairs, and they wouldn't even acknowledge that i offered to give them chairs so they could sit down. each one of them was so afraid they would show weakness. and i talked to both of them afterwards in those post-debate interviews, and they both agreed this was not their finest hour, and they both deserved to be marked down, so to speak, about leadership, etc., as a result of their -- >> host: was it completely uncomfortable in the hall? >> guest: oh, yeah. yeah, i mean, it was crazy. nobody knew, nobody knew what to do. they kept saying, well, they're going to fix it any moment. well, that was 27 minutes later. >> host: j.t. tweets in, how likely is a debate format like the tv series "west wing" where the candidates agree on the fly to suspend the rules? >> guest: well, that was all -- i happen to -- well, i think that's very unlikely. i think it's too much, too risky. i doubt -- it may happen, but in order for it to happen, you'd

have to have two or three candidates, let's say two candidates who are completely at ease about their debate technique, completely at ease about what they know and don't know and are willing to just go at it. and do not want the restriction and don't need the restriction of time, time cues and all of that. thus far, there vice president been any -- there haven't been any. i did one in '92 for 45 minutes that was not that restricted, that was among jrnlg h.w. bush, bill clinton and ross perot. it scared everybody so much, there hasn't been any repeat of that since where you just kind of went at it. >> host: do you write your own opening statements? do you have full editorial control over that? >> guest: full editorial control of opening statements, certainly full editorial control of all questions. nobody -- no questions are run by anybody, certainly nobody in the, that has anything to do

with the candidates or whatever, not by the debate commission, not by anybody. it is -- the moderator clearly is holding dynamite in the his or her own hands. >> host: in "tension city" there's another player in the book. her name is kate. who is kate, and ha's her role in the debate? >> guest: kate is my wife, and because i've always been so spooked by the fact that if anybody got any advance word of what questions might be asked that would be terrific intelligence, i always lock down everybody, i just quit talking to anybody including staff of "newshour" about questions i'm working on about five days before a debate if there's enough time. so i don't run 'em by anybody. so when i finally get to the end, you know, sometimes a few hours beforehand or whatever, usually the day, the only person i run 'em by is my wife kate. and she's looking for apples and

oranges questions, questions that don't make sense, that sort of thing. and she, she expresses herself very openly to me, and as i say in the book, i always take her every suggestion. [laughter] she does not believe. but at any rate, she's the, she's the one who always reminds me to -- and she did in that first debate that, hey, you think you're nervous, just look what it's like for those candidates standing out there knowing one grimace, one gesture, one word can, they can lose the presidency. and kate's the one who keeps me grounded. >> host: next call for jim lehrer comes from susan in casper, wyoming. susan, you're on booktv. go ahead. >> caller: oh, thank you so very, very much for taking my call. i have a great respect for mr. lehrer. i have a question about, um, future debates in this election cycle. um, if it would be possible to ask the candidates questions

about the penn state situation. and the reason i bring this up is because in my experience i have found that money seems to buy protection from prosecution. um, just like in the penn state situation, i have been in a battle for ten years to protect the children of casper, wyoming, from an ongoing incestuous chul pedophilia family. >> host: all right. we're going to leave it there, susan. mr. lehrer, would a penn state question, would that be a question you would ask as a moderator? >> guest: well, it all depends. it would depend on when the debate was held. it's like september, october, depending on what the news was at the time about the penn state thing, it could be relevant, it might not fit. in terms of relevance. when you look, because the -- it's kind of the old-fashioned inverted pyramid when it comes

to judging what's important enough to ask in a presidential debate. it's very possible that the penn state thing could be in there, it's also quite possible it might not be. you couldn't make that decision now. >> host: is there a question and a time that you've done debates that you would take back? >> guest: was something i did? oh, sure. i missed a time cue with george h.w. bush and stopped him in the middle of an answer. and when i finally was corrected, i said, oh, i'm sorry, mr. vice president, go ahead, and he said, i forgot what i was saying. [laughter] and i wanted to fall through the floor on that one. there are, but other than that, a few technical things like that, there is no particular -- maybe i've put them out of my mind. but there are no particular times that i feel truly embarrassed and my face reddens when i think back on that, oh, my god, i blew -- because i've been always driven by the idea, the central idea here that i don't want to do anything that effects the outcome of a debate,

much less the presidency of the united states. because the moderator shouldn't be that involved. moderator should be invisible. and i think for the most part i have succeeded in being mostly invisible. >> host: do you prefer -- well, you've done both singular moderator and panel moderator. >> guest: right. >> host: what are the strengths and weaknesses of each? >> guest: well, the weakness of the panel moderator, the panel format is that there are usually no follow-ups. i mean, each panelist comes up with a question, and they just ask them one right after another. and the moderator in the old days got to ask one opening question, and that was it. the rest of the time he or she was the traffic cop for all practical purposes. the, the strength of that, of the panelist thing is that there are more people involved, more

perspectives involved in the formulation of questions and whatever. the strengths and weaknesses of the single moderator are, as i've said, you've got an awful lot riding, you've got an awful lot on your shoulders as the moderator and nobody to help you, nobody to share it with. that's the downside. and if you have a bad moderator, there's no way to compensate. i mean, you're stuck. it's gone. going right in front of you. and if moderator loses it, there's nobody to kind of help fill it out. the upside is with a single moderator, a single moderator can control the flow, editorial flow even with no matter what the rules are. and you can figure out ways to bring an -- expand the dialogue on the subject and all that sort of stuff. so, i mean, there are pros -- there are ups and downs for both of them. >> host: now that you've written "tension city," does that

indicate you will not be participating in the 2012? >> guest: absolutely. i wouldn't have written the book if i was going to do another debate. if i was even invited to do it, it's because i didn't want anybody to say, well, you know, you wrote so and so, you know? this was one decision. the decision to write the week was also the -- the book was also the same decision, i'm not going to do any more debates. >> host: bill in san diego, you're on booktv on c-span2 with jim lehrer. >> caller: thank you. does the presence of fringe candidates in the primary debates discourage more substantial candidates from running? >> guest: you know, i don't think so, bill. i think, this is my own private view here, my own personal view. i think the purpose, we've got to keep in mind what i think the purpose of the primary debate is, that is to weed the field. how are you going to weed the field if you don't see the field? and you ought to see the field equally, in my opinion. and there's plenty of debates.

so there were 40 primary debates in 2008, there have already been i don't know how many just on -- with two parties in 2008, i don't know how many, i can't remember, but six or seven already, and there are probably going to be six or seven more, if not more than that in the republican debates this time. i think it's just really good for the system. it nationalizes the nominating process. in the old days before there were primary debates, the candidates just did their electioneering in new hampshire, iowa and south carolina. and now the whole country is watching as this process unfolds, and you've got -- these are national, these are now national contests whether anybody likes it or not for the nomination. and i think they're a good thing, and you need to have everybody up there, and i frankly believe they all should be treated equally at this stage of the game, and they shouldn't be there based on positions based on their polls and all of that. that's my own view of it. >> host: jim lehrer, in your

view as a watcher and now historical observer, was the 1960 kennedy/nixon debate successful? >> guest: oh, certainly, it was. it was successful in that it, first of all, established the precedent, it was successful in that you saw, you accomplished what was impossible before which was to see people, the two candidates, side by side, as i say, talking about the same things. you got to see now -- there's always, when the television camera is there, there are certain things you're going to see that you wish you didn't have to see. particularly, for instance, richard nixon perspiring. a lot of people, oh, look, he's nervous. well, the fact of the matter is he got out of a sick bed, and he had fever, and it was in a tv studio in chicago. it wasn't before an audience. the lights were hot, and he had perspiration over his lip. kennedy didn't perspire. and it goes back to the old idea that the people who listen to

that debate on the radio thought nixon won, and people who saw it on television thought kennedy won. so you can argue that one up one side and down the other. but the fact is we are now in a television age, and there's no turning that one back. and if a person running for president of the united states cannot stand before a tv camera and speak fluently, in such a way that you can explain difficult positions and all of that, he or she is not going to be elected president. it is one of the skills required, like it or not. >> host: why was it so many years before another presidential debate was held after that? >> guest: well, because we had incumbent presidents. one was richard nixon, and the other was lyndon johnson. and, actually, it was the other way around, sorry. anyhow, they were incumbents. they were way ahead in the polls, and they had no reason to debate, and they just said no. there was no way of putting pressure on them. and the only reason they started again in 1976 was because gerald

ford, who was the incumbent but, he was 20 points behind. and i interviewed him about this. i asked him, why did you do? he said, it was the only chance i had to gain ground on jimmy carter. because otherwise going the regular way wasn't going the work. so he challenged carter to the debate which was unheard of. and carter agreed. and he, they came within three points. i mean, it worked from -- then ford, of course, had a problem in one of the debates where he said the soviet union didn't dominate eastern europe. that hurt him. but, basically, the debates helped him gain ground big time on, on carter. and, but more importantly, it established the fact of presidential debates. there were, you know, and no candidate now could ever, ever say, no, no, no, i'm not, i'm not going to do presidential debates. you've got to run.

you've got to participate. >> host: and jim lehrer writes about all of these stories that he's telling us in "tension city." his newest book. how many books have you written? >> guest: 23. >> host: how many nonfiction, how many fiction? >> guest: three nonfiction, 20 fiction. >> host: why? >> guest: gotta stay busy, man. [laughter] no, it's just what i do. it's a natural act to me to write, and i get fidgety when i'm not writing. it's not a, it's not something that i'm -- it's just what i do. i'm just so comfortable and so very much fulfilled when i'm writing, and i love the feel of a book, pieces of paper between two pieces of cardboard and having written it and look at it, put it in a book shelf and make me happy about myself. >> host: what's your role with the "newshour" today? >> guest: well, i'm still the executive editor. i'm there on most fridays doing mark shields and david brooks. i'm kind of on a glide path, have been for two and a half years. slowly, slowly gliding away.

and i feel good about it. we have a team approach now. there's no, you know, huge billy bob wah wah anchor person. there's a team of anchors, senior correspondents who share the anchoring. and we're, we're there. it took a while to develop that, and that was part of my gliding away. and i feel good about it. .. do you have any comments about the article? >> no, it's one of those things all it does is fulfil one of my rules of journalists it's too bad of redican have a story written about them. they would be more careful of the facts. there are several things in the streets that were not factually correct, but i'm not going to wind and complain about it.

bottomline is we have had financial problems. we've been on the air 36 years. we've had financial problems for 36 years. we always will. the only problem now is no longer an issue of survival in my opinion i think because the of the revolution's going on in journalism. we need to raise more money not survive but to enhance what we are doing and expand what we are doing. those of us in serious journalism have to do more and public broadcasting public media should be leading the way, and that was not in "the new york times" story like we are about to go wonder we are not even close to that. that's just the way we are. that's trust the way we live. we are not only in our audience, we are quadrupled to reach by joining up with our online operations, with our broadcast operations. we are a growing and you would

never have known that from reading that story as a coincidence the two major people on the staff or so resigned for different reasons, had nothing to do with anything negative. they just wanted to move on for various reasons, and we are not playing god with people's lives sure they were important people, but the added up some stuff that didn't add up for me. islamic jim lehrer has been our guest at the last 40 minutes talking about his book tension city inside of a presidential debate my view from the middle seat published by random house.n it's his 23rd book.s book thank you for being on book tv. >> it's a pleasure. a great pleasure. thank you.

here's a short author interview from c-span's campaign 20s ralf plus has that truffles the country. >> what qualities in a candidate with incentivize voters to hire or fire them? >> it's not exactly the way i approach the question and notebook. voters have a variety of characteristics they consider important and certainly is a characteristic voters find more important in candidates is party ied. that is the primary determinant. the second characteristic at least in congressional elections voter consider important is prior experience. when we look of voters behavior those are the factors voters consider most strongly when deciding whom they want to hire or fire. >> in your book you compare competitive elections with of the structure and the corporation that when an employee he is not performing

the should be fired. what is the disconnect between competitive elections that you discuss in your book? >> there are a lot of different disconnects. a lot of what talk about in the book is people have conflicting definitions of a competitive election is. so for example, the closely associated definitions of the elections in which the final vote tallies are both in the elections we are uncertain about the result. they are related by different definitions so we talked about uncertainty for example what does that mean? and election is a way to hire or fire somebody and you have an incumbent running for office there is an employee whose contract is up for renewal. dewey reena that were not? that is literally what an election is. so let's think about what needs to have a competitive election.

if the competitive election is by which we are on certain and there is a sort of random element in the essentially the competitive election in the incumbent is tossing a coin to decide whether or not to fire an employee. that is not a good idea. if you want a strong company, what you do this retain the employees doing a good job the terminal stockley and fire the employee is doing a bad job determine holistically. when you don't do is flip a coin but that is what a competitive election is if we go with a definition of uncertainty. there are other definitions of the competitive which run to the problem, but the basic issue is what you think about elections as an employment mechanism most of the definitions of the competitive election don't make up the sense. >> what suggestions do you make in your book to improve the system? >> essentially the argument in the book is if you want a healthy company, what you do this pose a credible threat to

fire employees who do not do a good job at the purpose of doing that is to get that we use the incentive to do a good job as a result they don't get fired. if you still have to file your people that means something went wrong. the argument i made in the book is that the elections should operate in the way such that there is a determined sestak threat to fire incumbents who do that job and that's to be given such a way as being fired. that's how i think the electoral system should operate. and what that does is avoid most definitions of the competitive election because if that happens then we won't have them close or marginal. we will not observe certain elections or a lot of turnover on elected officials. we will not see them in the competitive election so the important thing i argue in the book is we pose a credible threat, but as all in the case and the threat to have to carry out the threat it is something went wrong. >> so how do you suggest we pose

a credible threat for paean to the candidates to take the election process more seriously or at least the political performance? too that's voters' responsibility. there's nothing we can do to pose that credible threat. we completed around with the election to some degree but ultimately voters are not willing to pose that threat there is nothing that we can do in the policy cents to pose that threat or to force them to pose that threat. it is the responsibility of the voters just as the responsibility of employers to pose that threat to employees and employers do not pose that threat. there is nothing you can do structurally to create the threat petraeus connect who is the audience that you would like to read your book? >> there's a couple audiences. scholars, people who study elections and right in different ways that the books also target to some degree at political pundits because there is a common argument in the politics

that we need the more competitive elections and i don't the fees are fought out well. part of the problem in these arguments is they come from the belief elections are analogous to the market's therefore we need competitive elections. i don't think that the analogy holds. it's more useful to think of them as employment mechanisms which is what they are. cities essentially the audience i am hoping will read it are the people who need these kind of arguments about the need for competition in the democracy and the ideas that are comparable to the markets which have not. >> with the campaign in 2012 what changes would you like to see in that election process? >> i'm not sure there are any major policy changes i would like to see because i'm not convinced that any major policy changes would have a dramatic effect on the credibility of the