the assault on honest debate. two months ago we had the woman who ran npr, vivian schiller at this very -- at this very podium to discuss that, among other things, just between the -- rather, just before she too was let go. since then our guest has taken on an expanded role at fox news serving as a political analyst, a panelist and a regular substitute host for the show where he sparked that controversy, "the o'reilly factor." please give a warm national press club welcome to juan williams. [applause] >> mark, thank you very much. bob, thank you for setting this up on your maiden voyage. i hope i hold to your high standards. thank you. it's a pleasure for me to be here at the national press club. and i want to thank you all for coming out today and, of course, i want to thank you, mark, for the invitation to be here. i've been in this room more than a dozen times to hear speakers. i never thought i'd be the

speaker. never. of course, i never thought i'd be in this situation that mark described to you just six months ago write found myself -- not having my by line or my comments on the front page or on the tv but it was me, the controversy was about me. ..

the idea was that because i had made the statement that mark described to you i could no longer be an effective journalist. to that extent i was accused, therefore, of fermenting hate and intolerance. a black guy making fun of muslims with the entertainment of white racists, and to not forget that i was unrepentant employee of fox news, so there was quite a list of charges against me at the time. given that tarring of my reputation i began -- again, just want to emphasize how much i appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and especially to you members of the press who suggested that i be invited to speak after the former npr president spoke here in march, as mark described for you. the efforts to minimize my firing and the personal attack led journalists to ask that i be

given this platform today, and i think you. let me remind you that, as mark described, but not in full, that when that person was here, that reporter refused to accept the platitude and effort to minimize the idea of a major news organization silencing a commentator. all of this fits with the great tradition of this press club, its inventor of major debate in american life, especially the debate that touches on the heart and practice of journalism, and i say that in the context of this being a moment when journalism is in the midst of such a transformation with the blood of 24 hour news creating demand for opinions and analysis to help people make sense of this bin, posturing, provocateurs that line today is

a mixed media landscape. i also appreciate the chance to speak here because, in fact, when i was fired i was not given the chance to speak. this is such a strange thing, but i was simply given a phone call and told that my contract was being terminated, and this was after working for npr for ten years as a host, a senior correspondent, and political analyst. in essence i had been muzzled and not given the chance to come in, explain myself, not being told exactly what the understanding was of the entire context that was prompting management to make the decision that they made. in that context and moment i'd have to tell you, in all honesty i feared that my career as a journalist was over, that i have lost my credibility. npr certainly has a large microphone in every town in america, and i did not know how this was calling to play in the

national consciousness. so, to get back to my earlier point, i never thought i would find myself in this situation. and did not think i would never have an opportunity to speech -- speak at the national press club. with the ensuing debate i found myself caught up in a whirlwind, and i think most journalists would be accustomed to. i have worked, obviously, in tv since the late 80's locally here in washington d.c., cnn, and then fox. i have written best-selling books, but by comparison, the focus brought on by the recent controversy, have to tell you, i was fairly anonymous before all this happened. one man came up to me and said, did not know what you looked like until i saw your picture on the front page of the new york times. of course npr listeners used to say to me it was nice to be able to put a face with a voice when they met me. in those situations i would have

to invite -- bite my tongue. my instincts would say, i didn't know what you look like either. now i have this situation with fox viewers. when they meet me they say, as one man said recently, it's nice to be allowed to put a body with a face. that is a new twist for me. as we are speaking here today, i wanted to ask you to engage in an active imagination. as mark mentioned to you, when i first went to a in pri was the talk-show host for talk of the nation, and i wanted to just play around a little bit with imagination and have you imagine that you were listening to a talk show. let's pretend that our topic today is the firing of our guest, juan williams. we'll take your calls. or going to have questions. let's begin first with an update from juan williams.

so, since my firing i was hired full-time by fox news to be a political analyst there. i have -- i appreciate that, and i certainly appreciate fox making that decision. you can imagine it is scary in these days when journalists are such a tender -- under such as economic pressure. i also writing a column, and i have just finished and intense four months of life in which i have been writing this book that mark mentioned which will come out in late july. so that is kind of an update on where i am now. now, let me change hats and pretend to be the radio talk-show host. i would say, well, tell us exactly how you think this storm started. when did the tornado ripped into your life? and i guess my response would be, well, i didn't even know it had written to my life.

what happened was that bill o'reilly, the number one talk show host on cable news in america, was on television and expressed his belief that muslims attacked us on september 11th which prompted whoopi goldberg and another woman to walk off the set. and then the following monday i was the lead cast on bill o'reilly said show, and he asked me quite bluntly, where am i wrong. well, i said there was no way to get around the fact that there was a wide problem with radical islamic thought. i said candidly that when i get on an airplane, as mark told you, and see people dressed in muslim garb identifying themselves as muslims it makes me nervous and was an expression of a feeling, especially after 9/11, the issue bummer, what

took place in london, madrid, indonesia, the christmas bombing, the times square bomber who declared that the first drop of blood was just being shed in the ongoing war. but then i added that we cannot jump to violate the rights of american muslims or any muslims from any place in the world because of religion. i said, think about timothy mcveigh, the olympic palmer, an atlanta, the westborough baptist church whose members continue now with supreme court sanctioned to protest at military funerals while shutting that god hates gays. we cannot violate the rights of people of any faith based on the actions of people who are extremist. i said all of this at the time in the full context of the

interview taking place. maltase the word interview to debate with bill o'reilly. that made it clear that we cannot tolerate people using rhetoric and words to attack muslims because based on those fears you can get into a situation such as has been recently the case where a cab driver had his throat cut by someone who was attacking him because he was a muslim. now, that discussion was honest and heartfelt and led npr to fire me. let me switch hats again and be the talk-show host. did i realize, did you realize when you were making these comments that people might view them as inflammatory and biggest? i have to tell you, have not had that thought. here we are, may 26, 2011, i

have never once had that thought. you know, some days you catch yourself in the shower and think, oh, i should have said this bushes have touched it this way. i never had a second thought because, in fact of what i expressed was a genuine feeling. it was not a well that it analysis. it was not a suggestion that we base our tmz policy on the basis of such a feeling. it was simply an honest statement of feeling. again coming in the aftermath all that has taken place. and of course, you know, it just strikes me that even in admitting to a feeling how difficult it is in this country today to try to solve problems of racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination if people are unable to speak -- if people are

unable to start an honest dialogue. it seems to me incredibly difficult. in fact, subsequently some people who wanted to criticize me said, oh, well, but if that had been said about three young black guys who were walking down the street late at night and somebody said, you know, did not feel comfortable because i saw these three young black men approach. and i said, well, a black. as you can see, and the father of blacks on. if i was walking down the street that night and saw three young black men dressed in a thuggish renner and behaving suspiciously i would be nervous, too, but apparently were not allowed to say something's. what has been rewarding for me is that through all of this there has been an incredible amount of support from left and right, people saying that this is a time when political correctness needs to be called out as corrosive to public

debate. i am reminded that george washington, one of the founding fathers, said, for if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiment on matters of central -- matters that are central which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences then reason is no use to us as americans. he said this in 1783. i think it applies to this very day. let me switch hats again. as a talk-show host, what have you learned from this? i say first and foremost, for me , i have been stunned by the number of people who of, to me, no matter where a.m., basketball camp, supermarket, walking down the street, airport, to tell me that, you know what, they have had the same thought or the to

feel that they cannot engage in honest discussion in this country. if you can't tell people what is on your mind for fear that someone will call you a bigot, racist, homophobic. you cannot help to what is going on because there is the fear, well, as in my case, that you might be fired, but more generally that you will be shunned. and so given the fact that we, as americans and as a nation are going through so much change, political change, social change, a telegraphic shifts in our population, geopolitical shives, dealing with so many political issues, it just strikes me out of keeping with our history that we would at this point try to silence, silence debate and silence people who are trying to contribute to a better understanding of who we are in service to the idea of solving

problems and making us a better nation. but the switch hats again and pretend that i am the talk-show host. well, what most surprises you during this? and i say, you know, right after i got that late afternoon phone call i bit my tongue. i was so worried. that did not talk to anybody. i was worried about what was going to happen. it was npr that we did as a story and started a national attention. there was the worry that i can see where people who are conservative might decide that they want to support me. there are most familiar with this idea that if you say the wrong thing you might be subjected to the charge of bigotry, racism. but i wonder how the lessons of the country's political spectrum might react? could this be an opportunity to simply jump on?

so it was a big surprise to me when people like whoopi goldberg, john stuart, and even sarah palin on the far right, agreed that what had taken place was really out of bounds. since this controversy broke, as i have told you, people everywhere say to me, you know, i understand what it is to feel that you can't speak in this country today and tell me that they feel that there is too much in coded speech, political correctness, and that it is being enforced by political parties, lobbying groups, advocacy groups, political correctness that is used to enforce identity, a group identity in this country. it is used to raise money. of course it is used by donors and advertisers. therefore, people in the middle,

and let me remind you, most americans do not identify as conservative liberal. they identify as people in the battle. with lots that very of different issues. and they find that, you know what, to be in the middle is often to feel as if you have no voice. you're not allowed to express reservations, concerns, were you have misunderstood an issue or that you are being misunderstood because someone could say, you are stupid or, again, you're out of line. and, of course, they worry that the people who do get to speak in the country are most often the provocateurs, the people who will say the most extreme things are given a platform, microphone, a tv camera, and say the most wild things. everyone pays attention, and then we go back into our political correct speech code in

which so much goes on said. this inflexibility is a defining feature of our national discourse at this moment, and it truly, to me, is tragic. let me shift again. as a talk-show host, well, windy you think the started? and i guess i would answer that i believe that, in fact, you go back to the 60's and there was a lot of effort to try to change the way americans spoke as part of fighting barriers of inequality, racial and gender stereotypes. and it was clearly a good intent to that we want to try to eliminate bias in the way that we speak because that is evidence of the way that we think. but i think that we have come to the moment of this inflexible debate.

let me offer you some advance. i think that when the obama administration refuses to call terrorists terrorists, despite dana l. pearl, the wall street journal journalists being murdered, i don't understand it. think about theo van gogh being killed, again, a man who made a documentary about the mistreatment of muslim women, but no one wants to say that was a terrorist act. or you think about the journalists and political cartoonist being in hiding to this day because she proposed to have a date in which political cartoonists lampooned the profit mohammed. again, this is terrorism, but you see the administration being reluctant to call it such. the president has the guts to go into pakistan, but again, avoid

speaking frankly about the source of these acts. as a talk-show host, let me just again say, well, that is one example. steve you have others? and i say, well, you know, this kind of speech code also extends to current arguments that we see in today's papers about budgets, entitlements. i think paul ryan, the congressman from wisconsin is brave to put forward an idea of how we can get entitlements under control. i might not agree with the specifics of the, but here was an idea put forward. every commission or group that has looked at the station's budget agrees that there has to be a mix of spending cuts and tax increases if we are serious about deficit reduction. but the other side of the paul ryan story is that the republicans will not even allow discussion of tax increases or even elimination of subsidy.

and then they cite the iconic president ronald reagan for refusing to raise taxes, even though if you check the record, and i am old enough to know the record, president reagan, more than a few occasions, raise taxes, even when politicians try to break out of this pattern of republicans a lot to say this and democrats are a lot to say this, then they find that there are other people in the party who insist, who hammered them into adapting in the official line, the official line and message of the day. and the result is paralysis for us as a nation in terms of -- and here is another example -- taking on major issues like immigration. you think back said it 2006, president george w. bush, the chamber of commerce, senator mccain of trying to take on the issue. what happened to them?

they were absolutely muzzle the by the provocateurs, talk-radio whipped up a gear with accusations that illegal efforts were being given amnesty, and did there were suggestions that we did not have problem with illegal everett's as a possibility of terrorists crossing the border. there was talk of lepers. it was unbelievable. of course it shut down the real debate and discussion on the major issue in american life, immigration. as a result, to the state, 2011, nothing has been done on the immigration issue. imagine, again, that i am the talk-show host. i would say to you, juan williams, well, how do we get out of this? and i would say, you know, day in and day out as someone who

covers american politics i don't see an easy out because i see our political leaders modeling just this kind of muzzling behavior. i remember that former florida congressman alan grayson called his opponent in the congressional race last year, taliban and then he and rant utterly misleading answer about his opponent. apparently you can get away with it. every hour that sharon ankle in nevada proposed to use its second amendment rarities' and the rhetoric that was not only offensive, certainly threatening violence, but suggesting that your opponents are not worthy of being heard. they have to be shut down. you all remember republican congressman joe wilson it yelling at the president in the middle of an address to a joint session of congress on health care reform.

and that think we all know about democrats and wisconsin fleeing the state to avoid a vote they knew there were going to lose. and what about senator john kyl recently saying that 90 percent of what planned parenthood does in this country is abortion. later when he was confronted with the facts until this is wrong, he said he did not mean as a fact. well, how do you have a discussion when you cannot express the facts? so as a talk-show host let me ask this question of you. the two we need to get back to the facts? is that one possible way for us to get out of this? will, to that question i would have to say the facts are important as they knew patrick moynihan said many years ago, you can argue opinion, but not fact. and in fact it seems to me there is more room for solution born

of common ground than the provocateurs and some politicians would want you to believe. americans really are pretty sensible and trustworthy people. and do not believe that we are bigots. i believe that we can have a sincere conversation, but our greatest skepticism and scored should be for people, for people with different -- not for people with different ideas than we have, but for people who refuse to listen to discuss, people that refused to entertain in the fuse put their own, a willingness to opine is what this country is about, so too is a willingness to engage in discussion and debate. when you hear about death panels , all it does this contribute to the polarized, mean-spirited, and distorted

political reality that we live with today. and too often people are being rewarded with political victories and money for maintaining this dysfunctional status quo. it was congresswoman debbie giffords to set before she was shot that the politician who tries to be reasonable and find why it -- ways to compromise is not rewarded in this tournament. that is why i think we see today in the course of journalism that really it is niche journalism that is being rewarded, far right, far left. i think the consequence is what i have experienced in the aftermath of my firing. so many people expressing the hugger in america for honest, frank discussion, people that they can trust, look in the eye and say i understand what you're talking about. tommy more. people who would not simply in voluntarily convert to a rigid

orthodoxy, political correctness that is why i think what happened to me became such a large issue. it was never about me. it was always about our nation's ability to have today, for people to feel as though we are talking to each other and telling each other what we are feeling and trying to express in service to the larger goals of solving problems and ending the politics of polarization. that is why, as i gathered here with you this afternoon to stop this imaginary talk show, i would hope that all of you as practicing journalists, all of you who understand the importance of this profession to our democracy would pick up this mantle of trying to get away from simply repeating one more time this is the official

message coming from left or right on the tax issue and perpetuating the idea that anybody who disagrees is therefore not a good conservative for a good liberal, does not belong in the club, and therefore deserves to be shunned, silenced, were fired. we have to get away from it. it really is essential to our future as an american people. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> by the way, he is not going away. here comes the talk-show host. so, seven months since making those comments on "the o'reilly factor," as you said, you have not had a lot, but would you not

have done anything differently at all if you were able to go back in time? >> no, and mark, let me say that i was asked when i was -- when i got that phone call, that fateful call, the suggestion was made, well, do you have any remorse? no. that is generally what i feel. they're raising the idea that people should feel this way or act this way or should discriminate against a certain group. i was simply telling you how life felt, and that was not meant to be provocative, intended to try to stir the audience. it was a server -- service to a larger conversation suggesting and understand where you're coming from when you say i associate muslims and terrorism. i understand why someone might have that thought, and building on that as part of a logical progression to try to achieve some understanding between two points of use.

so, no, i never had a second thought about that. >> someone here your speech said not one of the muslims you mentioned, the 9/11 bombers, the issue bummer were dressed as muslims. with respect to your comment to comment is that still hold up? >> it was not the specific dress. it just suggested it to my mind. if not the case how would i know someone was a moslem but there were just an ordinary street clothes? or would not know, and even if i did know then, of course the question would become, what i leap to that feeling, the reaction. all i am saying is when i saw something it triggered a response to me. and i must say, if you read the paper every few weeks you'll come across a story about situations where people are

often times muslim clerics who might be praying before a flight or engaging in what some people might regard as suspicious behavior because they're voices speak the foreign language, and those people have that reaction. i don't think it is exactly alien or strange feeling on my part. no, i don't. >> any thoughts that might be different as a result of what has happened with the arabs spring, in this sense of the arab world, it has certainly been changed by the events of the past few months. >> i don't quite see how those two would relate. again, the focus in my mind, all of us have lived through 9/11 and the subsequent terror alerts and concerns. indonesia and the rest and what happens in times square. he'd know what, i think that is the context in which i think

prompted this feeling from mind as being a pattern that will cause me a lot of trouble getting on an airplane. >> uninteresting intersection, what you drew out in your speech but what is going on in the media and the ability to express one's feeling, as you put it. let's try that out a little bit about what is appropriate and what contributes to a civil debate in society that we value democracy and the values that you and i see. so you're going on the air, and you are in a wonderful position where you're paid to express your views. journalists in other settings have a different set of guidance how do you decide what to do when you're on the air, what to say and what not to say? >> you know, this is an interesting question for me because i worked at fox news before i was hired by npr. i was working at the "washington

post" when i was first hired by cnn and then fox and then i went to npr. the question was put to me again in the context of the conversation i was told was being fired. would you have said that on npr? i said, of course. it is the way i feel. i don't change from one set of opinions to another based on the audience that i am addressing, and i think, in fact, that is part of the value that was a acknowledged by npr and fox in both hiring me to perform functions for their audiences. people could say, you know what, he is speaking his truth. there is a clean -- caroline to be drawn between someone who is a reporter as someone who is a news analyst. a political commentator. i was paid in both roles as a political commentator, and i was

asked, therefore, to express opinion, feeling, to try to bring people the larger picture to give them an understanding of how political events and ideas are being driven in this society so i think their is a line. you are paid to tell the story in a straightforward manner. that is what you should do. at don't think that total of nativity is always possible, but certainly we can strive for that school. if you are paid to be a political analyst and commentator, to is the screen, to use the word screener filter route, if you start playing games like that the audience realizes you're not telling is what you think and you know what is going on or you're saying it in such a way as to speak to one audience and simply have the pre-existing hughes confirmed and are tinian for that. that is just not too i am, and i think that is why i strive for a

higher level of trust with the audience. the audience would say, a trustee to tell me your truth. i think that is a very highball. >> and it just so happens that the npr ombudsmen on this case had written -- you're probably aware, he tends to speak one way on npr and another on fox. so what do you think about that? >> not true. i think she is wrong. again, i think trying to understand her, trying to understand what she might be talking about, and this is the same person who made the suggestion, what if he saw three rough looking like kids walking down the street at night. technology might be anxious about that is evidence of racism? i don't think so.

anyway, there are different formats. clearly cable has a much higher value put on time, less time, much more of a debate format, much more confrontational. you are on camera. the way you look has value. now, on radio when i was working for npr morning edition, all things considered, weekend edition, typically my role was as a veteran washington journalists, someone who had worked for so long at the "washington post", as mark described, someone who has been around town and those people. i was being asked specific questions. but when these -- when the this formal interview type format would break down it was pretty much back and forth and sometimes humorously and sometimes pointedly, but very much like what you would see in terms of the fox formula. that was less frequent on npr

then fox, but these are different formulas. that is to be separated from context. it was never the case that the content i was delivering in one format or the other was varying depending upon the audience. that is like a politician did this one speech to one group and another to another. i just don't play that game. >> not that that ever happens. [laughter] we talked about vivian schiller. alan weiss delivered the message to you. she was let go before pythian schiller. as you look back, were those dismissals warranted? >> well, it is not my call to make, but clearly i felt mistreated and traumatized, and i don't think that it was a service to the institution, npr, which i value greatly. an important journalistic institution, and i think when you are engaged in the kind of practice that would silence

people or punish people for speaking their truth, i don't think that is healthy for the institution giving the pressure that it has been under for many years from people on the right you're saying npr is far too liberal. again, what you have to do is make sure that you are being ethier with your employees and the audience. it is not about catering to anyone slice of the audience but saying that we will simply tell people what they want to hear and not introduce different points of view were stories that might contradict the existing line. so i did not think that she was serving the institution very well. as a matter of fact, as you could tell from the subsequent debate, it opened up lots of discussion that i think has been debilitating to what is an

outstanding brand, npr. >> we will get into more of that in just a moment. this is a chicken and egg argument. it is clear the political debate in recent years has become much more negative in society. it's just so happens that is reflected in radio talk shows and cable tv in a way that was not present it, for example, cnn, which led the way. now there is more time devoted to arguments. do you see cable as setting a tone for the political debate in our country, or is it merely reflecting its? and what is the appropriate role for those mediums? >> well, i want to remind you that i was a substitute host for many years on crossfire. it's really was, i think, the progenitor of many of these kind of debate format shows on cable where you get from the left and the right. so i'm not sure that i would

agree with the press. i would say that the idea of vigorous debate should not be limited to the extreme. sometimes i used to think of some of those shows that the producers ideally, you know, if it was up to the producers they would have tvs, do, and lucas farrakhan about the guests. well, what kind of discussion is that? but sure we would get big ratings and a fiery and lots of nasty words said and stories in the morning paper, but i don't think it would be actually eliminating or serve to help us understand race relations in america. when you ask me, you know, what format to my thinking is important to have debate to hear contrasts and points of view, but had to put a high premium on having reasonable people engage in debate in people who have some sense of respect and trust for each other as opposed to people who it up simply delight in finger-pointing, playing a

blame game, or somehow demonizing their opponents. >> the questionnaire asked, as a liberal how did you rationalize going to work for one of the most conservative networks? it seems fairly obvious that they exploit you in order to maintain the notion that they're fair and balanced, do not? >> let me first say that after our was fired in a "washington post" the root that i was the most conservative voice on npr, which was a surprise to me. and i thought about it, maybe so. it just tells you, again, everything is relative in this world. i might have been the most conservative voice at npr and the most liberal voice on fox. this question about being exploited by fox would suggest somehow that it might be better if i was not there or willing to engage in debate with people who do advertise themselves as conservatives.

i think, again, that is an important act in terms of saying, well, here is a different point of view. no one is telling me what to say. i am led to challenge. sometimes i think it the worst flooding in the worst seat, but i think the debate is there for all to see, and nothing that is one of the benefits. you could hear the debate, both sides of it. now, the idea that i am a leading personality is without a doubt, but that is the format. people tune in and our current media landscape, people tune into prime-time personality driven programs. and people are looking for the strong authoritative voice of hope. that is what attracts people to that new product, and then to have someone come in and challenge those, i think that is

thoroughly legitimate. and don't think it is a matter of being exploited for having my credibility and legitimacy used as some -- form is used in some way. that is evidence, in fact, of its legitimate debate being aired for all americans. as educated be a consumers i think that is what we should be seeking out. >> you were talking earlier about the funding debate for public broadcasting. you have said that you no longer and to urge me if i am wrong, but you suggested that funding should be cut off. can you explain that? is it just coincidental that you're no longer working for them? >> no, it is not born of any kind evicted -- vindictive streak. that is not my character, but it is in the midst of all of this, you will recall that there was a tape made. this tape was secretly recorded of top npr fund-raisers, and

here they're saying we prefer not to have a government funding that is apparently their genuine feeling which was not expressed publicly. the public expression is, if we lose -- it is a small percent. at the one to two percentage coming from government sources. oh, well, it might impact some small-market, rural market. in fact, what i think you will see is a lot of stations then join hands. i think you would see more consolidation of markets. it would not result in anybody losing access to national public radio. but the point that i feel most strongly is this, and i say to you as a journalist. ip journalists should not have to look over their shoulder as to whether or not politicians of any stripe, liberal, conservative, independent, socialist, think that they're doing a good job.

and if you look at the debate that was taking place at the time over in pr funding, there were others being sent out by democrats. though, republicans want to cut funding because they feel npr response to limbaugh and his the you know, so when democrats don't feel that npr is doing the job of responding, then democrats will challenge? at think this is a bad game for anybody who wants to do journalism. let the politicians play their games and let the journalists to their jobs. >> you worked for a number of different enterprises. how are news organizations generally doing on newsroom diversity however you might to finance? >> i don't have the statistics with me. and did not come prepared, but as i look around my sense is diversity with women is doing great. more and more women in the workplace. more and more women personalities. until recently you had katie

couric, diane sawyer as two of the news anchors. in terms of young people coming in, young women are without a doubt far outperforming and men. in fact, i think part of the larger sociological dynamic where we see colleges and universities now predominantly filled by young women and undergraduate professionals. the difference is even greater in terms of more than women moving up in terms of lead roles and top two positions in our country. when it comes to racial diversity there i find myself sometimes just shaking my head because the racial diversity has not improved, even as you look at the demographics and the group of the country and say, well, there are more people of color now, more than one-third of the american population. more young people of color than even that number can indicate if he looked at the population of

the 32. is now approaching 40%. well, it would seem like there would have been a breakthrough by this point in terms of representation of racial minorities in those highly competitive media jobs, but i think the with the cutbacks and we have all been seeing in newspapers and, of course, it has impacted also tv and radio, it has not acted in any beneficial way for racial diversity. >> is it true that troubled -- donald trump, you signed on to a website in the way of drafting him as a presidential candidate. if so, will review thinking? and was it racism that killed some of his comments targeting president obama? >> i did not know you were allowed to drink it these. i don't know what that is about. the wildest river kishinev heard.

he said earlier this month. we don't encourage it. he said earlier this month that ron paul could win the gop nomination. what do you leave it? how would the gop ticket fare in the general election? >> i did not say that he could win. i said i think we live in the age of ron paul. we think of him as the father of the tea party movement in this country. you think of ron paul, his son is now in the senate, the debate that we are having over entitlements and even the federal reserve and the role of government in stimulating or trying to help to provide our ailing economy. ron paul has been at the forefront of so many of these arguments and conversations. it seems to me more and more than we are living in the age of ron paul. i am amazed by was one of the panelists held for the debate in south carolina, and there is ron paul talking about legalizing

marijuana, cocaine, and the heroine and getting applause from the conservative south carolina audience. suggesting we have been in afghanistan to long. on that stage ron paul and gary jensen, the florida rule from new mexico, both buying the garbage coming from republicans. that is not the party line. so i thought, this is very different. i thought carey johnson was there more as a function of ron paul, and i think ron paul has become -- many people don't know him. he is still able to raise a tremendous amount of money to my might add, but he is a power player in a way that i think oftentimes those below. people don't pick it up in terms of his true power. i don't know that he would have much success as a presidential candidate and would be surprised if he won the nomination. thank you.

>> we're almost out of time. before asking the last question, a couple of routine housekeeping matters. would like to remind you all about upcoming speakers. june 13th and cricket team of agriculture secretary tom boesak a satchel defeating a mobile population. on june 14th, former national security council adviser to president ford will speak at our annual gerald ford journalism awards. the oscar-nominated actor will announce the formation of a foundation dedicated to raising funds for charities supported the military, and on june 11th , this is of interest to the general public, the 14th annual beat the deadline the 5-k race. and secondly, i would like to present our guests with the traditional in pc coffee mug is a token of our appreciation for you being used to it.

[applause] [applause] >> and now i ask the last question. you worked as a newspaperman, the radio, and now television. i assume you are now better paid than you were before, but if it was not about the pay and just the work, which of those but for should be your favorite? >> well, actually, we were talking about this. i said, if i awaken the middle of the night and still think of myself as a newspaper guy because i came up as a newspaper writer. i must tell you that people, i think generally they don't read bylines. on tv they see you, but they see you more than the here you and have a very emotional response to you in to who you are and, you know, they will offer comments on your time and all the rest. and then on the radio and a very interesting thing. such an interesting medium.

i would find that people would write me letters and say, you know, you are the other adults in the car were named dick and the kids to school in the morning or you or the other bill would i of gardening or my friend in the middle of the day. i was like, while. it would send me pictures. now,. trusting because the pictures were sketches, not actual pictures. here's what i think you look like. i ended up looking bald. some pictures of have a thoughtful character of a npr talk-show host in some pictures of was white, black, hispanic it is as if it was really a function of their imagination. phar-mor their imagination in rate year than you do the other two. i will say that television release spreads. more people hear you. it is the medium of our time and

the american public gets most of their information. but for in-depth reporting there is nothing in my mind that beats a great newspaper. >> how about a round of applause our guest speaker. [applause] [applause] thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's events. and with that we are adjourned. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you asked, do you want a faster down lot of an application, they would say yes. if you asked if it would bother them to no longer have local

news and your television there will say, no, that is not the trade-off that i thought was at stake. but is done incorrectly that is the trade-off. >> national association of broadcasters said gordon smith on current legislation to sell broadcast spectrum to create new mobile broadband and emerges a communications tonight that it:00 on the communicator's. >> the contenders looking back at 14 men who ran for president and lost but have a long-lasting impact on american politics. here is our lineup for this week. tonight, henry clay ran against in rejection. james g. blaine lost to grover cleveland and william jennings bryan. lifetime socialist party candidate. charles evans hughes, chief justice of the supreme court, and on saturday, then time governor of new york followed by

a businessman and member of the liberal wing of the gop. every night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i decided to take it. whether it is illusion are not i don't think it helps my concentration. it would keep me awake. a good conversation. get away with the whole thing. i do want to get to you. the truth this there would say,

no, i would never touch the stuff because i did know. i decided, i would go away. i can make it come out in the other way. ..

>> host: ivan kander, why did you do a documentary on your wounded buddy from high school? >> guest: it felt like it came from a natural place. when he first returned, he qept on telling me he wanted to remember everything that was

happening. everything was going so fast and having surgery every day, and the natural inclination, and we made movies together when we were young, and it felt like the right thing to do, and even if it was not a documentary or a finished product, he could have had footage to remember that time of his life, and it stemmed from there. >> host: rob jones, why did you let your bowed di -- buddy do this documentary? >> guest: a good process to let people see the process of recovering from something like that. i had never seen anything available that covered that topic. >> host: when did you start it? >> guest: i believe we started filming actual footage maybe two or three weeks after rob got back to the states, and then we actually physically did actually on-camera interviews months after that when he was not going to surgery every day and it was

not a hectic recovery process. >> host: what's the extent of your injuries? >> guest: i have a left knee disarticulation here, and right transfer wall amputation. >> host: is that all? >> guest: yeah, that's all. >> host: how many operations did you have to have to get to today? >> guest: i don't remember, every other day for two or three week -- >>c-span: at what point did you go into the marine corp.? >> guest: junior year, and the original plan was to join the

reserves after my junior year, finish college and then go to ocf, but then i just decided to go to iraq up stead, and i kind of liked being enlisted, got back, and then i went straight to afghanistan. c-span: we'll run the entire documentary in the hour program. it's about a 25-minute program plus the credits on the end. how did you shoot it and how many hours did you shoot? >> guest: we have a lot more footage we inned up using. i knew i had to keep it brief. i've never made a short movie over 15 minutes before so it was my goal not to do anything too long and keep the story concise. as an editor, i like to keep things in a short package usually. c-span: what is the title? >> guest: survivor, cover, live. that's from rob. he said it.

i can't remember exactly when, maybe a couple weeks after, very soon after he was injured and that was his philosophy. c-span: what did you think of survivor, recover, live? >> guest: a couple weeks after i was wounded. i remember i put it on facebook, so i had internet access at the time so probably two weeks after i got wounded. c-span: a lot of story is set up and told in the first 11 minutes which is the survive part of this, and we're going to run the whole 11 minutes, come back, and you guys can fill in the blanks. >> guest: okay, sounds great. >> hello, and welcome to the first annual monopoly championship. how are you? >> i'm doing well. there's an exciting matchup between rob and ivan.

it's going to be a hell raiser. >> let's pause it here. this is a story about my friend rob. that's me and him in high school. you see, i'm the cliche, the nerd who watched juraasic park too many times and wanted to be the next speel beg. rob was there every time supporting me. like i said, this story is not about me. it's about him. ♪ once we graduated, i figured we'd be famous making films for all to see. we'd be unstoppable. times change. [cheers and applause]

[applause] >> hey, how you doing? it's great to be here tonight. ♪ >> just a great character, a great penalty. -- personality. rob stood out to all of us with this explosive personalty. >> he's so outgoing. >> he has corks about him that so consistent. >> everything had 100% in. he brought such a charisma to the whole unit. never missed breakfast. everyone's dead tired, but he never missed it. >> a great guy, fun, down to earth, really. >> in a group of people, everyone looks towards him for the fun and the party. >> he's always like constantly working out and always pushing everybody that he's around to be better. >> he never got mad. you know, he always volunteered

to do stuff, and i remember i looked at him and say where do you get the energy and optimism from? >> recently had some elections. republicans took back the house of representatives, but you know, we're still seeing a lot of election stickers around although the election is over. the stickers seem to stick around for a long time. the other day i saw vote washington 1776. [laughter] july 22, 2010, we were at brinkerman in the district of afghanistan in helmand province. i was clearing a path and i got hit by an eid. >> you hear the boom, see the flash and everything, and then the next thing you hear is you hear him cry out in pain. the second thing i heard as he,

you know, if i've lost anything special, you know, shoot me, and then the guys say you have not lost his -- his private parts, and then bam, he's good. >> i was pretty much right on top of it, and it took my left right and my right leg. >> i collected his leg, and i thought he lost a lot more because when i picked up his leg, you know, in my mind, i'm seeing his knee down, and, of course, i probably was looking at upper shin down. >> sometimes i feel like i probably should have seen it or sometimes i feel like i rushed myself, and i should have seen, you know, an indicator or something. >> he was coherent. i mean he had morphine in his system. >> the company commander came up to us and said two of our guys had gotten hit. one of them name was jones and

then we found out later the other one was jones, and we didn't know which one was hit or how bad. we heard pretty bad stories. >> the reports were jones was a double amputee, assumed to be legs, and then reported it was a triple amputee, and then mix ups because they had the same last name from the same unit. >> waiting to cross a river in afghanistan, and they called for seven volunteers to go out there, and i was one of the ones out there, and we were just sitting up in a tree line to keep eyes on, and that's when i got hit. >> we thought it was a mortar they were shooting at us. we started walking back quicker, and right as we got 25 meters from our truck, they pulled stretchers out. >> i don't know much out about it. i have not gone through the paperwork to find out the details. i got blown up, and that's all i

need to know, i guess. >> i didn't recognize him at first with the mud, dirt, and blood. not until 15 minutes later we knew it was dan. >> rob and daniel are athletic, work out. >> they'd go to the gym together and called themselves jim jones, and, i mean, grueling workouts. i met them and it was like a packaged deal. >> very good friends. >> if you are made fun of by one of them, they just feed off each other and escalate it. >> one thing about dd and rob, they are always about reading books and learning things outside their scope that they are used to. >> in icu, we were almost across the hall from each other, and it hit me he had been hurt. >> hey, bud, still here in intensive care, hi, love you, miss you, can't wait to hang

out. good times. we'll work on a different workout plan. take care, buddy. i'll see you soon. bye. >> he could hear you. >> hey, man, first things first. we got to design a workout program to get on our feet again, and then we have a really good time up here. can't wait to see you, and i'll thinking about you. peace. >> if there's any good that came out of it was the fact that, you know, yeah, it was nice to have someone there, you know, that was going through something like you were so you could talk, and it made me stronger because i had to be tougher because he was there. when he came to my room, that always made me feel better. >> there was recently a tornado unfortunately in the midwest, and actually ended up killing eight people, but luckily, the tornado was apprehended by

police, and it was sentenced to eight consecutive life sentences in the stratusphere with no chance of vainer. good ending to that story. [laughter] a year of college at virginia tech, went back, finished the last year because i was a reservist. my job as a combat engineer was to find ieds in any situation. >> our job was looking for explosives and blowing them up. me, rob, a couple guys, out there, and we find some weapons, and there's tons of stuff, digging stuff up all day, exhausted, you know, no sleep that night, you know, third day goes by, and we're just done. i don't want to see a shovel. i don't want to pick up another 100 pound ammunition, and rob was like, no, let's work, there's more.

everyone, you know, let's take a break, and he grabbed the shovel, his rifle, gear, and said i'm looking for more, and he found more stuff. he always had that personality to keep driving and pushing, such an optimistic way, never got down about anything and inspired the unit. >> he's the reason why i made it back. if there's anybody that was diligent and followed the procedures, went step by step and never sped it up, that was him. we still don't know exactly what it was that he stepped on, but there's no doubt in my mind it was one of the hardest ieds to be found, if found at all. >> when i thought about joining the military, it was nothing but the marine corp.. i was taken in by the comrade and everything it stood for. >> i always wanted to be a marine. not sure why. >> the thing that attracted me

was the brotherhood. >> i wanted to fight, there's a saying, a true soldier doesn't fight for what he hates in front of him, but what he loves that he left behind, and you meet so many great guys, and rob personifies that more than anyone i've known. >> the people i was there with, you become so close with them, and every second of every day is with them, so you have no choice but to bond with them and get along, and you come back here, and it's just so much easier to have someone whose gone through the same type of things as you went through. >> i just felt like as long as there were marines somewhere fighting, that i should be there with them. i didn't join to stay in the states, but to do the fighting. i really like the aspects of the brotherhood, of the marine corp.. it's been prominent in the friendships i've made in the marines. i can always depend on them, and them on me. i would hop out of this

wheelchair in a second if i had to, if they got in a fight or something. i don't know how i'd do it, but somehow, just really close with the people i went to iraq with because we went through all these experiences to the. >> it's also what corporal jones showed me, we were the family, we were in this. we got phone calls from friends, i got bad news, rob got hurt. >> we drove down, med up with the family, and immediately, though, even though he was drugged up on morphine, out of it, you could still see the personalty, still joking around. >> for being drugged up as he was, he was still jones. >> that was the first time we said, thank god, he's all right. c-span: ivan, where were you when you heard rob jones had been injured? >> guest: i was here, i live

in silverspring, received a call from a friend to let me know rob was injured, and the odd thing about the call, obviously, it was sad to hear my friend was injured, but at the same time, it was almost a sense of relief he was still alive because that was one thing that was clear about that interaction was that rob was still alive, injured, but alive, which is, i was very, very happy to hear that. c-span: when did you play this documentary for your students and friends out here in the suburbs? >> guest: we played it on the one year anniversary of when i was wounded, july 22 of this year. c-span: what was the crowd like, and what was your reaction to having go through that in public? >> guest: the crowd was primarily people i knew, but there were a lot of people that i never met before. they were very supportive. you know, when i came in, they clapped for me and everything. the mayor of the town gave me a

plaque that said they made that rob jones day. i got a quilt, and i don't know, i've never been shy about doing things in public, so it didn't really bother me. c-span: when did you two first meet? >> guest: hard to say. i believe it was in middle school; right, rob? >> 8th grade? >> guest: they pair you by last names and he was the last j and i was the first k so we always started the day together, and from then on, we became good friends. c-span: how much did it cost to make this? >> guest: pretty much nothing because i already own my own equipment anyway, and anything that i had to rent, my employer was very good to let me take it free of charge. c-span: where are you working now? >> guest: blue allen hamilton, the consulting company. c-span: why did you agree to do

this in the first place? what do you want to accomplish with this being public? >> guest: this show? c-span: not this show, but the whole documentary. >> guest: i just wanted people to see what people go through after they are wounded in afghanistan, and, you know, if i happen to inspire anybody by doing the documentary to, you know, just to try as hard as they can to recover as well as i have, then that's a bonus. c-span: let's go over the details again of your service. when did you go in the marines, when was the first day? >> guest: my first day at boot camp was may 17th of 2006. c-span: how long did you serve? >> guest: well, technically, i'm still in, waiting for my medical board to finish, but it's been about five years and some change. c-span: you went to iraq, and

what year -- there six or seven months? >> guest: seven months, and we went from january of 2008 to august 2008. c-span: you were a corporal? >> guest: for the iraq deployment was a lance corporal. c-span: what's that mean, a lance corporal? >> guest: just a rank, nine enlisted ranks you can be. lance corporal and corporal. c-span: what was your assignment in iraq? >> guest: a team member on a fire team that's four people, and we just supported an infantry unit. c-span: how close did you come in iraq being wounded or stepping on an ieo or getting some kind of combat situation? >> guest: there was not a whole lot going on in the part of the iraq that we were in. i guess the most dangerous thing i did was handle, you know,

munitions that were buried in the ground. they could have been traps, but we didn't have reason to believe that they were. i think there was one ied hit that hit, and there was only one time i was around any shooting. c-span: ivan, how hard was it to find all those fellows you talked to? >> guest: luckily rob said they were good friends, and hey, you need to come here, we want you on camera, and they more than willing. c-span: how many are still in the service? >> guest: i believe most of them are. i know will is not anymore. everybody else is. maybe two of the people no longer. c-span: when you shot the other

jones, dan jones, that we only saw his head. we didn't see what limbs he had lost. what did he lose? >> caller: that's the interesting thing about the whole thing. he actually ended up not losing any limbs. he was believed to be a triple amputee with the first reports, the confusion, and he still had all the limbs, limited mobility with his legs and arm, but still has everything. why is he wearing sunglasses? he was just shy. c-span: it what's been the toughest part of this for you? not the documentary, but the injury and the recovery. >> guest: probably the hardest part's probably having to let people help me do stuff. c-span: you say that in the documentary. >> guest: yeah. c-span: why is that so hard? >> guest: i don't know. i've been independent and i like

to do things myself, and, you know, having to let people move boxes for me when, i used to be able to do it myself is hard to accept, but no, i've started to get used to it at this point. c-span: had you considered the service? >> guest: no, i never thought about it. my heart's in video. c-span: when you go back, when at virginia tech, and you always -- i think you eluded to this, you thought you'd go into the service at some point. where's that come from in your life? >> guest: i had not really thought about it until my sophomore year really. i was -- i started as a computer science major, and i decided i didn't really want to do that for a career, so i was kind of, you know, just brainstorming about stuff that i could do, and a friend of mine had just joined, so i kind of started

reading books about the marine corp. to see what, you know, what he was getting himself into, you know, and i kind of liked what i was reading, so -- c-span: what is it though? what is it about it that you liked? >> guest: mostly the brotherhood like i said in the documentary. it just seems like marines are just extra close to each other, and they always strive to be better and just to be the best they can and just being around that kind of person brings the best out of me as well. c-span: i think there's only one officer i saw in there. >> guest: yeah. c-span: how many of the other enlisted marines had college experience? >> guest: let me think. pretty much all of them have some college experience. c-span: did you talk much about

why they had gotten into the service also? >> guest: not really. i guess we all just assumed we had generally the same reasons. c-span: and as you were shooting this, did you run into any problems of people saying you can't bring that camera in here? >> guest: oh, not a lot. there was a couple instances when he was doing recovery and physical therapy, you know, just bringing a camera into a public place, some issues there, but nothing crazy or difficult because the topic of this, they were willing to let you record for that thing because it's an interesting story, and it's about a veteran of this country. c-span: the next segment is called recover? >> guest: yes. c-span: what is that about? >> guest: like the statement, survive, recover, live, each remits a different stage, and recover, he's back, gone through the initial surgeries, you know, how he's starting to develop and

get back to a routine or schedule. i don't see his parents. they don't talk in this. >> guest: a couple reasons. one, when i asked to interview his parents, they asked me not to include them because it was too soon after the accident and didn't feel she would be appropriate to be on camera, so i republicked that. c-span: other brothers and sisters? >> guest: a brother and sister. his sister lives far away, and the brother didn't want to be on camera i believe for similar reasons. c-span: this is eight minutes and 34 seconds, the second part of the three-part documentary. ♪ >> it was really bad at first. i couldn't sleep at all because i had nightmares constantly whenever i closed my eyes. a normal person when they close their eyes, it's dark, but for me it was like i was watching a movie, and the movie was either some weird hallucination or some

kind of a nightmare for a split second, i'd relive the blast, and i could see my legs all over the ground. sometimes i would hallucinate really bad stuff like i was -- like i would be going out on patrol, and i got shot, so the patrol was going out without me, and i was stuck. another time i had a dream i was hit by a moo tar, and for some reason my mom with me. i could see my blood all over the place. those were the worst times. >> he was in his bed, and we were trying to talk him down, and he was in and out of it. really druggedded up. five guys here, and he's telling us what he's seeing, and the morphine is making him visualize thing. yeah, fighting off aliens now, just walking around, and now they are zombies, looks at me

and my friends, and he says, oh, great, you guys are here to. oh, no, you're sinking through the mud, falling through the ground, and he's like, bye, guys, bye, good luck with that, gets quiet, and he then he comes back saying he just got back from japan. he had a good sense of humor. >> i wanted to get a funny hat for my mom because i thought if i was wearing a funny hat the first time she saw me, it would take the edge of a little bit, you know? she would see, you know, my legs, and she would see the funny hat and just laugh and put herself in a good mood, but they were not able to find one, and when i got to the hospital, there's my mom with a pirate hat in her hand. somehow they found out i asked for a follow-upny hat, and she brought me one.

>> it's really hard to accept it at first, but, you know, it's -- you take what caused you to be like that and you realize, you know, it's kind of understandable that, you know, you have to get so much help. ♪ first thing they do was close my left leg. i had serious wounds to my rear end that were open and deep. i went into surgery pretty much every other day. they closed up all my wounds, waited five days to ensure the skin graph took, and then they checked that, saw it was good. the next day i was transferred to walter reed because that's where you go for prosthetics. you get these things called stubbies, and they about this tall, just straight bars, and you are on those for awhile

because obviously you're relearning how to walk, so you want to keep your center of gravity low, and then they heighten you a bit, and it's still a straight bar. they change it to a foot that flexes so it's like an ankle, and after you master that, you graduate to the full height, and you have a knee. the first leg you learn is the c-legs, a computerized leg with censors for pressure, and then after you master that, you get a mechanical leg working on your own power. after that, you just come in until you are ready to get discharged. >> there's a difference between phantom sennation and phantom pain. sensation is when you feel your limbs are not there anymore, and phantom pain is when they actually hurt. your brain's confused like it thinks your limbs are there, but they are not, and you're

misfiring stuff. that's why you feel it. when you go to sleep and then you go like this with your arm and flops down and you can't feel it. it's like imagine trying to move your fingers like that 6789 you can imagine that your arm is there and that your fingers are there and you are trying to move them, but they won't move no matter how hard you try. ♪ the whole thing has not been all that difficult. i'm kind of just going through it, you know? >> who would have humor at all times? i mean, if a guy can laugh when his legs are blown off, you know, there's something special about him. when he found out they had mt. dew in iraq, he was ecstatic, and when the president gave him the purple heart from president obama, he had president obama do

the dew with him. >> when we were there with the weapons company for the first time, we were all out in the middle of nowhere. we didn't have a whole lot of food and stuff, and everybody's getting sick. >> you couldn't go five minutes in the one compound without somebody -- without hearing somebody throw up. >> rob was happy because he was not sick yet, and i saw him the next day, and he looked like crap, but proud he didn't puke. >> i didn't puke, though, very proud of that fact. >> have people taking care of me and stuff. i like to be the one that's taking care of other people. >> it's a pleasure to meet you. >> it's a pleasure to meet you. >> what happened? >> ied. i'm a combat engineer, so it's my job to find them, and i was just looking for one at the time, and, you know, i found it, but found it in the worst way possible.

blew up on me. >> i talked to the physical therapist and told them the marine corp. birthday is november 10th, and i want to be walking but then and i'd do whatever i had to do, come two or three times a day, do whatever she said i had to do in order to walk by november 10th. >> his goal was getting to the marine corp. ball in november and being able to stand up and dance and do a scene going up in the wheelchair and stands up and starts walking. he talked about that every day, and he did it. it was amazing to see that happen in such a short amount of time. ♪ >> there's like the therapy world, where i am now, and then there's the real world, and the therapy world is very flat and everybody knows the place you're in, so they can lend a hand when you need it, but then there's the real world with all these hills to go up and down.

there's not always a railing when i need one. i have to get a specially adapted car. it's more obvious to me now versus before when i didn't have any kind of disability. [applause] >> it's veterans day at my own high school, and somehow i knew i was all right. i pictured the rest of my life without legs, and i realized that i would have to give up some of the friends i had made and some of the things i loved doing. somehow, despite all of this, i managed to maintain a positive attitude, and now that i've seen and heard about the amazing things that prosthetics can accomplish, i know that i do not actually have to give up on their plans. thank you for having me here today, and i hope you have a wonderful veterans' day.

thank you. [applause] c-span: a couple quick questions, ivan. did he have an audience doing that humor? >> guest: no, that was a mock audience. c-span: you script it? >> guest: the jokes are rob's. the concept of the fake audience is my idea, but that's all rob. c-span: back to afghanistan where you were injured, wounded, july 22nd, 2010, a little bit more than a year later, since then, how many days have you spent in the hospital? >> guest: as an in-patient? probably two months total. c-span: what time of day were you -- did you step on the ied? >> guest: oh, i think it was

early afternoon. not positive though. it was pretty hot. i think it was early afternoon. c-span: had you had any friends there that you saw this happen to before? >> guest: nothing that serious. my friend, a couple days before was hit in the cheek by a piece of shrapnel, but he was fine. other people got hilt by ieds in trucks, and they got just shaken up a little bit, but nobody actually had been wounded this badly. c-span: do i understand you were looking for ieds? >> guest: yeah, i was looking for one. c-span: and how is it that you -- i mean, what kind of devices do you use to avoid them, and how is it that you hit this one? >> guest: well, when you're on foot, you kind of use intuition, and eyeballs, and then i also have a metal detector, so i just kind of -- i went on that day,

and somebody had stepped on a separate one because they like to plant two right next to each other, and his didn't go off like it was supposed to. it just -- i think it just hit the blasting cap went off, and that's a fire cracker almost, but that let us know that was an area where we were in danger, but it was not one of the classic areas where you would expect to see an ied because we were not being funneled by any terrain or funneled by anything, so i think it was just some kind of a random place, and they would get lucky and hit somebody. c-span: what's the first thing they do when you're injured like that? i mean, talk about the morphine and all of that. when do they give you that morphine? >> guest: well, the first thing they need to be concerned with is making sure that the path from me to them is clear of

ieds. any other kind of danger because they don't want people running up to me and stepping on more and more because that's what the taliban likes to do because they know we'll run over there, so they plant one here, and then this person is hit, and then plant another one here so the people coming to help them get hit too. they first make sure that's clear, and then, i mean, once the -- the only people that have morphine are the corp.man. he hit me in the leg with morphine once he got there. c-span: from that moment until you got back to the hospital, where did you go? >> guest: i think at first i went to camp weatherneck, which is in afghanistan, and then i think i went to the air force base in afghanistan, and i think from there i went to germany, and then from germany, i went to

bethesdaa. c-span: how has your friend changed? >> guest: he was not changed personality wise which is great, i still have my friend. c-span: what have you noticed about your other friends' reaction around jones? >> guest: i was -- i think rob, once you meet him, he breaks the ice quickly and easy to forget he looks different or moves differently, and our friends are still joint friends so it's not a big difference if we hang out with people we always did before, and when we do that again, it's the same. c-span: when you started your documentary, did you have a script? >> guest: all i scripted really was the opening and closing voiceover, and that didn't come in until i had some footage to go with it. first i was just shooting random stuff and let the story develop from there.

c-span: what was your reason for doing this? >> guest: really, i just felt like it was something that i should do, and i say that in the sense that here is my friend who is preventing a very compelling story, and as a story teller, it would feel wrong not to tell that story. c-span: do you personally have attitude about this war? >> guest: the one thing i was intent about with this documentary is not make it political or anything about the war whatsoever. there's amazing documentary out there that cover that topic, and i don't think a personal story about my friend holds that weight. the goal was to keep it about rob. c-span: you're still in the service, and you're waiting -- do you have a job? >> guest: my job now is to recover. c-span: did you do your internship -- i don't know where we talked about it, but with the fbi? >> guest: yeah, i've been going in for six weeks i think, something in there. i go in on fridays right now because i'm still going into physical therapy for most of my

time. c-span: what are you waiting for between now and whenever you're -- are you going to leave the marine corp.? >> guest: yeah, i'm probably going to retire, but right now i'm just waiting for the physical evaluation board to deliver my percentage to disability and sign paperwork, and that'll be it. >> host: what's the overall feeling about the treatment? >> guest: it's been topnotch from the very first day. the surgeons taking care of me there, the nurses were great, and then the physical therapy has been unbelievable and the prosthetics of care i got has been all just so good. i can't say enough good things about it. c-span: do you have other prosthetics other than what you are wearing today? >> guest: yeah, i have legs to use for a bike. i have legs that i use to walk

around in my room. they are short. i have legs that i'm going to try and use for rowing. i have running legs, and then i have a couple other sets of knees that i've tried before. c-span: and how much -- have you gotten used to this? >> guest: yeah, pretty much about as much as you can. c-span: are there computers in your legs? >> guest: these particular legs have microprocessors in them. c-span: what's the services' at attitude for the future? will you be supplied legs for the rest of your life? >> guest: i'm not positive how that works, but i'm pretty sure the va gives me new legs and sockets whenever i need them. i have not looked into how everything works, like what i'll

have to do, but i'm pretty sure that's how it works. c-span: the last segment of the documentary is live. what was your approach here? >> guest: i think that oftentimes in stories when you hear about people injured in combat and coming back, you know, the initial focus is on that initial survival and recovery state, so i wanted to show a point that rob was actually living a really interesting life doing interesting things, and the fact recovery is not strictly that first two months or month after you have been injured, but it goes beyond that for the rest of your life. c-span: did he say to you, you can't put that in there? >> guest: no, never. he gave me the freedom to do whatever i wanted which is amazing. c-span: did that surprise you? >> guest: he knows me well enough that i would never represent him poorly or incorrectly. c-span: this is five minutes and 55 seconds long, the last of the

three different sections. ♪ ♪ >> i really think it's z positive at -- attitude and outlook on everything. he realizes he can't change it so make the best of it. when he was in a wheelchair, he did tricks with it. >> he's one of the people and you can say caring, nice, passionate, and all the other stuff you say about normal people, but everybody knows he's not normal, and he's better than that, but incredible. his dreams changed a bit, but he's still going for it. just a cool dude. >> walter reid in-patient, and i'm in the outpatient housing for all the outpatients here, and i've been going through the normal progression of the prosthetics. i returned to a since of normalcy, but i don't think i

will be completely normal until i'm out of the hospital, get a job, and i put all of this behind me. i have an internship with the fbi in the works. once i get discharged, hopefully i'll get a job offer, and ideally, i will be able to become a special agent after getting myself in shape passing physical fitness tests. >> still taking it to the bad guys even though i don't have legs anymore. at the end of the year, i'm attempting a cross country bike trip, and hopefully i'll will able to do that. ♪ ♪ i would like to get into maybe a para olympic sport, maybe rowing, maybe the biathalon.

♪ ♪ >> had to start with the baseline of having a great attitude and just having a solid attitude to start from, but now that all my friends and all my family have seen me with that great attitude, i can't do anything. i can't change that because it would let them down, and every time i ever start to feel, you know, start to feel down about my situation or start to feel sorry for myself, i remember that i have to maintain this attitude, so it's really them forcing me to stay positive rather than me just coming up with some kind of inner strength to stay positive throughout the whole process.

i recently put in an application for a social security disability, got denied. [laughter] yeah, that makes sense. [laughter] i learned about myself and perseverance. you have to keep going whether or not your circumstances are ideal. it's just the way things are, so you just kind of got to go with it, you know? >> he's never going to give up, and he's beginning to be successful no matter what you take away from him or throw at him. you know, he's going to keep on driving. >> everyone's like he's so strong. that's just him. he doesn't let it get to him. >> this changed a lot of things for him, but it doesn't stop him. >> he kind of hits a wall and goes and climbs over it. like i said, if robments to do something, he'll do it.

>> he doesn't show how it affects him. >> his will power is amazing. >> it sucks i lost my legs, you know, it's something i'll never get back, and my life will be different from here on out, so, you know, that really sucks, but you know, i can't dwell on that too much because there's nothing i can do to change it now. >> what amazes me most about rob is what he represents 1 in the wake of something awful, the only thing you can do is keep ongoing. it's not some thing of courage that occurs in a movie's third act with strings and horns, but really it's just existing, accepting. shortly after rob got his senses back and started the recovery process, he said it all, survive, recover, live. nothing to see here. time to move on. time to keep going. it is often said that hindsight is 20/20. the only way you can really

understand life is by looking at it backward, but i argue really life is understood both ways, both forward and backward. without the surprises of the unexpected, the good and bad, life lacks flavor. it lacks heart. if you know how your journey is going to end, if you know the punch line of the joke, really there's no reason to laugh. ♪ >> thanks for laughing at my jokes. have a good night. ♪ c-span: i better make sure before this closes that you really aren't being denied social security in this process, are you? was that a joke or are you

serious? >> guest: i was denied social security benefits, but i mean, i could have kept -- i could have kept appealing probably, and they would have eventually accepted. i know other people have been accepted that have similar injuries or, you know, are less severe injuries, but i don't really care about it. i only applied for it because they told me i should. c-span: what was the reason they gave you that you were denied? >> guest: i don't remember the exact wording, but i think they -- it was something like they expected me to be able to work within 12 months or something. i don't remember exactly. i just read it, said denied, and i was like, whatever, i don't care. c-span: what do you expect from the marine corp. when you are out? is there a stipend for the rest of your life? >> guest: yeah, i get all the

benefits, and i'll get disability for forever. i'm not sure -- i'm not 100% what that equates to money-wise, but i'll get that, and, you know, the marine corp. and government take care of us after this happens. c-span: ivan, on the documentary side of this, if somebody wants to see the whole documentary, how? >> guest: they can go to lucky9studios.com, and there's a link there on the page to watch it. you can also go to vimeo.com and search for survive, recover, live, and it appears. c-span: what lucky 9 studios stand for? >> guest: at 14, i made a production company for the the films i was making, and that's the name that stuck even into my professional career because 9 has been and will be my lucky number. c-span: your education, where

did you graduate from? >> guest: george washington university in 2007. c-span: it was shot with what camera and edited on what machine? >> guest: shot it on my personal camera, a pansonic pro sumer and it was edited at home. c-span: proud of the product? >> guest: i'm really proud of the product and proud it showcases rob very well, and i think that, if you hang out with rob for 15 minutes and watch the documentary, it's not painting a picture of someone he is not. he is that person you see. c-span: when did you hit bottom? >> guest: hit bottom? >> caller: after your -- c-span: after your injury, in the hospital, did you dip and have a period of depression? >> guest: not really. every now and then maybe get a little dejected for like a day, you know, and like kind of have

a bad day, just bummed about, not for any significant period of time. c-span: who of your friends or family had the toughest time seeing you when you got back? >> guest: probably my mom, my parents. c-span: how are they now? >> guest: seem to be doing fine. seem to be handling it well. c-span: after -- what are the chances you're going to get the job at the fbi, do you know yet? >> guest: that, i guess that's going to depend on a lot of things. how well i perform in the internship, whether or not they are hiring at the time that i'm finished, and, you know, whether they have the openings in the place that i want to go. that kind of stuff. c-span: at this stage in your recovery, how much therapy do you have on a weekly basis? >> guest: i do therapy, now that i'm doing the internship, four days a week. i usually go in around eight o'clock or nine o'clock, and i

stay until one o'clock or two o'clock. an hour lunch break. c-span: what things do they have you doing now? >> guest: what i'm doing now is related to triathlon training and rowing training, and at first, they have you do a lot of strengthening of your core and hip flexors so that you're able to control your limbs and they do a lot of balance practice, and when you first get knees, they teach you how to use them, and then you just kind of do harder and harder stuff until you get to a point where you are ready to be done. c-span: we're going to run the credits on your documentary, and they last i think, oh, about four and a half minute, but as we run them, i'll keep the microphones open and i'll ask

you for quick deaf definition -- definitions of the people we see. let's roll that, and we'll wrap that up. >> guest: that's me. c-span: that's you. ♪ >> guest: he caught everything i ever threw. you know, throw water bottles and they catch it or throwing stuff to them, lie, you know, just a football around or you were sitting there, threw a stick of c-4 over, so if he was here today, if i threw a water bottle, he would just superhuman ability be able to catch this. ♪ ♪ c-span: ivan, who is that?

>> guest: rob can explain this. >> one of my two physical therapists. >> guest: both very, very nice people when you meet them. >> guest: that's the prothesis -- >> guest: i'm much taller than him in that picture. ♪ c-span: who is mary gene solomon? >> guest: they are nurses and physical therapists at -- when i was in-patient at bethesda. >> guest: the care he gets is truly topnotch. c-span: who are these folks? >> guest: people who help me get on the bike. c-span: your parents here? >> guest: my dad and step mom. c-span: who is steve and carroll miller?

>> guest: my step dad and mom. . c-span: this area? >> yeah. >> steve miller is? >> guest: my little brother. c-span: how old are you? >> guest: i'm 25 happen >> guest: i'm 26. >> how old is your sister? >> guest: 29. c-span: probably doesn't like we give the ages away. >> guest: that's mike. he's been friends with us since high school, helped out. c-span: who is whitney? >> guest: a very supportive friend of mine. >> guest: these are all family, i believe. >> guest: yeah, extended family. >> guest: she's my step grandmother. c-span: step grandmother. >> guest: this is the one who allowed us to hold the screenings at valley high school which was important. it was a good venue to show.

c-span: valley high school in the suburbs. >> guest: exactly. this is jones' family and the group of people that helped out. c-span: the wounded warrior project is the place people send money to help out? >> guest: correct. all the proceeds of the screening went there. >> guest: it's money there, really is. >> guest: yeah. >> you can mess this up, it's okay. >> before my injury, i liked to go to the gym a lot and somebody else ever walk into the locker room and go, oh, oh, put some participants on -- pants on. >> all the music was donated to me. i didn't have to pay for them. moby allows young filmmakers to

use music for free. >> like this, and i'll lean back, i guess. my legs are stuck. >> guest: these are all my family and friends who helped me out along the way. c-span: this is the end? >> guest: yes. c-span: lucky 9 studios. rob jones, you talked about the phantom sensation and pain. do you have that? >> guest: i have it. it's not nearly as bad. i get phantom pain, a couple seconds at a time, just a few times a day. not really a big deal. c-span: ivan, are you doing another documentary? >> guest: i think the rob story, his future is so open ended, there's enough material to make another film, especially as he gets into to more sports and following that journey of, you know, his interesting

starting point, and then eventually doing professional sporting events which i think he's very much capable of. c-span: we're out of time. thank you very much for joining us. >> guest: thank you for having us. really appreciate it. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> for a dvd copy of the program call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. these are also available on c-span podcasts. ♪ ..

or not, i don't think it is it helped my concentration. it stopped other people being

boring to some extent. it would keep me awake and make me go along in conversation to enhance the moment. if i was asked what i did again, the answer is probably yes. i would have quit earlier possibly hoping to get away with the whole thing. not very nice for my children to year because it doesn't sound irresponsible if i say i would do that all ligon to you but the truth is would be hypocritical for me to say no i would never touch the stuff if i had known because i did know, everyone knows. and i decided all of life is a wager. i'm going to wager on this. and i can't make it come out any other way. it's strange i almost didn't even regret it though i should because it's just impossible for me to picture life without wine and other things fuelling the

company and keeping me reading and traveling. it worked for me. they're really did. as part of washington journal weekly spot light on magazine series, that will join us to discuss his recent this week on q&a, a look at the world of sports and politics.

sally jenkins is a sports columnist for "the washington post". c-span: sally jenkins, can you remember when you first thought you might want to write about sports? >> guest: well, i grew up with it in the household. my father is a hall of fame sports writer so from the time i was a baby that television was always tend to whatever game he was falling or writing about that week. so it was osmosis. i don't think i ever considered writing about anything else. once i decided to be a writer my father always said write what you know and sports is what i knew best. c-span: where did you graduate from college? >> guest: stanford university. studied english literature. c-span: and your work history involves what publications? >> guest: the "washington >> guest: the "washington post" has been my home on and off for 25 years. i started there. my first tour of duty at the

post was -- i was 24-years-old -- went back in 2000 and have been there ever since. it's really been my professional home by whole adult life. c-span: do you write any differently because you're writing for "the washington post" and a capital and federal tom? >> guest: yes. i think you have to because the business of government is really the core of what the paper covers. it's a captive audience. it's a changing audience. i did you have to be highly cognizant of the fact that -- i mean one of the fun things about being a sports writer in washington is that you are read by the most interesting people. you know, i get the mail this fascinating. military guys, generals, congressmen, senators, judges. so it's fun to play to that audience. it's fun to write to that audience. c-span: is there such a thing as a philosophy of a sports writer? >> guest: you know, sports are about human behavior, and its -- steve young, the great forty-niners quarterback once

said football is the greatest laboratory for human behavior. i've always tried to do it that way. i think he's right. it's about ethics, it's about all sorts of neuroses. i think that you know sports is -- it is some it into american culture and american life that you have to view it from a broad philosophical standpoint as a reflection of all of our ethics and morals of neuroses. and morals of neuroses. c-span: during the program we're going to show some clips from some hearings to establish the connection between the fed's and sports. first up as 10-years-old. this is former governor ventura of minnesota. let's watch. >> baseball is your business coming and i emphasize business. you can meet in chicago, conspire to control output of your product in order to maximize profits and it's perfectly legal. that's not fair, and i think you

ought to do something about it. in 1922, when the united states supreme court decided major league baseball was a sport and not interstate commerce, perhaps it was a sport. but today, major league baseball is a self regulating billion dollar monopoly. major league baseball is really no different than opec. it controls supply and controls price with absolutely no accountability. the simple, logical and common sense fact is that major league baseball is a business that should be governed by the same laws and every other business. c-span: first thing you might have noticed is that the congress and the women's chairs are full, which is not often the case in a hearing like that. so there's a good turnout for the subject. what did you hear him say that you were thinking, were you

thinking about what mr. ventura was saying? >> guest: first i was thinking good show by a former athlete. no, my first thought is he's exactly right, and he's still right. he's getting right to the heart of the matter. for some reason in this country we have decided as a people to support professional sports as a great public endeavor. we devote hundreds and hundreds of millions, billions of dollars of millions, billions of dollars to building stadiums for privately held teams. they have the best of both worlds. they have their cake and eat it, too. we spent a good deal of time coming you know, concentrating on the money that players make and worrying about whether they are overpaid. we very seldom stop to think about what owners make and what we give to owners in terms of future tax breaks and huge windfalls in public funding for their stadiums and their teams simply because we want to feel the emotional connection with the athletes. c-span: i want to read back to you something that you wrote. part of a column came out in the

"washington post" on february 8th. i'll read you the first paragraph and then get you to comment more. it's a rough morning after -- morning after for the nfl. the dallas super bowl was a vendor >> guest: well, because i found that what happened at that super bowl to be unseemly. 2,000 fans were left out in the cold. the it spend thousands of dollars to get to see dallas and see the super bowl to discover that their seats were no good because, you know, jerry jones, the owner of the dallas cowboys and the nfl, tried to cram too many seats into a stadium you know for the super bowl that, by the way, a stadium that cost

$1.1 billion, and 300 million of which was federal lee -- during sorry, publicly financed. c-span: from callis? >> guest: from arlington. arlington, texas passed a bond issue to give jerry jones $300 million free and clear to build his college mahal. it's a beautiful stadium. it's clean, it's safe, it's gorgeous and it's highly expensive, and the reason he built it was so he could charge higher ticket prices and more expensive meals and drinks and parking. and you know it's spiral -- financial spiral that they are hitting the fans with on both ends, not just in the stadium at concessions for ticket prices, but frankly as taxpayers. c-span: how widespread is the funding of stadiums around the country in all sports? >> guest: well, it's ludicrous. it's everywhere. it's hard to name a stadium, particularly in the nfl these days, that doesn't have some degree of public financing. in new jersey right now, the new

york giants are playing in a brand new stadium while the state of new jersey still owes $110 million on a stadium that was just demolished to become a parking lot for the new stadium. so there are actually communities in this country that are carrying huge, in some cases, hundred million dollar debts on stadiums that are phantoms that don't even exist anymore that we've knocked down to build a new stadium for exports owner who once figured luxury boxes and more fancy concessions to charge higher prices. c-span: from your super bowl column, you wrote for absurdity held those for eevs eighteens flying over the stadium with its retractable roof closed? >> guest: i love to fly over. i actually think it's one of the

most thrilling things. i think it's a great recruiting tool for the air force and navy. i have no problem with flyovers and general. i think the money -- you know, people would probably tell you those flights, they were going to fly some kind of training flight that day any way. what's the harm and flying it over the super bowl? what was ludicrous was the roof was closed. you know, the notion of a fly over was a mockery in that instance because nobody in the stadium could actually see it. so i'm not sure how great it was for recruiting of spectators inside the closed dome. c-span: we see so much of these flyovers at sporting events. to the sporting teams and -- i nunes cardoza all the time and nascar -- the cars themselves are sponsored by the military. does that ever -- is that ever talked about in congress? >> guest: no, i've never heard anybody discuss the fly over, really, until this super bowl when it sort of struck everybody down in dallas as a lot that we had, you know, these marvelous

airplanes ceiling of closed roof. c-span: what do you think of the idea of recruit money being spent at the sporting events on -- >> guest: you know, i think -- you know what, it's fun. you can't get away -- amine some things are just fun. you know some of this stuff we want to pay for. i'm not saying that every time taxpayers spent on baseball teams or football teams or nba teams is ill spent. i think a lot of us love these teams we love the spectacle of it, and i think there's nothing wrong with spending some money on this stuff, even some public money on this stuff. what i think we need to do is ask tougher questions about what is the right, seemly levels of that spending are. there's a lot of hidden cost to taxpayers and to ticket buyers that aren't -- they aren't always alert to. and so my thing is not so much we shouldn't spend any public money on sports in this country.

lighting is let's explain to people what we are really spending, what we are really doing here. when arlington, texas builds -- helps build the tauscher hall of football stadiums to the tune of $1.1 billion, well, something else doesn't get built. when of the things that didn't get built in arlington texas was a light rail system. you can't get to arlington except by car. the bond issue that taxpayers past to help finance these stadiums, it means there's money not going to be spent on something else. it also means bigger deficits. you know, deficits are killing states. why should new jersey be strapped with 110 million-dollar debt on the stadium that no longer exists when they are laying off cops and firefighters and public schools don't have supplies for kids? these are questions we probably ought to be asking a little more frequently when we talk about spending public money for these great cultural celebrations call

football. c-span: where do you live? >> guest: new york city. all the life lived in washington on and off for many years, my face now is in new york city. c-span: y no york? >> guest: i was raised there. my dad moved us there when i was to be and it's been my home pretty much since then on and off except for the decade i spent here in washington. submits where i'm from. c-span: you're father, dan jenkins, for those who don't follow sports, wrote were still writes some but for what? >> guest: he was a senior writer at sports illustrated for 35 years. that was his main gate but he also became a very successful novelist rita he wrote a great novel called semites tough the was a big best seller in the 70's and got made into a movie with burt reynolds. so would probably be the most notable thing people would recognize him for. but he's a hall of fame sports writer. he writes for the golf digest

magazine now. he's probably one of the greatest golf writers who ever lived. he knows more about the gulf and any other human being on the planet. c-span: here is that club of senator joe biden back in 2003. the bowls have a deep and important history as a part of football. we all know that. and i think everyone is want to make that go away. we want to find a way -- >> that's not true, by the way. i mean this whole lot of us in the east who don't give a damn really about the rose bowls. there's a whole lot of us in the east that don't give a damn about the schricker bowl and in the east to don't give a damn about the range bowl. if they are the only things there to get plea and we care about them a lot but there's a whole lot of us in the east would much rather see a playoff system. i want to understand what is the mechanical difference? why mechanically will not work? why functionally will look not work in terms of stress on plea years or student quality-of-life

for -- >> there is no functional reason why it couldn't work. i mean, that's correct. but the desire to keep -- by others -- to keep the bowls and tech is what's leading in that direction. now with a buyout the idea of having a postboy championship? kutz -- >> what about the idea of having a post a bowl game after the championship? >> that's why just asked. >> okay. i'm sorry. got it. if i misunderstood you i apologize. >> here's the question that has to be answered if that makes sense. some people claim that by giving that to diminish the interest, fan attendance and most especially the television media interest in it. is that -- if there were a post a bowl game is that true? i don't know. i mean, i think that has to be market tested. c-span: baliles brand was the witness, died in 2009 of pancreatic cancer, but the issue still exists. i see this all the time in articles.

bcs. what does it stand for? >> guest: bowl gmp nseries. c-span: is that what he's talking about? >> guest: that's what he's talking about. bowl champion series. some people say you should just take the sea out and called it b. yes. that's my view. it is a rigged system devised by a handful of very powerful football pools to the other conferences to record the bust majority of the bowl game revenue and concentrate in the hands of large universities that spend a lot of money funding their football programs. it's not a fair way or an equitable way of determining the national championship because it blocks out a good half of the competitors in college football never have access to these bowl games because they don't really belong to the right conferences. it's sort of like saying if you don't live in newport, rhode island, you don't come to the ball. c-span: is that the kind of subject that should be brought out in a hearing?

>> guest: it should because a lot of the schools involved or large, public state universities. and it's very costly to the -- to the universities that don't have access to this rigid system. there are -- thus bowl revenues have grown exponentially you know in the last 25 years. a means that your athletics department could be facing a serious deficit if you don't gain access to one of these bowls. if you do gain access to one of the bowls, you have better facilities, better locker rooms, more good will from alum who -- it's proven when a football team wins and makes it into one of these major games giving those up. better medical care for your student athletes, better academic support for your student athletes. it affects a whole range of issues and you know that state universities that have access to this lucre don't really want to admit that, but it's true. it's a -- it's a form of piracy, if you ask me.

c-span: what kind of column gets the most attention back to you? >> guest: well, the super bowl cullom, the jerry jones taj mahal super bowl column was about as much response as i ever had on a column. and i was surprised by it, but i think the reason that it got so much response was because the fan is starting to get a little fed up with being cleaned on financially by the league. the expense never going to an nfl game for a family of four is just astronomical. it's -- the nfl is almost pricing the average fan out of the game day experience. you know it's got to be -- it's a $700 to 900-dollar proposition, depending on where you want to go see the game, to you want to go see the game, to take yourself and your spouse and your two children to see an nfl game. and so a lot of the response that i gough from that column was about fans feeling abused by the nfl. c-span: except if you watched the chatter about the washington

redskins in this town, there we or how many thousands of people in line for seats? >> guest: well, we're not sure how long the waiting list for the redskins tickets really is. that is a disputable topic. but the fact is that the nfl fan hasn't shown yet that the league has found the bottom of their pocket or the bottom of their good will. the truth is, if fans are being abused by the weak financially, it's because they keep coming back for more. you know, in some respects you start to wonder it's like if nfl football sort of feels like crack. you know, people just keep coming back and coming back and coming back and you go when are people going to say that's too much money or i'm not being treated very well at these games? c-span: this d-tn pure joost be the largest at 92,000 seats. is it still the largest? >> guest: i think depending on how many seats got creamed in to the cowboy stadium for the super bowl, you could -- you could

claim may be tallboy stadium. i think they wanted to hit the 100,000-dollar mark there. so i'm not certain. c-span: now this is in the shadow of the capitol. was that stadium built by taxpayers' money? >> guest: fedex field i think at some -- i can't remember how come it's been so long. i think there was a -- i'm not sure. c-span: we did watch the washington nationals baseball stadium in constant conversation and whether the d.c. people were going to fund it. did the fund that? >> guest: partly. you know, taxpayers partly funded stadium. it remains to be seen whether that stadium is going to do for business what was promised. you know, the whole idea of bringing baseball to washington, quite apart from the fact that it's lovely to have it here for the residence, was that it was going to revitalize, you know, a whole segment of the town commercially. you know, i don't know that that's happened yet. we will see. it could take quite a while for that to pan out.

you know, studies, economic studies of the impact of the stadiums by real economists and not by the leagues, the league's try to pass from studies that they are really commissioned studies. real economic impact studies show that of these stadiums pretty much don't bring what the league tells you they are going to bring. the cost money. they cost us all money. now, if we are willing to pay it, that's fine. i think there's an argument for paying it. i think it does a lot for morale. it does a lot for, you know, maybe as burry of the city. i think that culturally there's a lot to be said for having baseball in washington, d.c.. it's the nation's capital. it's the nation's capital. but the costs -- don't tell me that it's not going to cost, you know. c-span: if you were an elected member of congress or the senate and you had control over our committee, or not control, but you ran it chairman of the committee that had anything to do with sports, how much would you bring sports figures before

your committee? >> guest: i would bring them all the time and i would ask them repeatedly, insistently why aren't you giving back more to your community? this community is giving you a home. it gives you the dollars out of its citizens' pockets, and gives you a huge tax breaks and gives you public financing. why aren't you doing more for public school kids in this town? why aren't you doing more for the arts programs, you know? if you want public funding from a city like washington, d.c. or new york city or baltimore or dallas or arlington, i think that there should be an extra charge -- exchange there. i think that you shouldn't just get a massive tax break and $300 million free and clear to build your luxury boxes without giving something other than fielding a team. fielding a team. you know, give something back to this community, and i'm not just talking about sort of, you know, bringing out half a dozen players to read to public school kids, you know, once every two or three months. i'm talking about putting money

into this community come into the public institutions of this community. c-span: so again, you're the chairman of the committee. how many kids of -- if you could change the law, what would you change? >> guest: well, i mean, you know, the laws aren't always the best -- you know, they are like big claw hammers. they're big clumsy things. i don't know that they -- i think the laws can't care enough necessarily what's going on here. i think that -- first of all, i think that the culture of our professional sports leagues, and i am talking about the ownership i am talking about the ownership culture, should take a good look at itself and say is it seemly for 30 billionaires' whose league revenue is 9.3 billion, which is what the nfl revenue is. and by the way, roger goodell, the n.f.l. commissioner, wants to grow nfl revenue to $25 billion by the year 2025. now, you grow revenue by doing what? jacking up prices, among other things.

building bigger stadiums, which means asking more communities for more public money to build bigger stadiums. c-span: should government tried to stop those increases? >> guest: i think government ought to stop those increases, number one. but number two, if they are willing as a community to give some public money to projects like that, again, ask for something in return more than just keeping the football team you know in washington or in your community. but back to the original point, i think that owners should examine their responsibility to the community. you know their parents. the act like barron's. they live basically in the back room of the palm restaurant. i find more and more the behavior of professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they want hundreds of millions of dollars from their communities, and yet they don't really participate in the problems of those communities. and so you know, i think that one of the things we can do is ask these people you know to

really live in their cities. c-span: will they talk to you when you call them? >> guest: i've had exactly two conversations with dan snyder. i've requested the owner of the washington redskins. i've requested others and have been turned down. we don't have a great relationship. i'm a very tough critic of his in town. you know other owners are spoken with. i've met and spoke with jerry jones. i like him. you know i don't dislike these people, by way. c-span: dallas. he owns the dallas cowboys. >> guest: yes. i'm not sure. i guess my main point about some of these owners is coming you know, they can be very good people. it's -- but i think they live in a bubble sometimes. i think that the va when the out of touch, particularly lately in the nfl, with the average fan, with the average fan experience, and with the problems of, you know, their communities. i don't how you justify if you

are john mer and steve tisch who on the new york giants are good people but i don't know what you're thinking in the demolishing a stadium that is still carrying $110 million in debt and building a new stadium when newark, new jersey is right over there, and if you want to, you can really see the problems of the community coming and you can really see what deficits are going to the community. c-span: 2005, here's john mccain with the tisch you will see a lot of people on the dias that you recognize. the house of representatives some time ago had a hearing and some of the witnesses were the family members of the young people who had committed suicide while under the influence of these substances. and that's really what it's all about. there's some people who will say congress has no business in this issue. well, i would like to point: one, we have enacted -- the

professional sports have not acted, and number two, that we have an obligation to young people to do everything in our power to prevent them from succumbing to this terrible attraction in the belief that the only way they can perform at a major league professional level is if they in just these substances. any high school coach in america, and i have many high school coaches who have told me the same thing. i want to finally say we don't want to have to act legislatively. we know that this is a labor and management issue. but we have the additional obligations, and the fact the major league baseball is in particular has still not been able to act is what -- but we also need to examine what's going on with other professional sports. c-span: use all a lot of people there that you know on the dias.

who were they, by the way, in case some of them -- >> guest: well, i mean everybody from bud selig, the commissioner of baseball -- c-span: don fehr was there from the union. >> guest: yes, all the usual characters and suspects. you know, the baseball was hauled before congress to express itself on drug abuse. the interesting thing about that hearing, i mean that was one of the instances where i actually feel like we are getting that one wrong when we -- when we -- you know, capitol hill is a great tool for some things, and when citizens are cranky on the subject and you want to hear from the people who are making a cranky, it's great to have these hearings. unfortunately, what can also come out of them is sort of mob mentality. i think their steroids issue, we've gotten into a bit of a mob mentality, and we haven't done some very hard and complicated thinking on drugs. drugs is sports is a complex

issue but because it's really only reflective of one problem. after exactly aren't the lead user of steroids. teenagers are using steroids across-the-board to look better, not to play sports, but to lose not to play sports, but to lose weight or shape their bodies. you know that is not a sports issues; that's a cultural issue. you know lindsay lohan probably ought to be holed up to talk about you know, drug abuse also. about you know, drug abuse also. i mean, drug use in our culture, sports is picking up the tab for that one, and i think it's unfair. c-span: what do you mean by that? >> guest: well, i think that we are planning athletes for doing something that americans to every single day. you know, let's say you're a student and you've got a big paper do and you've got to stay tall night. you might take a little something to stay at. let's say you're a lawyer with a very big case to argue. you may take a little something to help you stay up all night or to feel a little sharper. let's see your a steelworker

with a backache. you know, you may take a little something, and you're about to take a little something. you know, people performance and hands in this culture all the time to do a better job of reading. athletes, for some reason, are demonized by this. most athletes, i suspect are using substance to repair injuries or to try to feel a little better or to perform a little bit better or to play hurt the way we demand of them. i think they got a real will deal on this subject and i sympathize with them enormously. i think -- i think countless citizens in countless professions performance and hence without blame, and are even expected to. c-span: a couple of years ago, what, was a 2002? >> guest: boy, was it that long ago? yes. he won in 1999ihnk. c-span: lance armstrong. you wrote this book with him. >> guest: yes. c-span: what is your take on his steroid controversy? >> guest: well i think he's --

she's my friend so i believe him when he says he's clean which is what you do with friends. we've talked about i asked him point blank. he says he hasn't performance enhanced and i believe him. i think he's an unbelievable physical specimen. i've seen it firsthand. i've seen him work. i've seen his body at work. you know, i believe he won cleanly. you know, but i swear on a stack of bibles? no. but i've asked him and i accept his -- you know, his answer as an honest one. c-span: what was your reaction to "the wall street journal" investigation of him? >> guest: well i don't believe a word he says. i have a very good reason not to believe a word he says. i don't find his accusations credible. i fear he had a real ax to grind. the interesting thing about the accusations so far in every instance about plans have come from people who had arguments with him, legal arguments with him. and until one of these accusations is ratified by someone who doesn't have an ax to grind, you know if that happens, i will say hey, you know what, he was guilty.

he lied to me. he liked to everybody else. that said, you know, i really like lance as a human being. i really do. i think he's a good person, and nothing can alter my opinion on that. nothing. c-span: how long did you work with him? >> guest: a couple years. we did two books together. we worked together, a good two years on and off and then have remained friends. i really -- i respect him a lot, and nothing can change that either. you know, he has done more in a fight against cancer, he's done more fund-raising committees on more raising of loral, raising of hope than anybody in the fight against cancer. and i will always respect him for that. always. c-span: why do you -- who writes your colin column and has your own opinions spent so much time with others and helping them write their books? >> guest: because i enjoy it. the first time -- c-span: much of that have you done? >> guest: i did to books with pat senate who is another good

friend of mine, the legendary women's basketball coach of the university of tennessee. she's the one who got me started. i was a much younger, less accomplished writer and she was looking for someone to help her write her book and i got the job. and it paid real good but more and it paid real good but more importantly, i got a great friend out of it and a great experience. and i loved doing it. i love ghost writing. it's a funny genre. it's very interesting to write in someone else's voice and to sort of sea life through their eyes. the people i've worked for our pat, lance armstrong, dean smith at north carolina. so you know, it's sort of like getting to drive a bentley and a rolls-royce and a porsche. you have to give it back in the end, but you know, it's fun to live the tour de france or live the national championship or live integrating college basketball in the 1960's. you know, the laws were fascinating projects and i'd start them all again tomorrow. c-span: of your nine books, which once sold the most?

>> guest: well, plants has sold i don't even know how many millions of books. millions of books. it's been -- i got copies of all the different languages it's been translated into. i mean, the enormously proud of that. and by the way, everything i have to say about lance you have to take with a grain of salt. he's my great friend coming and he's my great friend coming and he gave me one of the great successes i ever had so i'm inclined to believe him. but because i love him and he's given me so much. but that book honestly i think has been translated into 15 languages. i still get mail from cancer patients. you know there are 8 million americans with cancer who feel like that book is doing them a little bit of good, some of them. savitt -- i'm probably -- i love the books i've written on my own. i'm probably proudest of them, but that's a close second. c-span: let's go back to the government relationship with sports, and we are right now in the middle of this nfl possible walkout by the owners and the players and the decertification

of the union and all that. can you give us a synopsis of what it is all about? >> guest: it's about millionaires and billionaires is the first week to put it. the owners are the billionaires' and the players are the millionaires in the middle is $9.3 billion of total revenue the owners feel like to much of that is going into the players' pockets instead of their own. right now the way the deal is set up as the owners take the first billion off the top to offset the census. after that -- c-span: distributed equally among the 32 teams? >> guest: yes. to offset stadium expenses, all sorts of different expenses. after that, i think the split is 58% to the players, after that. so it works out to run out 50-50 split if you take what the first

billing in and give it to the owners and then you split the rest. it works out to pretty much an even division of the total revenue. after certain expenses are also a factor than it can get complicated but that's basically the deal. the owners want to take an additional $1 billion. that's what they want. that represents, if you do the math, about an 18% pay cut for the players. this is not a strike. most people -- knott most people did a lot of people that home are still thinking of this as some sort of a work stoppage strike. it's not. the players would go back to work in an instant. they are happy with the existing contract and they are not asking for anything more. the owners are saying we need another billion dollars to help operate our teams to grow the game, to feel more comfortable about our profit margins, so on and so forth. that's basically the deal. now, fans sitting at home

probably need to think about it in these terms. t want to pay your money to the owners or do you want to pay your money to the players? c-span: let's go back to the sports broadcasting act of 1962, which exempted all these sports teams from the antitrust laws. first of all, why did we as a country exempt all these sports teams from the antitrust? >> guest: it's a decision we've made. the baseball decision, the clip that you showed of jesse ventura talking about the baseball decision, the decision was very clear. the supreme court basically said that it's a national treasure, it's a national position and we are going to treat it as not an ordinary business. it's the -- to quote the godfather, part two, it's the business we chose. it's a decision we've made as a culture and as a country and as a government. and you know whether it's the right 1i don't know. but we allow teams to operate as private entities and yet we give them all sorts of public breaks. and it's just what we've decided

to do. c-span: by exempting them from the antitrust act what do they do that ordinary businesses can't do? >> guest: they can negotiate collective tv contracts, for instance. that's one of the big things they can do with 32 owners can act in concert to get -- to get their tv agreements. c-span: they couldn't do that if c-span: they couldn't do that if they were not exempt? >> guest: that's my understanding. i'm not a lawyer but maybe there's something here i'm not understanding what my understanding is -- c-span: they couldn't do what you're doing right now as owners. they couldn't get together and say we want another billion collectively off the top the couldn't have that agreement in the first place? >> guest: actually, one of the things that's going on here there's some maneuvering by the football players' union to decertify as the union said that the players would then give up their rights as a union, legal rights as -- under the labor law. and then they would put them in the position to be able to sue the nfl as a trust, to bring an

antitrust lawsuit against the nfl. that is a possibility here. if the owners are serious about locking the players out, that is one thing that could happen. they lost the last antitrust suit that they faced when reggie white as a player and other players brought in the vegetable seeds the last time we had this degree of labor disagreement between the owners and players. c-span: do you think we would be better off -- rather than asking that we -- which way what we -- are we better off as a country having the antitrust exemption or not? >> guest: i don't know. i mean, you know i think it's worked pretty well so far. i mean i think again, we have decided as a country that we love these games so much that we are willing to make certain financial and, you know, public sacrifices for them. it's funny. i covered the olympics in athens a few years ago and when you go back to greece and see the ruins and you a little homework before

you go cover that olympics, you know, one of the things i read was, you know, they're great hamilton book about ancient greece. and one of the things she says is one of the things we know best about this ancient culture is how they played. and so sometimes when you look around at these enormous stadiums try to think of them in terms of archaeology. i mean, eons from now when people start digging, one of the things they are going to find these enormous structures and they are going to understand when port and they were to us. c-span: did you play sports in college? >> guest: i played in high school. i smoked in college. c-span: what did you play in high school? >> guest: i was a basketball player and a volleyball player and softball player. c-span: what do you mean you slept in college? >> guest: i took up cigarettes and college and was a habit that lasted several years and i quit. c-span: why did you do that? >> guest: i started reading too many books.

no, it was something -- i smoked a little bit in high school. it was the 70's, the late 70's and early 80's. it was a bad habit and i kicked it but i smoked too much to be a college athlete. c-span: when you write what kind of an atmosphere are you in and where do you write the best? >> guest: i write the best at the new york public library which i've adopted as my office. there's a concentration that takes over there. there is a beautiful -- there's several -- the main reading room is gorgeous but there are several smaller reading rooms. the history room is where i've done a lot of research on my books over the years and it's become my real office in new york city. c-span: how often a week do you write a column? >> guest: i write usually minimum of one a week, mostly one a week. there are weeks i met an event i will write every day, you know, i will write three or four or i might at an olympics right, you know, 20 columns in three weeks. c-span: when you write your

column on the deadline where do you do it? >> guest: in my home in new york in an easy chair with a laptop on my lap sometimes or at an event depending. but generally, at home. c-span: what's your favorite sport to write about? >> guest: it changes year to year. there are some years when figure skating was the greatest sport in the world. when brian boitano was winning gold medals and fighting the great canadian skater that was one of the great head-to-head competition site ever covered. there are some years when the nfl seems like the greatest sport in the world and there were some fabulous years when were some fabulous years when golf, i mean the ryder cup cup year is the match is close to becoming you think golf is the greatest sport on earth. it changes. the characters change it. tennis, i loved covering andre

agassi and pete sampras and their rivalry. i got a tail wind of the chris effort and martina which was probably the gold standard for a great rivalry and too fabulous interesting good human beings to cover. c-span: you were nominated a number of years ago at the post for pulitzer because of the line by his story. what was it? >> guest: he was the top draft pick of the boston celtics and a star basketball player for the university of maryland. at that time i was covering at that time i was covering maryland basketball for the "washington post" as a young writer. i had gone to the nba draft and watched him get drafted, interviewed him. i spent a few minutes with him afterwards and then we both went home. he went back to the maryland campus and i went back to my apartment on dupont. got a call the next morning he overdosed on cocaine and was dead. and we spent months trying to find out exactly what had led him to do that to himself. and who had sold it to him. c-span: did you find out? >> guest: yet, a godly went on

trial name to brian aaa was eventually acquitted. people wanted to blame somebody. it's funny i remember an editor saying you know, it seems to me the real story here is who killed len bias and i remember thinking to myself len bias killed len bias and i think that's the truth, you know? it was an agonizing story to cover. it was the greatest tragedy in sports that i've ever covered. he was a beautiful kid and a beautiful basketball player. and that was the saddest truths of all this that len bias killed len bias. c-span: what your? >> guest: ghosh -- c-span: we can back off of 98 when they passed the drug law but -- >> guest: what year was it? my goodness. c-span: 82? >> guest: no i think it had to be a routt 8546? c-span: what i was leading up to is what impact did it have on the 984088 drug law that we

passed? bickel at the len bias act. >> guest: i think one of the things his death date is week people to the fact cocaine was a killer. i think right up until len bias bought it, people told themselves that, you know, there was a time people said cocaine wasn't addictive. remember that? cocaine was the, quote, good drug, you know. drug, you know. it means you energetic and smart. and people didn't really realize yet i think they're real wage of it, you know, the toll of it. and i think after that i think we understood -- c-span: do you think that law was passed because of len bias? >> guest: you know i don't recall. i think that may take on it at the time i was so wrapped up in his death and what they did to the maryland basketball program and all of his teammates and kids. i think i was probably more caught up in the personal toll of it than the broad legal impact of it. c-span: here's some more excerpts of a hearing in this

particular one was in the year 2007 -- know exactly 2008. and it says congressman bobby rush from chicago and again, this is self explanatory. mr. selig do you support the federal legislation that would promulgate rules and regulations requiring professional and amateur sports associations to about the mitchell report recommendations? >> i can only speak for my own sport come and the answer is yes. >> mr. fehr? >> we believe the matter ought to be handled in collective bargaining. i'm not in the position to respond for any other sport. >> for your own individual sport, okay. mr. stern? >> we believe the matter should be handled collective bargaining between the players and the association. >> mr. hunter? >> i adopt mr. stern's comment.

>> mr. goodell? >> yes we do. we believe as i stated in my testimony that we are doing a vast majority of the recommendations the senator made. >> mr. mashaal? >> i agree to the extent it should be collective bargaining. >> mr. bettman? >> i believe this should be a matter of collective bargaining especially because the natural report was focused on one particular sport and did not have the benefit of looking at the practices and history of the other sports. >> mr. kelling? >> no. >> no. [laughter] c-span: what did you hear their? >> guest: a lot of the same thing. first of all, a lot of agreement. i liked bettman's answered the best. i think that one of the things -- again, as we talked to earlier, once you start having hearings on capitol hill, a mob mentality can develop, and descent can get drowned out, and so can the other side of the issue. and i think that drugs said treat each sport has its

own sports, i think that's a great point. i mean, one of the things i actually was disappointed in plus when the pga tour about a drug testing policy. galt operates on an honor code, players turned themselves in. the culture of conscience will bloom in a vacuum. a few players on a golf course and you tell them they're responsible for their own score, their own ball, for, you know it's a wonderful thing that golf has culturally. a drug-testing system treats them like sheets. it's totally contrary to the rest of the ethics in that sport and i was really disappointed to see a goal sort of traduced and sort of publicly pressured into adopting a drug-testing system that was an end to this is to everything the sport is about. c-span: looking at the group of men sitting there -- they are all the man sitting at table --

one thing first of all roger goodell who was on capitol hill from the state of new york was a republican then turned democrat but the reason i bring that as they are talking about the mitchell report after senator george mitchell. what is your opinion of the mitchell reports and the idea of having a former senator asked to do this kind of investigation? >> guest: i think george mitchell was a great guy. i think the mitchell report was baseball's attempt to look like it was doing something when they understood that it would be profoundly unfair to actually punish the people who were singled out in the report. unfortunately, you know, federal investigators have leaked names. grand jury testimony has been leaked. these investigations into the steroids in baseball and to professional sports has led to, i think, serious, serious violations of people's personal rights. i think that the mitchell report was a pandora's box that then led to a lot of what i consider

to be really unfortunate stigmatizing of people. you know why i understand why they did it. i thought it was well-intentioned, but i mean i think there's a real witch hunt mentality when it comes to professional athletes and steroids. i really do. c-span: what's your opinion of when you see those men setting up the table, you probably know them all. how do they -- i know this is a broad question -- representing their different sports to the federal government? >> guest: i think they do a good job. you know, roger goodell is an incredibly intelligent man. david stern is a smart guy and is a personable -- >> guest: the nba commissioner. i don't know bettman but he seems to be a strong leader for his sport. c-span: whispered? >> guest: hockey. he brought hockey back from a very serious labour stoppage and the british you. i'm not a big fan of stifel's

but -- c-span: why not? >> guest: i just don't know him. i've never met him. his public statements have been kind of where she washy. i think he could have managed the steroids in baseball thing better. i think that -- sometimes the federal government's intrusion is wrong, you know. sometimes there are matters that aren't the federal government's business and -- c-span: here is an amateur quote on -- in quote marks, a sport that i want to ask you about. this is a report that actually came out today from sports illustrated and cbs and i'll just read the first paragraph.

and this report goes on to talk about top 25 sports illustrated team's showing pittsburgh players charged with police records, 22 of them coming indigos i always 18 to arkansas 18, huessy state 16, penn state 16, virginia tech 13. is this of any value, the fact that these games either didn't know or didn't report that their players had previous crimes? >> guest: well, i think it is of value. it's -- you know, it's something that you feel and suspect if you cover a lot of college football. you know, you read isolated accounts of crimes being committed on campus. i think the story concludes at about 7% of athletes to the top 25 football programs have some sort of criminal record. you know sexual assault is -- is a concern. you know there's been this nagging question for years. you know to college athletes commit crimes against women at it proportionately higher rate? you'd be tempted to think so

from reading the newspapers sometimes. that's a good question. and you know, i mean we are certainly concerned if a -- if a normal student has a criminal record and is on campus. i think that's something everybody wants to know, right? you know, if there's somebody in a freshman dorm that has a criminal record and you're a parent or a frenchman living, you'd like to know that. i think it's -- i think it's -- c-span: are you surprised about the 7% figure? >> guest: i'm not surprised. i'm surprised -- i'm surprised at -- the thing that's most surprising is that these teams don't win more. i mean, if you're going to win i mean, if you're going to win -- if you're going to be that -- you know, that bold faced ambitious as to keep a guy on campus with a criminal record because he's a good athlete, boy, you'd better win games. you'd better do better than pate did, you know. c-span: well, two of the teams

-- stanford had won and tcu had zero, did well but didn't -- >> guest: texas christian university is in my mind the national champion. they won the rose bowl. gary patterson is a terrific coach to appears to run the program right with discipline. any great coach will tell you discipline is the linchpin of a championship team. i mean, what stuns me is that -- is that schools think that they can -- they might actually be getting ahead by keeping some guys with discipline problems around. that is a proven loser and it's kind of desperate. c-span: we are in the month of march, and does march madness mean anything to you? >> guest: yes. it's the great -- it's the greatest period of temporary insanity in the world you know, i love it. c-span: and what do you think -- you've referred in one of your columns to the college sports being nothing but a farm team for professional sports. c-span:

>> guest: that's true enough but i'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. we always act like that's a bad thing. i don't know why. i mean, college campuses are farm systems for all sorts of professions, aren't they? amine -- c-span: what do you think of the different concept that young players ought to have to stay out for a year and get their grades -- >> guest: i am in favor of the freshman ineligibility, and i think it is -- it would cure a good 50% of the ills in college sports overnight and the only reason it is not happening in economics is because universities don't want to pay the scholarship cost and the costs as it did with supporting an athlete on campus when he is not bringing in revenue. that's it. that's the only reason it was abolished. freshmen were ineligible for most of the history of college sports in this country. the ncaa voted it out a few decades ago for economic reasons, and the seabed decision. and frankly, you know, a really strong leader of the ncaa probably should make it their very first priority to forge a

consciousness on this. every president -- every school president in this country knows it's the right thing to do. every coach knows it's the right thing to do. c-span: and what is your reaction to these athletes who come to college and after a year or to leave to go to the pros? >> guest: well, i mean, they are prodigies. they enrich the campus while they, are there. if they are participating in their college life. kevin durand was a classic example. he went to the university of texas and was arguably about the greatest basketball player kobe bryant for the mantel. went to the university of texas for one year, loved it and then left and went to the nba. i see nothing wrong with it. you know, he had a great time while he was there. they loved having him. he was exposed to a college campus and got to have one more year of normal youth before he became the great player that he is. you know, i'd like to see them stay two years, frankly.

i think if you commit -- i'd like to see a freshman eligibility rules about when kevin durant, texas it's actually a two-year commitment. he sits out one year while he finds his classrooms, and the second year he plays, and then he's out. c-span: we are about out of time. how many kids and your family? >> guest: three. two brothers. c-span: older, younger? >> guest: one twin brother and one year younger so it was sort of like being triplets and outnumbered. c-span: and what do they do for a living? >> guest: thir interesting guice. am i engender brother is a searching photographer who lives down and costa rica. and my twin brother was working as a contractor for a while in san diego, in the san diego area and now he's living up in vermont feeding farm animals. c-span: and you grew up -- actually born and grew up in what city? >> guest: i was born in fort worth texas. i'm a texan and by birth and affinity and i grew up in new york city. i was raised in new york.

c-span: how long did you spend in texas? >> guest: really only three years but we went back every summer and still do and my family lives there again. c-span: are you married? >> guest: no, sir. c-span: have you ever been married? >> guest: no. c-span: you have any children? >> guest: no, no kids. no nothing, dogs. c-span: and what's the -- was part of this job of going all over the world for sports do you not like? >> guest: you know, i guess i don't like -- the only part of it that i don't absolutely love is the part where you have to write critically of people. i mean, that's not fun. it's not -- it's not fun to school someone in public. it's not fun to write something that you know must hurt. you know that part of it i have qualms about coming and it's not easy. and you know, i struggle with that one. c-span: author and sports columnist for "the washington post," sally jenkins, thank you very much for taking this kind. >> guest: thank you.

♪ ..