what should it mean in this context? what does it mean particularly for the kinds of reporters that you have most recently made this film about who are covering very difficult stories where there is real risk involved? >> from my perspective, as a documentary filmmaker, i do not know i would consider myself a journalists in the traditional sense. i think i have a slightly different set of challenges. a traditional journalist has to be factually accurate -- like that, but that is a point of departure to make something larger. i do not always get there. for me, and vigilanceis a bad debt. i made "reportero" about the

staff and reporters there public, the co-director of the paper, and i wanted to make the film because so much of the u.s. cable coverage that i was seeing about the drug war, especially in this part of the country, to me seemed woefully decontextualized. it felt like rubbernecking body count journalism. x number of people were shot on the state. this person was be headed there, but no context. no background, no history, the deepening of the story. i'm by no means a expert on mexico's drug war, but i did have a very strong interest in this region and in. i began researching as early as -- in itjuana. i began researching in 2007 while looking for another story. unlike other journalists, who do

not have the amount of time that you often need to tell the stories, when i was in production i had a little over two years to spend with the story. that is enough time to deepen your sense of a place, an institution, to gain trust and to hopefully have a deeper narrative. whether or not i succeeded at -- or failed is up to the audience and the people who push back on my perspective, but for me the ability to spend time with an issue, too deep and your understanding of that issue, provide the debt to audiences, that is key to take apart that issue of the audience -- of vigilance. >> to different pressures that are in no way similar, but speak to how hard is to be a professional reporter, a

documentary filmmaker in these times. in your film you talk about a couple of different stories, a columnist, a court reporter, the founder, living on this side of the border to avoid danger. in a time when it is so hard to make a living doing this anywhere, are we asking too much of professional journalists, do you think? >> that is a great question. i think the newspaper reporters that profiled in a "reportero" -- the lead reporter, they had very serious threats that force them to send his family away for a while. they would say, we are just regional reporters, doing our

peace, cover and organized crime as we see it played out in this region. what u.s. reporters doing? i was speaking to a person who basically started one of latin america's first online news outlets, a fabulous online news outlet. he was saying is almost as if david copperfield were at the border when these suv is packed with methamphetamines and other drugs and narcotics were funneled into the united states, as if they magically vanish when they hit the united states. who is doing reporting on the criminal distribution networks in united states, atlanta, dallas, los angeles -- who is doing that reporting here? so much attention is focused on what is happening in mexico, we are lamenting the strengths or weaknesses of reporting in mexico. the mexican reporters, especially the regional ones, were hardest hit.

it is the once in these regional outlets like tijuana. they want to know who was telling the other side of the story and who is doing the money reporting, all these narco dollars. who is doing the story about money laundering? i do not know if i answered your question, but that is certainly a kind of push back there. who is telling the good story and -- big story and the small story? >> let me bring in carrie lozano to the conversation. she is a documentary filmmaker and journalist who has done a lot of work. her from "underground" appeared at sundance. also, she is an emerging expert

on the question of collaborative reporting, journalists, between news organizations, citizens, she works in the investigative reporting for uc berkley and has co-founded the collaboration central. very basic question -- who is doing this kind of reporting? you could say this about anything. do existing american media have the resources, individual television stations, to do investigative reporting on the toughest stories? >> if my boss -- my boss, for any of you who have seen "insider, " he is the insider, al pacino. he says investigative reporting is not non-profit, it is anti-

profit. he is right. nobody ever had the resources to spend two years on a story. nobody knows this, but "been york times" did not even have an investigative -- "the new york times" did not even have an investigative unit into a cup -- the 1990's. even then it was just a couple of people. i do not want to say that nothing has been done, because scott can tell this -- at the local level. the local watchdog is hurting around the country, but at the national level i do not know that a so much the case that we are not able to be vigilant anymore. i think vigilance is taking a different form. it is taking the form of more collaborative efforts, where people are working together to produce really in-depth stories that are hard hitting and take that watchdog role. it is happening in other medium

s. a lot of documentary filmmaking is becoming investigative and there's more support and acknowledgment for that. if you look at the numbers over time, more newspapers do not exist, a lot of reporters have lost their jobs, that is true, you cannot deny it, but i went to the investigative reporting conference this year and there were 1500 people there, one of the largest turnouts ever. people are still doing work, doing it in different ways. the money is always hard to come by. it may be harder, but we also have wider means of distribution. it is hard to say -- there is no clear cost-benefit analysis of was a better then than now. i am not 100% convinced. i think it is different now. >> i worked in three newsrooms "the street journal," "and the los angeles times."

i worked with many brilliant people, but plan well with others was not a strength of the people i worked with across any of those. it very difficult folks. they had a hard time collaborating and getting along with the person sitting next to them in the news room. my old boss from "the los angeles times," he called the collaborative effort a pain in the a. tell me what one of these things looks like. explain what happens -- how do they get along? do they get along? >> for those of you who have not worked in a newsroom before, journalists and organizations are incredibly competitive. even today, in your contract, your citing confidentiality agreements. you will not talk about your story. a story -- i do not know if it has been true -- they used to assign reporters the same story to two reporters to see who

does the better job. there is a huge cultural issue here. what is happening because of diminished resources is news organizations are starting to say, i cannot do that kind of work on my own. i will start to work with other technically competing news organizations. i have been involved mostly in large-scale collaborations' that involve pbs frontline, propublica, we are doing something with univision and the center for investigative reporting. it may seem like a no-brainer -- a kind of is, and especially today, but culturally is against the norm. we received it uc-berkeley a grant a couple of years ago from the knight foundation -- they asked us to do a how-to model for collaborative reporting trade we quickly realized that before we can teach people to do this, we need to change their

mind. we need to change the culture in some way or start to talk about the culture. do they always play well with others? not always. the thing i say every conferences i think that in the news industry we need to be -- put a lot more effort into teaching and team work in a way other businesses do and teaching leadership. it is good leadership and teamwork skills, the acknowledgment of that -- reporters can do a job they feel good about. >> there is not enough money. everybody -- the audience is too fractured? >> it is both. for frontline, the executive producers there felt they do not have investigative reporters on staff, they cannot afford it. they want to have the most cutting edge investigative stories on the air. the way they do that is to work with other organizations who are doing investigative work. they are not broadcast organizations necessarily.

it is about the money and it is also about the fractured audience. one thing that we realized when we worked on a series with propublica, front line, and npr -- when you have a and your store with 25 million listeners more people watch the broadcast. it is finding different audiences. >> thank you very much. let's bring in scott lewis, ceo of the "voice of san diego." he manages the internal operations for the organization. he has traded partnerships and projects. he is a regular on tv and radio , host of "san diego fact jack" here -- "san diego fact check" here, has a weekly radio show, etcetera.

your serial collaborator. your staff has 10 people. void can you fill with partnerships and you are young, hungry, a talented staff? >> i would like to map what we are not doing. areas of geography, institutions that are not being covered and why. holding a mirror up to somebody -- just by showing people that you are watching, there is a positive effect. our goal is to cover things as best we can. that means we cannot repeat or be redundant to anybody else's work. jeff jarvis says ". >> what you do best, and you link to the rest." we find stories we can really be

the best that and frame and explained. and then let other people do what they do best. and accentuate that and try to help that. when we look at partnerships, we look at -- we look at a world where the producers of content, the drivers of explanation and storytelling, do not have to be tied to the means of distribution, a broadcaster re printing press or whatever. the idea that you can have the means of production and distribution in the thing that comes up with the storytelling is i think an old one based on the newspaper having a printing press in its building. we have decided we can be the agency that supports public radio, commercial radio, magazines, tv, and we can all work together to get the best stories possible. we are switching also to not necessarily covering beats but

covering narrative's. rather than just putting one person on education to try to double that entire fire house that comes at him, -- fire hose that comes at them, they can add narratives and subtract them, make sure people are involved. if they are not enrolled in those neighbor -- narratives, something will play out without their impact. >> a follow-up question -- i am not thinking of any city in particular here. with that kind of operation, let's say you have that operation in a city where the daily newspaper in town started to do some very strange things. i imagine that. it was owned by somebody who was very openly talking they were going to support particular causes, particular developments, particular parties.

i imagine something like that could happen. does that add to the obligation of citizens, people like you, to do more to fill that void? or can you still -- fill the void -- is that city just out of luck? >> first of all, it is a remarkable symbol of what is happening to journalism. locally, the owners of the "union tribune" just purchased the "north county times" -- the assets are collapsing in value. they bought it for $12 million, sold his house for $18 million. putting aside that, these properties can be acquired and done with resume. this is not an expensive problem defects. i think that is an important thing to remember. i have a budget of law at -- a

little more than $1 million, which is a lot three-person like me. a cultural institution for an impact with the entire city -- that is not a -- not that much. museums are run on a higher budget. university colleges, professors in universities are on a bigger budget. the point is that if we want to solve this and realize we want to have more coverage, there are ways to do that. we have setup a society that knows how to find institutions with that kind of impact. the "texas tribune," we inspired them -- now they inspire us with their ideas and structure. >> they are treated from people from a "texas monthly magazine" wanted to focus on local politics? >> we were featured on the front page of the "new york times" after investigations we did. they told us, what can we do

here? they decided they wanted to do an entity in austen that covers politics relevant to the entire state. now they're running on a $5 million budget. we are all talking at that. that is a lot of money for the -- not a lot of money for the type of impact that institution can have. with the vance, corporate and member sponsors, you can do some impressive things. we are trying to look at this is a problem to solve. do not cover anything unless you can do better than anybody else or nobody is doing it. makes sense of what people say, a fact check it, but find out what they do not want to say as well. applying those types of metrics to the stories and narratives you will cover can make it so that you are leveraging a small amount of resources a lot better than perhaps the old model. >> for the whole panel -- you

mentioned, bernardo, a story here, a big story here. what are we missing when we do the things we can with the resources we can -- what are the holes opening up where we are not being vigilant? >> it is geographic and qualitative. there are areas or not covering, institutions. people appreciate investigative journalism when it has its impact, but when it is not around to do not know what you are missing, unnecessarily. we do not know what we do not know. i think that is an important problem. >> we look for stories where really -- they're literally is not work being done. one of the big stories last year was about an investigation in america. you may hear about a murder investigation in a nearby city

and it might seem flawed, but that is the end of it. this came from a long trail of reporting done by many different people. we started to just get a sense that -- we did not have a sense of what the country looked like. we started to learn there were no rules for what it meant to be a corner -- you did not have to be a doctor or trained in some cities. there is an anecdote that somebody was also the janitor as well as the corner. we are looking for tips where there is a story in front of you, the local murder investigation, but what is behind that? that is what we are always doing, trying to look at an issue that may be all around us but nobody has found a really particular angle. we are lucky because we have the capacity to do national stories and try to get different organizations involved to look at something on a national scale. >> bringing back to that -- as a documentary filmmaker, i manage

a small company, we are four people -- when you commit to a story, you had better know that you are going to do a good job. once you go down that rabbit hole, you are talking about a couple of years. for me, the criteria is, take a narrative out there that is well known and find a back story. i think about the story -- >> the general -- legendary columnist. >> exactly, who when kennedy was being buried was looking for an angle on how to tell the story and ended up doing a beautiful piece, interviewing the grave digger. telling the story of kennedy's @ through the point of view of this grave digger. how do you talk about the drug war and u.s. links to the drug war, this thing that is so impossible -- you have to root

it in a specific story and find some kind of back door, some kind of different way to do it. for me that is always an important piece of the puzzle. >> to look at another aspect of this -- a lot of cities -- citizens are doing journalistic things with their cameras all over the world. i found myself thinking as i was watching about everyone, folks in syria and homs, they show what they could, to folks here in oakland with camera phones trying to show police misbehaving. somebody, the act of journalism, how to protect people, whether they are citizens or professionals -- what you think? we do not have a conversation about that.

should there be an international standard of journalistic rights, if you are committing journalism you should be protected? how you protect those folks? >> good luck implementing that law. is a great question. something journalists and tijuana struggle with all the time with the rise of social media and websites a lot of you have heard about -- including one which started out as a compendium of information about basically narco turf wars, shootings in the streets, the headings. it started off as a visual wallpaper and has since become interesting, more sophisticated, and is beginning to write articles and put -- and the editor is anonymous, but they are beginning to publish pieces. this thing that was touted early on as being a kind of innovative or new information delivery system is now turning into a

more traditional journalistic entity. the journalist would say, that is great that the information is there, and the kind of iphone video or man on the street, so called man on the street video of any event can be uploaded quickly, but who is providing context and analysis? not that we always need to rely on experts, but if you are writing for a weekly, that really gives you a totally different approach. you can provide context, provide perspective, in a way that you do not necessarily get from that immediate delivery of information, of data. >> in collaborative work, to what extent are using stuff that comes in from citizens? to what extent are you putting data and other things out that citizens can send -- can then put the pieces together? how much of that do you do? what is its value? what does not work about 8?

>> we do not have a magic formula, we do not have the type of investment you can make controls the other people do. it is important to remember that journalists always put out a story knowing that the response is more valuable than the story they put out. to see what the truth is. we are just entering a very exciting phase. with this disruption, there has been a lot of different efforts to change the role of journalism -- not just to classify the job, but also to organize information better. one of the roles journalists never picked up the way they should have and we are trying to explore more is their educational role. you can do investigative journalism, but the idea that people understand everything journalists talk about or read about in their story these days is really something we need to

examine. they are not following the story is very well. it is not their fault. stories are not being told fully. they are not being brought to speed. the number of people who know how school board elections work or how different aspect of our community actually function before they can even get enrolled in a story about how they are developing is something journalists need to take stock in and step back from. this formula is being applied to digest, stuffr's like that, that help people. >> the citizen question -- >> we are not an outlet. we are a program at the university of california, a graduate program that does reporting, but we are working with different organizations. we do not really have an initiative, per said, but there are organizations that are doing incredible work with citizens.

"the guardian" in the u.k. is the best example of a large organization that works with citizens on a huge scale. one of the things they did in the last couple years was pulled from public records about the way their politicians are spending money. millions of documents. they created a form and citizens volunteered to go through those millions of documents and competed. it was amazingly successful. i do not know how many thousands of people participated, but it was a lot. "the guardian" is very innovative. american journalists are trying to find ways to do this -- to engage citizens. we do not get a lot of cold calls or tips, but we never ignore. i do not know if there are journalists out there -- we never ignore a tip. i do not care how crazy it seems, how far-fetched -- we always follow up. you'll be surprised at how many amazing stories we get out of

those tapes. -- tips. on that way, we deal with people in serious ways. when we do large-scale investigations, one of the things we try to do is make information available for other reporters. we treated maps that showed in each county or state level, it is different at the county level, how investigations work, what journalists need to report. trying to share as much information as we can so that other reporters can take what we have done and carry it forward. >> talking about educational -- i could not help but think of the internal revenue service when he started talking about education. you are collaborating with nonprofits. bernardo ruiz productions -- >> not a non-profit, but

primarily public funders, foundations. >> saw your non-profit -- so you are non-profit, you have money from foundations, they have agendas. the second problem, the irs seems to not buy in many cases, they do not buy the notion that non-profit journalistic enterprises are educational things. how do you wrestle with both of those? >> there is a discomfort with the idea that newspapers are not going to be ok. the idea that it needs to be a public service type entity that take that role is still something they are getting accustomed to. there is movement in a positive -- >> these are old irs agents that are holding back? >> i do not know. the point being, what i'm trying

to address is that there is a role, there is a gap between when you leave school, even college, and civic engagement, being able to run for office. what that knowledge -- how you learn all the things about how your community works? there is a gap, and we have no organized system for how to get you to that point other than for you to individually look at your students' school or a stop sign not in place, then you start getting engaged. that is why i think our type of organization can increase that educational role and do more of what we are doing at the investigative and vigilance. >> have you had a hard time? >> we were one of the first. maybe they started to dial back the more controversial organizations. it has done quite well. we never had trouble.

it is important to note that the members who watched support it. it is not a question when they make that decision -- people are wondering when people support journalism, these newspapers fall apart and people say people are not willing to pay for journalism. >> they never ask, please, help us? >> it just stopped. it just stood there like a depressing time capsule for months -- it drove me nuts. these entities are falling apart without ever wondering what their community would support. frankly, a nonprofit is a much better situation to make that plea to the community because a for-profit is set up for shareholder values where receiving money as gifts is awkward. we see it in different newsrooms

around the country. >> you are more sympathetic? >> i am saying the mission-based organization is a more sympathetic organization to support. >> when you reported on some of these that are foundation- funded, had he seen examples of the founder trying to meddle? >> yes, but it is a meddling in a particular way. very few foundations exist solely to support journalism -- there are a few, but there are not many. there are thousands of foundations with in this country, and they have very specific desires and goals and impacts in mind. it might be to better their community, to better the arts. a host of things. when i say nettling, it is that sometimes they will give a news organization money with a very specific scope in mind.

i am making this up to be fair, but maybe they want you to just cover education. that could be great, but maybe what you really need to cover something else in that community, but suddenly you have a check in front of you and you feel compelled to cover education. that is the type of thing we are seeing here and there, but that overall is kind of concern. i think it could be that foundations could be educated about journalism. i went to a big foundation conference and realize they do not necessarily understand the east coast of journalism. that goes against the east coast of journalism -- ethos of journalism to tell them what they should cover. i think it had a conversation, but it will take time and effort. >> for money to make films? how tough it out there? is there money for vigilance? >> on the documentary side, it is most of the time, as documentarians, we are what

would be considered enterprise journalism. we subsidize our development and by the time we have something to show or the sense of a pitts we are going to foundations. typically we are going to places where we think these projects would be well received. i am also sometimes commissioned by entities. i am working on an education serious, and that as a commission from the corporation for public broadcasting. the mandate is very clear. i have been very lucky in that the foundations that have supported my work -- in "reportero" we had quite a bit of support in the ford foundation. there was no editorial meddling and no restrictions on we should and should not be talking about. >> another aspect -- the standing army of journalists has declined and been given their

honorable or not so honorable discharges. particularly in the last decade. they have gone to all kinds of institutions -- i keep finding old colleagues are people i knew who argue in journalism from in a different kind of place. they will tell me that, at least. government is one -- you started in government. you were the inspector general of health and human services. the legislative leadership in california hired a bunch of journalists out of the press corps to put them in office -- they figure out stories that have not gotten a lot of attention. there are reporters working in l.a. county for the board of supervisors -- they have journalistic blogs or even internally. does that have value? can the government be doing

this? can you be doing journalism from government? >> no. i do not think you can be doing government from in -- journalism from in government. the inspector general is supposed to be a -- apolitical, and that was not totally the case, to be totally frank. i do not know what it is like now, but when i worked there during the clinton administration it was absolutely not apolitical. people make decisions about what it will find, what you will do. i was told that during the bush administration the oig would write reports. that are be completely redlined and turned into a one page memo if it did not fall on certain lines. so i do not think that as possible. >> let me disagree a little bit. maybe not vigilance, but with resources in our world, all

these complaints about not covering the good news, different types of news that come from different types of entities can be reapportioned to other needs. the mayor's office, they had at 1.3 of some of the best former writers in town, former journalists. they could have produced a voice of the mayor's office that was interesting to read, that i would have read. that -- is that government propaganda? of course it is. but on the other hand, n look, nfl.com is doing. they ron collins and analysis, interesting conflict-type stories -- run columns and interesting conflict-type stories. resources are going direct. in a world of dwindling resources, those resources are used for vigilance and to make sense of what they are saying.

put it into context and find out things they do not want to say, but perhaps we can drop the complaint that we are not covering good news and that and cover their own good news. >> that is a good point. -- let them cover their own good news. >> that is a good point. >> what about the ngo? human-rights what has won a journalistic awards for its work -- human rights watch has won a journalistic awards for its works. in the los angeles area, the best investigative reporter now does investigative reporting paid for by the service employees international union local. what about that sort of thing? taken with a grain of salt, is that part of the answer? >> in a world where anyone can buy a newspaper for $12 million, we are close to

everyone being pretty open -- newspapers are trying to do -- if a non-governmental organization produces a product that is transparent about things like that -- people can put it together and do in narrative you can understand. >> what do you think? >> i was just going to say, as long as these projects are explicit about where support is coming from, are up front about it, at least you are giving a fighting chance. interestingly, a lot of commercial organizations are not explicit or honest about where their support is coming from. in some ways, we're holding the ngo's and nonprofits to a higher degree of scrutiny. >> you get credibility based on the the algorithm you are using

to find your information, how transparent you are. it used to be that a young person like jason blair could work for the "new york times" and would have credibility. i think we're changing to a world where an organization has to be open and show how it goes about its business, what its plan is, what it is trying to do, and let the reader -- >> what about the academy? what about universities as a home for this? full disclosure -- one of zocalo's most important partners is arizona state university. you work in the academy, doing investigative journalism. is that a national -- home, with academic freedom, or does that have drawbacks and problems that are not immediately apparent? >> i am sure it does. i think it depends on the institution. there is the idea out in the

journalism world that we can all become like teaching hospitals. universities can become teaching schools for journalism and put real information out into the world. i think it depends each year for us. some years we have an amazing group of students who are very engaged. as with anything, you might get a year with that is not the case. there are ups and downs, but there are more pros than cons , at least for us. being at a academic institution has a commanding -- tremendous benefits -- insurance, the university pays the rent. there are many benefits, but it is definitely a different way of working and involves a lot of time and mentor ship beyond actual reporting and a different type of fund raising, too. >> have either of you collaborated with universities in any of your work? >> i have not had success with it yet. that does not mean we could not

figure it out. >> there is a project reworked on -- one of our bigger investigations was done with claremont-mckenna about food stamp distribution in san diego county compared to other counties in california. they helped us with the data for that. there are ways with specific projects. >> i hear more about that, and i partnered with zo -- a partner of zocalo, the lane center of stanford, has a spatial history lab. that has allowed journalists to do more with data, deeper data mining. the journalist is almost the translator of what comes out of the data. is that sort of the great potential in that? they have computers and -- >> a partnership always works

best when both partners realize they cannot do something. when the journalist realizes they have a problem they can solve if only they had a camera or data or geography, then they can do anything. but it is very important that both partners realize they cannot do what the other partner can not. >> if journalists have always been conveeners, they find people, translate experts -- do we get, the army puts the work through the boot camp. you get to the point you have to train experts and people on how to do journalism? that is the next thing -- the journalists, it will be like early vietnam, folks come in to

train the citizen >> an exciting and a front will be a version where the prosecutors become journalists, and military experts become journalists. the idea that journalism school just produces journalism, there is probably a role for storytelling as a profession. i am really decided -- excited to see some become experts and polling and finance writing and stuff like that. i am excited to see that at the local level, and if we could ever afford some real accountants to investigate facebook and stuff like that, we would know how to write. that would be an expensive purchase. >> i am not worried about good storytellers. i think that is a really exciting idea.

one of the things that allows me to sleep at night is when you spend a lifetime working on being a storyteller, i may not be an expert but i am smart enough to know when i do not know something and talk to someone in that particular field. something like planet money is a great example. it is an hour of reading radio about hard economic concepts and they do precisely what you have been talking about where you take something incredibly complex and you boil it down in a way that makes sense. it is all told through the power of narrative. i am feel like i am not an expert and will fully on agitated about vast pieces of american life. as a storyteller, i understand i need to go here and put those pieces together. >> i wanted to follow up on something you referenced, the notion of the journalism school, teaching. you are seeing more journalism

schools asking, a bunch of foundations getting together recently who wrote a letter that you are not supposed to use in newspaper leads, slamming journalism countries -for not using that model. what are journalism schools producing? part of me wonders, is part of what is going on we are trying to keep labor costs low -- those are people who do not need to pay, but they are paying you for the privilege of doing the work. >> this is completely my opinion. i think the world is changing so much faster than academia is accustomed to. journalism, even just a few

years ago, we would not be having this conversation. we will be having the death of the newspaper conversation. we had that for five or six years. i feel like things change so quickly. the technology has changed things so rapidly that i think macadamia has a hard time keeping up and knowing what to tell young journalists to do. i am reading a slew of our lists saying, i want specialist's again. that is partly what is happening. the world is moving at such a rapid pace. >> we have a switch that with such a robust media industry for so long, the goal of academia as it applies to media was to protect quality and talk about best practices. whither the death of the media industry, and it is the death,

the role has to switch to innovation to figuring out how to protect those values and other things we care about. that itself has to have some element of innovation and creativity. it cannot just be about best practices, these great stories we wrote, that sort of thing. >> if you want to become a documentary filmmaker, where do you learn how to do that? where do you go train? do you pick up your camera? what advice do you give to someone who says i want to be like bernardo ruiz. >> the scared straight documentary, the ex-con goes to talk to a kid. i sometimes feel like i go to documentary lectures and give that laxer. -- lecture. i go to a new program, a social

documentary program, a two- year program in new york. there are two routes. one i took like running away to join a circus. a minor league ball player. you train with people who are really good at what they do. >> to train you? >> i was lucky enough to work for a couple great filmmakers. i work for orlando bagwell for a fort -- for a few years. a pbs series. he had come out on a series looking on civil-rights issues in america. that was a fundamental place for me to learn. i also worked on a documentary series for a long time. i learned by working in production and by immediately working on things of my own. i do think there is a benefit to the best practices, the thing that happens in an institution

where you are not just struggling to make the thing. you are talking about it and you also have community and resources. if you can afford it, that is a powerful route. i happened to learn the hardest way possible, which is by working in production and not doing anything else. >> is that an issue here, the kind of methods, the institutions and the pattern and career that allows people to be trained to do watch-dog type stuff, whether they are journalists or do similar things, are those trying up? -- drying up? >> documentary films are interesting. in some ways, that still exists. in journalism, the apprentice ship model the newspaper used to offer is definitely going away. you have a staff of 10 and you might be able to mentor some

number. it used to be the copy boy or girl. you really could not rise through the ranks. i do not want to put a quality judgment on that. everything is different. >> it brings up possibilities for other people to a rise that would not happen. >> exactly. >> where is your summer internship? all that. >> is a defined path. i was in the path and watched its struggle. that was difficult. it offered opportunities. >> it used to be, when there were not so many institutions, the bigger, more diverse array of things, where people wonder who is a journalist anymore, it

seemed like there was a stronger, commonly, publicly known as thick of what a journalist was supposed to be and how to behave -- ethics of what a journalist was supposed to be and how to behave. should there be a training of what a journalist should be? >> they always talk about rules and ethics. the broader public, they never took the time to actually narrate that and enroll the public in their own narratives. people knew the editorials were separate from the newspaper. but there is nothing very stark in the actual paper explaining that every day. we just assume we do a story three months ago, we assume they read it. this is a problem in our industry. one thing's these new industries have to do is enroll people in

the high standards they have, talked about constantly why they should be trusted. it is a constant enrollment. >> i want to say one thing i feel like has been lost is, while there has been more room for new voices and more innovative voices, by the time the newspaper's collapse, most of them had made a strong commitment to diversity. that still exists in some of those newsrooms. you see the nonprofits come up, for reasons that are mere survival, they are not there at that point. we are losing a lot of diversity in our journalism. that is one very big red flag i feel strongly about, figuring out how to support these nonprofits in those goals. >> when a newspaper was an institution you could complain to, that was a way to solve the problem. with the institution falling apart, you have to solve the problem itself. >> some people do it and have

made real commitments. some organizations do not. >> let's open it up to the audience. >> thank you. it is time to take questions. there are two people with microphones. jennifer and i will take your questions. please speak into the microphone. we are recording and c-span is here. the first question is right here. >> i am looking at a state of open mind, a public square, all these terms you use. the names that come to mind is wikileaks. do you support the work? is this something you will support in the future? i find journalists do not ask

good questions. it is very frustrating. we are not getting the truth, no transparency. what is your opinion of the work of leaks? >> we have had a guest for a couple years, both on skype and in person. that is a complicated issue for many reasons. one of the problems is it is hard to parsecs the figure from what he is actually doing. do not have a clear answer to that. in a lot of ways, i support what he was trying to do. i do not know if i support it in the way he did it. most journalists believe in the public in -- public access of

information. he is an interesting figure. >> i support and defend his right to do what they did. there is some discomfort with his personality, his figure. i think this is an example of another formula being applied to the journalism problem. i think, sidewalks in washington d.c. is another one. instead of everything having to go through a story on the front page, this is a way to apply formula to solving a problem. it is interesting to watch and i defend his right to do what he did. there are questions with regard to how he did it. >> i was wondering if there was more to the question.

the professional norms and are certainre things you cannot do and places you cannot go. the conservative who dresses up, do you think it is valuable to have those people? this era gives those people a reach. there are certain things the rest of us cannot do. they almost do anything gary >> absolutely. it is a great question. is he a journalist? is he a hacker? i personally have a slightly more conservative take on what a journalist can and should do. i would prefer to have a trusted force that can synthesize some of that information for me. someone i can follow over a period of time. over time, that writer gains

credibility for me. somebody i respect over time. then again, you have to ask yourself, did it have an impact? all that information at different times, did it have an impact? it did have a huge impact. we are having a conversation about ethics and standards that, to some people, feels old fashioned. in some ways, the journalism that is being practiced harkens back to an old school print journalism. not that i was being romantic, but i wanted to still see it in practice. >> as a documentary filmmakers, have you ever gone undercover?

>> no. >> i have always had to been -- had to be up frofront. >> good questions are not being asked. someone gets a response a journalist knows is not true and they are not responding in a way that is not satisfactory. i want to empathize with that feeling. >> hello. i used to be a journalist a couple years ago. i have not seen your documentary. i am very interested in seeing it. i am out of the journalism business. i have a startup. what we are doing is working on the video medium for overall

video use. specially information bes-based communities. i want to ask you, where do you see journalism in 200020? where would you like it to be? >> everybody is waiting for what is next, what is the new reality. the new reality is constant evolution. to the point where what we see in 2020 is incomprehensible. that is scary and heart. unless you try to take control and build something like you are talking about, i do not know. i do not think anybody who says

they do has any clue. it will be good. every time there is a new -- there is an amazing talk. every time there is a new printing press or something, everyone thinks it is the end of the world or it will all bring perfect peace and harmony. it does neither. we will watch it get better and worse. >> the question on your right. >> hello. i came tonight because i think not only are the questions not hat?g asked -- w and getting to it. if you do not have a facebook account, you cannot comment on a story, if it allows comments. what we am faced with is a bunch of sound bites on stories and we

are supposed to read that. in my point of view, we have to see people like walter cronkite, real reporters, what we are seeing now is a place to go to news that is imposed. they got caught out, and now twitter is the big thing. there will be something else when twitter despot out. -- gets bought out. nobody in san diego is even talking about it. >> do not touch that. >> it is a real scary. >> that is fair. a magazine.ll in the magazin you could not comment on the posts in the past, but now you do have an interaction with reporters that is exciting.

but you are right. we need better, stronger, more interesting coverage of these institutions, of these big changes, and of these scandals. you cannot pick and choose in outrage. quitter is not delivering the information. do not think of it as 140 characters as information. think of it as 140 characters to invite people to get deeper into a subjects. every tweet has a link. it spreads a lot faster than it would have in the past. >> question to your left. >> hello. i am curious what you think occupy wall street's tactics

have changed media about inequality, income distribution, and they talked to people about how to document what was happening. training psittacine journalists how to videotape police, and we have tremendous problems with police breaking up the occupied demonstrations in san diego. it was overwhelmed by a lot of other things coming up. we do not have a physical place to camp out. you think about -- i am curious how you think about how occupy has influenced the process? >> i think it had a huge impact. if you look at the election right now, the way we discussed so many things, it has become a part of all of our vernacular. similarly to not being able to comment, 30 years ago, that would not have been the exact same case.

we had an enormous impact. it shows what an exciting time -- time it is. they may have trained people to use journalistic techniques, and there is some reporting that happens, but i think we are at a moment where we are asking ourselves, is journalism something that is unbiased, showing what is happening, of view.have a point i still make a decision. i do both. i feel there is still a distinction. >> i am excited to see what groups of filmmakers are going to tell the occupy story. it remains to be seen what impact they have had. they certainly impact the

conversation. in 2012, we are still not talking about income inequality and poverty and structural inequality in deeper and more profound ways. that is not occupied's failure. it is something we still struggle with >. we have volunteer lawyers to help. there is all the fighters -- fighting going on. journalists have cameras they take with them. there is fighting about what you can and cannot shoot. do you work with a lawyer when you are out there? do you have a lawyer you consult

with often? >> that is the reality of being a documentary filmmaker. people, rightly so, are so much more sophisticated. because of things like reality television, people are much more aware of media and in some ways more comfortable with it. there is a sense of opportunity sometimes. it is a necessary -- i will not call it a necessary evil. i like my attorney. it is a part of that puzzle. occupy is a social movement. i personally think it is an important one. i would agree i do not necessarily see what occupy is doing as journalism -- it is a kind of social vigilance. i do not see them as journalists. i am looking at independent sources to provoke and tell stories in a different ways. >> when i look at occupy, it is

not an example of citizen journalism as much as an example of what a group of citizens can do to influence journalism. there is always this mentality that the media is doing its thing and yoit drives the narrative. to some extent, it does that. there have always been really good pr people have formed that narrative. occupy has an interesting discussion. >> we have time for one last question. i would like to thank our sponsors and our hosts, and c- span for being here recording tonight's event. thank you so much. the reception will be right outside the door and immediately following the last question. thank you for being here. >> i like a model for being

transparent, exposing your methods. what would you do or say to somebody who has never written but wants to be a vigilante? what motivates somebody to be a vigilante? the fallout is the craft of reporting, as you were saying, that getting lost. >> vigilante. >> you need to start. we all started somewhere. you have to start telling a y flow.

to tap into that, whether it is mismanagement, or something greater about society, tap into something that fires you up and do the work to make a good case about it. lawyers do the same thing. it is a process that being an effective at making a case. >> what motivates you? >> could question. -- good question. the store in telling -- the storytelling takes a lot of different forms. you have a goal of having an impact. it is a sense of civic duty, what ever is. one thing i will say about all of us, investigator for the

reporters are obsessive people and they are very curious. it is the case for most of the people i know. a real obsessive curiosity about the way the world works and hopefully trying to make it work a little bit better. >> for me, i would very much agree. but it is also trying to get at what makes people tick and not understanding myself how institutions work sometimes and really trying to ask those questions and figure out those questions. i think "the wire" did a master furred -- masterful job telling a story about the inner city, baltimore, the drug war. it is not a piece of journalism,

yet, it is so informed by a long and interesting career in journalism, local journalism, that something like that, to me, has tremendous power. narrative is the way we uxor information. at this moment in time, for me, when i see those progress -- projects that can impact culture and the frame how we think about something, that is what gets me excited. those are the types of things i throw myself toward. >> i remember on the college paper, a big deal reporter at politico, he liked to go through the trash of the board of overseers at the university after they had their meetings. he wanted me to come along. the fact there was something you could do for a living that had even a tiny bit of respect to run their involved diving through people's trash seemed

so interesting. is the dumpster diving over? >> there are a lot of locks on dumpsters. >> that is too bad. please join us later today for more campaign 2012 coverage with a debate between candidates to represent rhode island's first district. watch it live at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. and later, president obama he's back on the campaign trail after spending the last several days dealing with hurricane sandy. we'll be live from the university of colorado in bolder for the remarks at the rally there. that's at k-9d p.m. eastern on c-span. and we're back on trail tomorrow with mitt romney. the republican nominee and the running mate paul ryan and the families will attend a rally in west chester, ohio. you can see it live tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring love live coverage of the u.s. senate. watch key public policy event and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule on our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. next a look at the effects of social media on social change. you'll hear from ben the founder and ceo of change.org an online petition website. he discusses the year of peer peer-to-peer communication to change public policy various issues. national journal editorial moderates the session at the atlanta meets the pacific which takes place in university of california san diego. it runs 45 minutes.

[applause] thank you for being here this morning. ben is the ceo of change dpoirg which like many institutions didn't exist 2010 years ago and is now a growing at the rapid pace. he's a graduate of stanford university. he has been listed in "time magazine" 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. congratulations on that, certainly. let me start with this before we talk about some of the details about what you do. i think to a lot of the people in the room may not be full lay ware of the platform you created. talk about why you create what you did and how it is evolved since you started it. >> great to be here. thank you so much. so i initial wanted to be an investment banker. i went to stanford for the purpose. and my senior of stanford i go home and one of my younger brothers -- i said one of the most influential things in my

life, he said the thing that was most painful for him is a closeted young gay american wasn't people that were antigay. people who refused to stand up and speak out against them. it was hugely inflowcial. i was ashamed in a deep way of my life. reflected what i wanted to in my life. i went from a tract of wanting to be an investment bank and wanting to get involved in social change. after reading many books, experiencing power in washington -- started this in 2011 2007 and we failed for about through a and a half years and past year and a half thinks have taken off. we have growing about 2 billion a month. more than 20 million members around the world and winning campaigns every day. if i were to identify one thing that the different yale when we failed and now were successful

is specificity. in social justice movement historically over the past few decades, there's an inclination for big national or global movement in change. stop global warming, advance gay rights, end global poverty. they are aims but as we try to build a platform for. there's not a lot of specific action you can take that is affective. what we changed we started with the old et. cetera tool in have -- advocacy is petitions. and that spread like a wild fire. >> explain a little bit so the tool that people can use the site to do what? post petitions. >> yes. >> and encourage others to sign them. >> yes. it's simple. people are shocked sometimes. it's a petition side. saturatedsaturated in social media and the tools to take people who sign a petition and mobilize them. these are specific. literally three fields.

twitter and 20,000 started and many of them go viral. >> you mention the inspiration. where did it coalesce in the idea of petition how did you to does that desire. >> it wasn't petition but using the web to organize people around common objective. it was actually 2005 i was in d.c. disenchanged with my first experience in politic. i was doing consulting government consulting for education companies. just had graduated from. and i ended up looking to the website facebook.com 2005. very early. facebook.com, and you sort of see immediately the capacity for people to come together around personal interest or photographs or friends, and i saw the same

technology could be used to organize people around issues they care about. and so one of the most fundamental problems in social organizing and social justice which is collective action. it's historic. many experiments. very specific incremental change was the most effect effective way to win campaigns. >> to shift to the paradigm. historically one of the greatest expenses in politics is finding people who agree with you. that's what you spend a lot of money on. think about the common cause was founded. common cause took it a full page ad in the "new york times" to raise enough money to do a

direct mail company which provided the same money that created the organization. move on.org a generation later, the internet flips the paradigm people who agree with you can find you. they can find you and essentially no cost. it grows faster in the post 98 period than common cause was able to do in the first period. is the -- is the twist here that people who agree with in other words you ought to start a petition and go out and perspective through or sift through the great massive american finding anemia agree with you. it's expensive. but the internet allows do you turn it around. >> it makes the cost trivial. but as an individual hundreds of thousands of people in real time, which would have been extremely -- not just difficult but expensive. you look at the aggravate dollars you would have to raise as campaign recently one of my favorite campaigns over the past few months related to the presidential election.

there's throw-16-year-old salesgirls in new jersey. they find out there hasn't been a female moderator in twenty years. there's only one in history. they started a -- to accept a female moderators. for the next two weeks they get 10eu7 ,000 people to join. they protest in front of the debate commission on cnn and fox news. they -- to moderate that can spawn all the time from any individual. >> yeah. as a matter of fact direct mail 2 sprnt considered a good run. return. you can see the difference. you mentioned that and the bank of america, what had been the most successful campaign so far? >> the campaign actually

inspired us initially toive visit from the broad objective stopping global warming to specific change was the incredible campaign about a year and a half ago. in south africa it was a huge global -- the story is woman walking down the street cape town gets grabbed and thrown to a shack and raped and almost killed. he's a lesbian woman the man was trying to turn her straight. it's an all of thing. the good friends sees this signs a petition asking the minister of justice of the country to take the issue seriously. over the next week and a half 180,000 people take action and the governments huge media exposure after the month of campaigning with the government apologizing and parliament passes a bill to have a investigate to stop it. they were ignoring the issue before. it's an amazing demonstration of

people people. would have been -- biggest campaign. >> one of the most power of the campaigns a narrative perspective is the trayvon martin case. 17-year-old african-american kid killed in florida tragically for about two weeks after the incident, there's no media exposure at all. it's private of private injustice. the parents petition on the site. it goes massively viral 2 million people join the company. spawns many different protest. the importance isn't just the individual act restings is prosecute prg george zimmerman the public narrative that results. awareness is not being treated fairly in the system or the "stand your ground" law. be able to shoot somebody if they come out you. that's exciting stuff that we see. isn't just the direct victory

that happens. i do starting point with -- they were not leaving. they were in there soon on the case as well. what i want to ask you, do you find a difference in the way that company -- you're now you have a lot of petition aimed at companies that do specific things. and obviously some more political implications, is there a difference in the response between business institutions and political institutions? >> yeah. there's a tragic decision which is politicians are less response responsive to public pressure than companies. part of the reason is easier to change your detergent than your congressman. switching cost, i tell members the congress and they love it. switching costs are just really easy and trivial for most brands. they are in business of --

public perception and what they do is the biggest value they have. if you attack that or people twitter and facebook attack that, they are sensitive. more staff are dedicated to observing the sentiment in social media much more responsive. politicians oftentimes happen a bit lagging in the application in engagement and social media for policy. not just pushing out -- engaging with people. >> even the point of view from companies, i see how they can be responsive to a campaign about the attribute of a product like jay juice and whether or not they're using by yo degradable cups. you can imagine the chick-fil-a controversy, tens of thousands of people mobilize on your site saying top contributing to groups that are mote or hostile toward gay rights, and, you know, raffle reid organizing tens of thousands of people to

send e-mails on the other side from the faith and freedom coalition. i mean, is there a, i mean, is there a -- does the capacity to organize delude the apparent polarization in my way? >> provides another battle field in which it plays out. >> i think what is most exciting that we see are many battles that aren't 50/50 on a regular basis. the underlying things that aren't cultural battles that on secure a -- there's a bill that's about to pass in congress, where it used to be the case that it's legal for rental car companies not return the call to -- they have have an imriers and hers got a loophole bill and it allowed them to do this. if 2004 there were two girls 25 and 32 who rended a pt cruiser and per the concern of the

recall hit a semi and die. and the mom ends up having a civil lawsuit for the next ten years and -- [inaudible] the law didn't change. after she starts a petition on the site embarrassing more than 100,000 people join it's going to be on the today show that enterprise retractings the position and change the policy. that's not controversial. there's so many underlying an order of -- [inaudible] before you see all you see are the ones most . >> that's interesting. as you say, you have evolved from the big broad global to the more specific and local. but i also seen you quoted something to the effect we want to miewch from moment to movement. are you comfortable with are you are and baa what you're basking the more tangible and narrow, the bigger impact you can have. is that where you envision this in five years or seven years. would you be disappoint if you're not making the circle

back to figuring how to influence the bigger broader issues? >> that's a great question. it you look at the trajectory of most social movements, you end up almost starting business. you wouldn't go 1964 to lbj and the context of no -- [inaudible] pass the civil rights act. refuse to walk on the back of a bus and sit a lunch counter and went from families to friends to towns and that's a kind of thing we're trying to build. to allow you to start and get a foothold and aggravate from across the country from one vict troy ten to hundred. there's a movement around ending placic bags in america. increasing the tax to internalize the third party cost of plastic bags. it's almost impossible. >> in maryland. >> yeah. in changes in individual cities. in the way you win the nationalist is winning by the local. a 13-year-old who has a eighth grade project starts a campaign

asking to pass the plastic bag tax. gets a state law passed in the state of illinois to make it illegal to pass the plastic bags taxes. she respond to veto the bill. and after getting more than 100,000 people to join. huge media narrative. the governor calls her on the home phone about a month ago and says i've seen your campaign. i'm going veto the bill. in response you have all the young girls that are starting campaigns around the country in their townings trying to -- you don't win the vict you start the single up with. >> so the -- that does -- you were describe it asking aggravating -- dow see a way to tackle some of the bigger issues you would be concerned about? how does this, for example, translate in to climate change.

one example, how would this platform ultimately in, your mine three years from now, five years from now, president obama wins a second term. can you influence debates like that. >> i think so. first we don't take official policy on policy. i've give you an example on climate change. 13-year-old girls and 53 district -- there's a incredible personal narrative why it's important for the generation that pass climate change in the different public narrative. another good public example it's already happening already. to your point of view it's pitch partisan dwiefs 50/50 battle. you look at the way that policy impacts real people's lives it changing minds. and so we have the on a regular

basis -- in defense of their friend who are going to be deported to countries they have never known. thee these are dream act students tens and thousands that graduate high school every years. there's a kid brought in to the country at age 2 from honduras. the mom in the mental asigh limb. only when he pays a parking ticket does he find out before going college he's not documented. he didn't know. he's going to be deported. he doesn't speak spanish. we ask people the question, should that person be deported a very different than about -- thing a gracious of the campaigns -- might occur from the individual stories an instrumentally the broader movement bigger national change. so you >> you mention any of the cause are -- is there a

conservative an long. >> we see more conservative campaigns. started be conservative. we don't know until we en-- there's a case where in the target ends up about a week before thanksgiving last year they announce that all the workers the first time are going to have to work on thanksgiving. there's a worker in kansas and starts a petition gets 150,000 people to join condemning the action for about family. it's a paul ryan supporter just seems wrong. there's so many campaigns this campaign around enterprise rent a car. doesn't have to recall cars because a loophole in transportation bill seems wrong. you have the transparent disan campaigns that don't . >> true for example if someone i wanted to go and start a

petition to amazon because he supported the gay marriage amendment. if someone wanted to do post a petition could they do it on the sight. >> absolutely. it may have happened already. it's 20,000 campaigns. it's an open platform. anyone anywhere can change. most of them are about changing things. it certainly the case of chick-fil-a. the number of campaigns on the site asking for university in particular to revoke the flight sell because they fund antigay movement. campaign site the opposite that were asking different universities to affirm the free speech rights of chick-fil-a. you find campaigns building people up. campaigns that -- the moral values they have to seem tend to be more available. things that are seem to be frankly in some cases sort of

repressive in many people's perspective turn out to be shared visually. >> thing about how the two things are happening, simultaneously, certainly we are more networkinged and connected than ever. the ability of individual to communicate mass communication without the mass media. almost to individuals. more connected than ever. on the other hand, politically we are as polarized as ever. entirely possible in the election barack obama will win 80% of nonwhite votes and 0% of votes. the gap between the -- widest been and from clinton bush to obama a wider gap. do you think the technology, the networking technology is a force that is knitting together and bridging our differences or one that is exacerbating and

polarizing. >> a capacity for either. there's a concern of the filter bubble. as you have increasing networks around single friend groups, you're going to fimenter out things you don't believe and the things that reaffirm the prejudice. the other trend we're excited sent a transsending politics through story telling. around immigration that seem not building people up but dwoiding people against each other. you hear how it impact real people's lives in particular local you tend to have more solidarity. a greater sense of new dhal support. what we're excited about isn't focused on the national debate that do divide people on a regular basis. what happened locally in the real people's community on a daily basis. there tends to be more agreement on local change than national change. >> you feel local level transcends different. >> local level there are things that are much more personal like

saving a local park or there's a huge battle around the employment nondiscrimination act which is giving nondiscrimination policy for gay andless bee began. you can be fired for gay. it's controversial on a national level. there's a campaign where the teacher outside of oregon who ends up being fired for being gay. the parents are outrage. they start a campaign and thunders and thousands join. the superintendent apologizes and gives the teacher his job back. had helped people. when you ask in the abstract whether they support special policy on gay andless bee began americans wouldn't have supported. the particular in the community there's a sense of shared perspective. >> how do you not that you are responsible for them balancing them. as you look at the sin trip tal forces that work. which do you -- are we -- in the

long run -- are we to become more quitedded with the society with the tools. >> more united. it's a solidarity. i'm seeing an intimate insight in to the way other people experience life and recognizing that it's not about policy in the abstract how things go individual experience. that's a solidarity the trajectory of soarvel justice movement. individual expansion of rights of a sense of fairness and justice. expanding over the past 200 years. gay rights in america it's a greet example. many people civil rights movement of our time. over the fast past fifteen years. em pa think and the sense of shared consciousness you have the overwhelming support. especially young people about gay rights and that shows that people when they're showing shared story telling tends to be

greater em pa think. >> let me ask you. how cow do you keep the doors open? >> my mom ask . >> and i speak on behalf of the entire media here saying what is the financial model, folks that allows you to keep it going? >> we have been advertising platform that allows non-profit to connect with people who care about the issues and they work on them. it's a sponsor petition sponsor video and youtube. tweets on twitter. people go on the site and cares about environment the syria club might be featured. they pay for advertising that way. >> and that is enough to keep it -- how big is that? >> 150 staff around the world. >> wow. 20 million members. >> that's a lot of . >> yeah. toll it's about the massive kale. scale the number of people --

internet and that's amazings the capacity moral historical change. because of the facility and the rapid expansion because that have we have more members able to generate more revenue. >> we were talking about this last night on the panel. reheading toward if we have not passed a billion spent on television advertising. most going to nine states and 6 percent of the population. you're at the point it would been cheaper to buy every undecided voter a television at this point. hi i'm romney here with a plasma for you. i'm interested in your thought you mentioned politician and talking about congress in responding what about the way that -- you do you think the balance of the way we communicate in the race for president along with the super bowl is one of the big civic activity that involve everything in the country. do you think the balance is going to shift. is it more effect toif try to

reach people as individuals online or do you still see it the carpet bombing television approach dominating going out in the future. 12024. >> 2028 one of the exciting thing i see is disruption. they continue care about money per se. they care about vote. the mean by which you get votes. if you get enough dpeem it on your behalf it's valuable if not more so. 300 million people talking amoption each other candidates support the value there is greater. you have a dissing -- and the exa. finish people receiving information with the channels of friends and sort of mainstream broadcast you're going undermine the value of every dollar and increase the value of personal relationship. not going happen tomorrow or four years, that's where we're

heading peer-to-peer communication through the networking. it's going to be more influential than a billion dollar. >> yeah. horizontal communication. st vertical coming down the track. money goes from all over the country to the campaign headquarter. the process that coming back out is television. kind of the triangle almost vertical form of communication. you're talking about mobilizing people to communicate in a horizontal way across the networking of their own. more money and effort in to going to that in each successful campaign with the candidates. just the early stages you should be the case you have a specific opinion and you propagate that to people that -- twitter or facebook and as you have increased information -- most of my friends certainly my younger brother's friends are consuming content through facebook and

twitter. it isn't produced by mainstream media. it's produced by friends and themselves. traditional top down communication mechanism. it undermines the dollars and increases the dollar of people to propagated your message. >> watching my younger center. the great investment for obama will be to invest in ads in certain video. the i want to ask you one last thing. what extend is all of this preserve of kind of an upper middle class college-educate college plus slice of society is what's happening here truly engaging all americans or is this ultimately a way in which one slice is finding more like minded folks but not really reaching beyond their slice?

local campaigns thousands of them people that are kicked out of their homes are going to be because they cannot reach their loan office at the bank and by target a petition and embarrassing the bank they are able to get media attention and stay in their home. the second is the case around immigration. people that aren't legal in the country in the country legally documented documented in the country are able to start campaign on their own behalf to get them to stop from being deported. >> [inaudible] ultimately you're not going to be able to launch petition companies on millions of people

facing foreclosure the kind of us has to be dealt with by a policy if it's going to be dealt with. your view by basically building awareness case by case ultimately translate in to more systemic action. >> people recognize it's not the about people -- -- [inaudible] bring in questions from the audience identify yourself when you ask your question. >> any name is barry. i'm wondering what the restrictions you may place on the petition campaigns -- the problem of vigilantism. or give you a specific example let's say a couple of others decided that dianne sawier was running abc news because she

moved to tabloid journalism. is that the kind of campaign you accept. >> we don't filter any campaign. anybody can post a campaign like youtube. the kind of petition that expand especially those that expand virilely resonate with a group of people and not to be the devicive or things you might be skeptical of. is the case in some situations people are concerned about their -- community off and ends removed. the kind of campaigns started that expanded when are those that are sort of positive social change many people agree with.

[inaudible] india and the philippines are great experience. in particular around the issue of corruption where sort of large national campaigns of corruption -- [inaudible] and getting censure. having the international stuff for us is excited. because the [inaudible] needed improvement of justice is much greater than we have in the state. do you capture information about the people who sign the e-mails or. >> [inaudible]

zip code and able to target people go back environmental petition do you sell or make available -- [inaudible] the same way you might for sam dison. based on interest and take action on based on response rate we personalize recommendation for campaigns. >> can the campaigns buy that from you. no. >> people can pay to sponsor campaigns. they don't get direct send e-mails based on that. it's featured on the site as sponsored beticks like a sponsored tweet might be. >> you'll do the amazon thing. we see you signed four petition here is one that might be interest of you. >> have you discovered a class of people -- [inaudible] what is who is your all time. someone sign the most petition. >> thousands literally thousands. almost every petition. people most [inaudible]

experiencing a victory about the impacted petition and understand soggy. the reason is historically there getting president obama to stop climate change. very difficult to do direct. you have the local victory on a regular basis and people recognize they have a capacity to make a difference in the ways they didn't. >> there must have been -- that people wanted to be -- there a lot of -- actually a lot of those. [inaudible] a bill around military veterans, and having clean water and bunch of military bases. in the undercurrent covered in

the media many cases -- [inaudible] another question here in the back and then the middle. -- [inaudible] you mentioned about the early days you k you elaborate on the first two or three years how did you get that to the failure to success. how ask you finance that and how big is your team. how did it go? >> that's a great question. [inaudible] we started the organization with a good friend of mine from stanford. just the tools with one other guy. a friend of ours three of us for about the first three years. what you do in internet companies you massly interrate. you launch a certain product and

see the response by the public and the numbers and analytics and build additional feature. we built almost everything. social fundraising. almost none of it worked. it was after peeling back the features we released what would work is petitions, the most important determining factor for success is the case for almost any interest. relentless determination. the accelerated program -- bay famous guy that runs it by fault -- [inaudible] all the website they find -- [inaudible] very large internet sites most important determining factor the relent less determination of founders whatever is necessary to succeed. we never gave up. here in the front.

have the microphone. no, over here. hi, [inaudible] i have a quick high-tech question for you concerning relentness in petition every time i go to the supermarket or trader joes or target, there is always a someone with a cause and a petition and sometimes i'm interested and sometimes i don't have the time. have you thought of coming up with an app so when you walk out we say, all right, i'm check your app. >> an, absolutely. >> just to avoid confrontation or saying no, i don't have time. that kind of negative interaction. >> our goal is to reduce the barriers of civic participation as much as possible. one part of the is mobile. we hired a large number of engineers to tworng. and not only will the be case that ipad sign a petition, you can watch in let's say target

and automatically see the location you're in target any campaigns that are targeting the company at that certain time. things this supply chain managments [inaudible] hold on give the mirk phone up to you. hi. fred powell. the dissing a gracious of information delivery and the idea that the -- other two fields have the conference here energy and medicine affordable care act is be challenged is represented a dissegregation of providing the services. solar energy, we have a massive delivery system because of the paradigm that someone is going to control generations.

whose toes are you stepping on when you're trying to disaggravated information delivery. >> there is nobody's toes who we step on. you have the stu us quo. in all the campaigns advancing change are going to be either funding or undermining the existing power structure and the question for for e us -- [inaudible] toment to change and move them back. we don't aim to be confrontational. we aim for building power, people [inaudible] changing things is always interest you're fighting. ly say one thing which is on the corporate side in particular. you end up seeing companies who great example around

a campaign started from the virginia man ends up getting

huge -- more than 200,000 people join. it's distributed. and it was revealed that some of the information was dubious. the general underlying idea of lack of good pay and harsh working conditions and apple announced a substantial increase in the hourly wages. there was a material reason. i think who have the increased transparency of the supply chain and the actions with any company. used to be the case you sit in the board room and be pretty confident the decisions you made might be or secure and undermine the -- don't know about or sort of ability the customers. and now the case when you're sitting around a board room you center to assume two things. one almost any decision you make is going to be transparency. and in response to exposing that left side going to be a loining group of group of customers that

will that fight you toe to toe in a public way. it doesn't mean you have to change every decision. but yo u have to recognize that if you can't justify it in public. >> historically the power to set the dialogue to decide what the society heard and talked about was control bade relatively few number of people in the television the mass media or politicians or anybody else at the public platform to shape the dialogue what we have now is a that is moving outside the media institution to big players like the campaign themselves and moving through media like this toward individuals. the idea that a individual can speak to 100,000 people, you know, could do that before. it was the owner of the local newspaper had the ability to do that and nobody else. that's the description going on. the ability to talk to large numbers of people and kind of get an idea in front of them is

radically demised. we have the question at the top. >> hi. i want to followup with your question about [inaudible] it seems to me there's a dichotomy that exists and that is that in those plans that you're talking about people are working perhaps their first important job in that their life and sustaining themselves through the wages they make. in addition mcdonald in africa, i also question why is mcdonalds in africa. i hear from africans that mcdonalds is the only nutrition clean meal they can get. so while we need to change practices, i agree. we may not want to go so far as to stop apple from working with . >> totally vailed point. we adopt have a official position on issues like -- [inaudible] to change they seek. but one of the things we encourage companies especially to do is engage in public

dialogue. there's mayor bloomberg recently made a comment about the -- [inaudible] a context of social media there's a mass audience that are mobilizing against decisions he makes. it's not like a decision making body, we're an accountability demanding body of citizens around the world. and so it doesn't mean that you have to change policy. apple doesn't have to change. it has to explain and make a public argument. >> trying to get this before that the ability to organize does not really change the distribution of opinion. it kind of allows it to be more nows focused and presented as more of a [inaudible] and ultimately the challenge on so many of the issues we face is finding a consensus a working consensus for change that goes beyond your tribe. i mean, part of the challenge here you're making it easier for each tribe to be organized and be heard and amplify the voice. does that get you closer or further away from coming to a

accommodation with at least some organization of the other tribe. >> we have -- that's a great question. most issues not the ones we talk about on the national level. most issues are [inaudible] quick example around coordinate accountability. one of the most explode employed is the flower pickers industry. they -- [inaudible] or pregnant women while picking flowers. and so this isn't most people want. ..

>> governing decisions in the ability to organize an opposition to it every days. and as this tend to amplify the loudest most passionate voice? can you imagine a petition doing well? can you imagine a petition urging whoever to compromise the party to do with the deficit and fiscal cliff? >> it probably wouldn't take off. certainly there's a personal notion, but i will announce that if it is the case of the minority of people, this is in part a reflection of the desire for minorities who don't have equal rights in some cases to be able to represent their voice. the issue on immigration is a great example.

in power in the least powerful is the most important thing we can do. >> this has been a great conversation. join me in thanking ben rettray. [applause] i'm not going to turn the podium over to larry to take you on to the next section. thank you are in much that was terrific. [inaudible conversations]

>> i regard medicare is not just a program, but i promise. i got to see how medicare worked at a very young age. they pay them throughout their working life. we have to strengthen and extend the privacy. but i would note that thompson supports a program to replace traditional medicare with a voucher. some people off of the private health insurance with a piece of paper that doesn't come up with costs. tough luck. shifting costs to seniors as was this regard to what the drug companies. >> medicare, ladies and gentlemen is going to go bankrupt in the year 2024.

i do not want medicare to go bankrupt. i want to fix medicare, but i want to make sure seniors in america and wisconsin are detected. by the year 2000 will have a choice. i've never supported the voucher. what i support, mike, is a program that those individual states he and under and year 2020 will make that choice, do i. so want to go with medicare or with the employees benefit, all the people in congress.

>> max, republican incumbent, frank guinta faces off against challenger, carol shea-porter, the first district seat in the house. these two ran against each other in 2010 with representatives guinta unseeing two-time winner shea-porter. we'll focus on the economy as well as the affordable care act. representatives guinta has promised to repeal the health care law and shea-porter says that contribute to a 2010 months. this is just under an hour. >> brought to you by aarp new hampshire. the first congressional district

debate. now, live from the wbin studios, charlie sherman. >> welcome to the second of our wbin debate series. it's our pleasure to welcome democrat and republican candidates in the race for the first congressional district of new hampshire. over the next hour we'll focus on the issues that matter most to citizens of new hampshire. but first, the debate rules. kandinsky one minute to respond to direct questions come at 32nd rebuttals will be given as time allows. we'll be doing two rounds of questions in which candidates will have up to 60 seconds to respond. we'll also have questions from our debate sponsor, aarp new hampshire and some questions from new hampshire voters that wbin reporters have collected over the past week. time permitting, will also have a lightning round of questions, were candidates will have 30 seconds to answer those

questions. the majority will be posed by our distinguished panel of journalists. tonight on the panel include howard altschiller from "portsmouth herald," and wbin director martin morenz. first, congressman frank guinta. he's married with two children. he was the former mayor of the city of manchester. and to the democratic candidate is former congresswoman, carol shea-porter. carolus in rochester, married with two children. she is a social worker. welcome all mls gets started. first off, the question from howard altschiller about taxes and spending. [inaudible]

[inaudible] this all happened because congress would be due on deficit reduction. shea-porter: the 112 congress is to get back to work and fix this this. they're the ones to pass along, so they have to do with the appeared looking into the future, i do agree that we need to have tax cuts for everybody under the first $300,000. but after that, we have to allow those increased tax breaks to add. it was intended that way when the bush tax cuts are put into place and they think we need to return to the clinton rate. >> moderator: congressman, one minute. guinta: thank you, charlie. i want to thank wbin and aarp for hosting the debate. the fiscal cliff is a serious

situation. with past multiple solutions, both on the tax attack site as well as sequestration, extending all of the existing tax breaks that we can get our small business owners, entrepreneurs, drunk readers the certainty they need relative to tax policy. we do not multiple times. we wait action in the senate and on the same thing with sequestration. we have passed not once, but multiple times a menu of options for the senate to choose in terms of replacement cuts. this is so critical because you have economists on both sides of the aisle who agree with we don't get this accomplished the country will further decline in terms of gdp growth and economic infusion, which is what we need. >> moderator: howard come a follow-up? >> mr. guinta, since in both proposed $2 for every 1 dollar of revenue. do you think this is right? if not, what direction is

enough? guinta: put in a solution for dealing with their deficit and debt. with $1.1 trillion a current deficit and $16 trillion in long-term debt. the president of the united states didn't choose any of the ideas and simpson/bowles to put forward in his budget. we in the house took told different ideas within simpson/bowles, passed in the house of representatives. we wait action by the senate, but harry reid, senate majority leader has said he will not pass a budget last year or this year. so it's a tough thing to do when you don't have the senate working the way the houses than working. brownstein miss shea-porter, 30 seconds. shea-porter: the house budget slashes medicare on spending, health care, slashes spending for meals on wheels and spending on education. the only thing the budget does is make life much better for those who are already wealthy

and the oil subsidies. they're not going to go to accept a spending budget in the house were they choose to compromise. take a something that is just unacceptable. brownstein or more follow-up. guinta: here's the reality. with us to better proposals, one last room on this here. we're not asking the senate to pass their version. raskin center to adhere to the law, which says you got to pass a budget by april 15th week in a quote, unquote, regular order in house and senate. get a committee of of conference and pass the budget for a country. how in gods name can small business owners or anybody in this country predict what is going to transpire at the federal level when the senate as a conduit is important significant issues. guinta: is approximately $700 billion this year.

experts say it's impossible to approach a balanced budget unless cuts in military spending on the table. where can we meaningfully reduce military spending beyond our plan to withdraw from afghanistan? shea-porter: when i was on the armed services community we knew you could not even audit the pentagon budget. we say you have to be in shape to be audited by 2014. as many programs that duplicate and triplicate themselves and that's a good place to look. i understand his enemies all over the world and we have to have a strong defense. but everybody also knows we have weapons that are archaic. we know we're not doing proper oversight for contractors. we have to change the way we do business and is plenty of savings to be there and still maintain it military. >> moderator: clay. >> yes, this is a question for mr. guinta. someone watching this debate right now sitting home unemployed. this person is an looking for a

job for months, maybe years without any success. they simply cannot get back into the workforce. what can you tell this person tonight from this debate stage about how you're going to help? guinta: in my first term in congress, one of the most important things that do not just on the legislative site come over right back here at home, i got something started cold getting theaters back to work. it is my own job initiatives to read six different job fairs around the district. we had one specifically for veterans, one specifically for women. the idea was to be a connector, to use the office i hold with employers who are seeking that employees and those either underemployed or unemployed to seek a job. we've been able to help in new hampshire. beyond that, we have a policy initiative was got to approach. we need to have progrowth economy. you need stability and predictability relative to economic policy from washington

so job creators not just here in the state come up all over the country have the ability to plan and grow businesses and start hiring people again. that's not happening because the policies put in place by this president and my opponent's policies and she served in the house of representatives as well. >> moderator: ms. shea-porter, one and it. shea-porter: if you want to help you if we should pass a comprehensive jobs bill which they fail to do. we need to work closely with community colleges to retrain people who do not have jobs right now. this entry not sure what my opponent just said because the unemployment rate is sitting at 7.8% because we did put in the stimulus act, which created jobs and held jobs and did a great deal of other things. the problem we have right now is the 112th congress simply doesn't show up for work and they are called the most unproductive congress in history because they haven't passed anything that will help people

either here in new hampshire across the country. >> moderator: a follow-up from clay wirestone. guinta: is it possible for to respond? >> let's flip this equation following up on jobs. their business owners watching tonight to have jobs available for highly skilled and well-trained employees, but they can't find the right workers. they see the people available simply are qualified. maybe there are enough time for retraining programs to kick in. what could you do in congress to help them? shea-porter: continue what we were doing, establish partnerships between community colleges and the individuals. one of the things that think we could do to help businesses and also people to be trained as offer businesses a tax credit for every person they taken in train. so there's job training, come and we also have to step it up on technology. one of the problems is we've fallen behind in this country

for research technology and we simply have to introduce that into the high schools to make young people educated and able to launch into careers. guinta: first, we do support in the house to get passed and signed into law by the president a conference of jobs bill in april of this year. it also passed over 30 different jobs related pieces of legislation the house come in many of which were supported by partisanly that await action in the senate. but my opponent is talking about is more of the same. $800 billion stimulus that she voted for, that the president claims was working. that produced 43 months of unemployment above 8% of this country. i don't think anybody feels that is good enough when you're 23 million people underemployed or unemployed, that's a problem in this country and we need a different recipe, a different solution for challenges we have.

>> moderator: ms. shea porter, you have 30 seconds. shea-porter: i went to the airport when they needed stimulus money to build the access road and that they are in such a wonderful person how to bring jobs to the area and tourism and how is an example of what happens when we work together. so i think frank guinta was right when he said the stimulus money was a very good project and putting it into the manchester airport and elsewhere around the state was a good thing and save jobs and created jobs. guinta: i went to that event for my good friend for a resort is a leader in our city, a leader in our state. the governor was there praising. republicans and democrats were there praising for his leadership to get the airport to where it is today. many mayors in manchester, myself included, continued the investment in the airport. the back to what my opponent truly wants, she wants a borrowed from china policy that

has a stimulus equal to or more than 800 billion parties spend. would that produce? 8% complain that for three consecutive months. >> moderator: did you want to rebuttal? shea-porter: i do. it's pretty amazing they have a jobs bill and the omb under reagan said that just calling it a jobs bill does that make it jobs bill and saying that if you get deregulation way, it will create jobs. it doesn't and the reality is there has not been a comprehensive jobs bill since the 112th congress started and there's a reason they are being called the most unproductive congress ever. >> moderator: we have to move on. for next question may go to wbin director martin morenz. >> ms. shea-porter, as we've seen from the back-and-forth accusations on tv ads, you're also attacking each other over which you have or have not done for veterans.

specifically, what are the differences in performance here between the two of you on veterans issues? shea-porter: are congress passed a great deal of legislation. and for proud to say we passed the bill of rights with combat veterans who can now go to college or have a family member go. i'm probably put more money in the va than ever before in history because the backlog was so terrible an ipod of the fact i was able to stuff the bird that's affecting our combat troops and making them ill. i'm also proud of the fact that i put in the bill to try to get a va hospital or equivalent in state care and was able to get a contract and build onto the clinics at the va. so i know that in this congress there has been for a little action and actually they did try to take the money out for program called veterans affairs housing for the homeless and it's a very important program and a splash of the funding.

they did put it back after protest, but they/funded and also failed to put money in for ptsd in patients who are suicidal. they had a chance and didn't do it. guinta: i'm glad you bring this up, martin, because the group of 40 veterans interstate at a press conference because they were very frustrated and very disappointed quite frankly in my opponent's attack ad to try and claim that i cut billions from veterans. nothing could be further from the truth. we actually increased funding by $8 billion. she refers to something called mtr procedural motion, a motion to recommit back to committee, a political stunt. you dispense with that political stunt and read a 411 to five vote for the bushes referencing can h.r. 2055. not one democrat voted against that bill. the president of the united states signed into law, championing it is a strong veterans bill.

so i would ask my opponent, but she had been the only democrat in the house of representatives to vote against that legislation? >> moderator: you have 30 seconds. shea-porter: it was an amendment that amended the bill and could go straightforward. there's two kinds as you know. that simply is not so. the other thing is yes, he did have veterans that no part. they were also on the obit for committees and others. i respect everybody service, but were not just veterans, we also have political leanings. so i'm not surprised you could gather a think about 25 people. i was surprised you weren't there. i thought that was unusual. i understand there are people who think differently and i totally respect that. >> moderator: are they to know if you the only democrat to vote against the bill you're attacking me for. would you then the only democrat?

shea-porter: mr. guinta, we need to fact check for that first. guinta: the president signed into law. would you have voted against that bill? shea-porter: of course when the president introduces, if you're talking about a much smaller veterans bill. guinta: he signed into law h.r. 2055, 411 to five. would you have voted against that? shea-porter: of course i would not. guinta: say you're attacking me, but she would've voted for the same bill. shea-porter: we are talking about the amendment and you know the difference there. >> moderator: at the top of the show we did solicit questions from voters across new hampshire. let's hear from one of those folks. geordie king is a voter in the city of portsmouth. >> my name is geordie king. what are you going to do to help fishermen in new hampshire?

shea-porter: and very happy with the recent decisions that have been made and i'm absolutely delighted that we now have a new person who is in charge and understands been a fisherman felt and what it's like, so we know we have to find the strategic balance between helping fishermen and making sure also their stock spare. i know it's been a very difficult relationship. it does seem to be improving and i would continue to work on that along with colleagues across the aisle as we did before. my understanding is congressman guinta has worked with them. it's one of the good things about new england is forever to talk to each other across the aisle and staffs find a way to help fishermen and other groups affect her through no fault of their own by changes in the environment or changes in fish stock or whatever. c&s works together makes a very happy and hopeful that there will be more solutions coming. >> moderator: mr. dent, one

minute. guinta: thank you, mr. king for the question. $17 million of economic benefit come directly from the fishing industry in new hampshire. they were begging for help against this administration. so this is an example not only were set up for the fishing industry in working with them on tech shares, working with them on issues that are so important in terms of the time they can fish. but he also worked across the aisle with barney frank to make this a particularly bipartisan issues we could help the fishing industry, so we can ensure people on the seacoast have jobs that just now, but in the future. i'm going to continue to work with the fishing industry sure in new hampshire i'll continue to work with whoever replaces barney frank and his new congressional district as he retires. >> moderator: a question -- >> you have voted repeatedly to repeal the affordable care act.

according to the nonpartisan kaiser health foundation if obama carries repealed, medicare spending would increase by 716 billion. medicare's hospital trust fund would be projected insolvent in four years than many people could see increases in both premiums and cost for services. is that a risk you're willing to take? guinta: the kaiser foundation sites $2200 increase in premiums per family. an average increase of $2200 for premiums. the president of the united states said that despite the average premium would've decreased by 2500. so glad you bring up the kaiser study because there is a lot in that study that also suggests the affordable care act is not good for americans. it's also moved to what do new hampshire residents want? to continually oppose the affordable care act. there are better, stronger alternatives to ensure we have greater accessibility and greater affordability. to the goals the president set

out to achieve, but failed miserably. this is a piece of legislation that my opponent supports and continues to support despite the fact that people in new hampshire do not support it. part of your job as a representative is to listen to your constituents. so what can we do quite i'm sure will get into that in the next phase of this question, but i will tell you we need to repeal the affordable care act and put insensible solutions to make better access and greater affordability. shea-porter: i appreciate the fact that mr. guinta said listen to his constituents. this is an area where there was a lot of conflict. it just tacking to party and talking to the glenn beck 912 group is not going to give you an accurate idea of what other people think. for example, the american medical association, nurses and pretty much pediatricians and others to support this and so do people in new hampshire. so what wasn't just a very clear

line there. what do you like about the affordable care act? the fact we have preexisting conditions out now. we make sure people don't lose their homes anymore because they can't be kicked off the policy because they've been longer. for medicare recipients, they now are close in the donut hole and is very proud to take an active role in that sort reduces the price of their prescriptions. they have free preventive care. we also have a grand coming into the state of new hampshire that will help seniors stay in their homes instead of going to nursing homes. there's so much good in this bill and will continue to work on that, but this is a good bill and the problem was people were frightened initially when they were told there were death panels, which is not accurate. >> moderator: a follow-up question. >> if you succeed in repealing obamacare, what specifically would you offer in its place? guinta: first i want to go back what go back to what my opponent

said. it's not just of a special interest groups, which are bottled up but who should be in favor or oppose to this piece of legislation. were supposed to listen to voting for the twins in the constituents we represent. overwhelmingly, they continue to oppose this a public survey showed that. so let's try to work on something that makes sense. the first thing to focus on transparency. health insurance, health care is the only thing we purchase that we don't love the price. think about this, you go grocery shopping, go to restaurant come you know what the cost is of those items. but if you get an mri come you don't know what the cost is. transparency is the solution to this problem and not give you an extended answer as to what we did when i was mayor of manchester my last year. that's the 17 unions in the city and said if we cannot legislatively, but only voluntary levies to show the most expensive and least expensive but should get a cut in the savings, will you accept?

we say $40,000 in week one because of transparency. shea-porter: t. does seem to be calling for regulation in finding out how much prices are. but what if good about all this is it's clear that by two years to put some policy forward and they haven't. do you say repeal and replace them a stub saner place because they actually don't have any plan to replace this. which you indicated about controlling the cost in knowing how much everything would cost will be available in the state exchanges. guinta: and talking about providing information to the consumer. >> moderator: please let ms. shea-porter finish. shea-porter: will have to season people going to exchanges and compare prices, this is all private insurance that will have to compare prices and services and people be able to make a

better consumer decision. so i believe this is going to be an excellent program and is already proving its driving down costs. we have had a lower rate of increase since the health care law was passed. >> moderator: mr. guinta, you have 30 seconds. guinta: the very study from the kaiser foundation states that a one and $2200. the president of the united states said the specific though, when he supported would decrease by 2500 per family. it is a huge swing and in this economy when people are out of work, when people struggle with gas prices come on peoplestruggle with home heating oil come yet another $500 to the average family into the national debt is 1.8 trillion now according to the new cbo projection, which was based on a senate request after the supreme court made their decision.

so now we talk about $1.8 trillion for the country in 2200 more per family. why would you support -- >> moderator: ms. shea-porter, 30 seconds. >> the cost of premiums have gone down. they have not gone up. the prices have had the smallest increase, much smaller than they were. over the past decade the cost of health insurance has been absolutely soaring. so in the past year, they actually have had a much lower rate of growth and been attributed to the health care plan. >> moderator: we have to move on. with the question now from aarp new hampshire member, alan cohen. he asks, how would you protect social security for today's seniors and strengthen it for future generations? guinta: thank you for the question. i think for the three big programs in the mandatory spending side, medicare,

medicaid and social security, social security is the easiest to fix. first a trusted social security state of nothingness done by 2033, excuse me, this will be insolvent. so when i come and talk to people at town hall meetings coming to want us to solve the problem? the answer is yes, we all agree. the challenge is how do we do it. so we should not make any changes for social security or for that matter medicare as well for anyone 55 and older. people focus retirement in that age group, no one social security, medicare will be there for them. were not going to make any changes. bolted to the future generations, someone who is my age or younger will probably have a bipartisan agreement on the table that puts everything on the table to figure out what is the best way we can move this through congress, but i suspect will happen in the next congress. >> moderator: ms. shea-porter, one minute. shea-porter: a bipartisan agreement to what you want to

happen will never happen. privatizing social security based on a form you filled out in 2010. and it's called on the issues. and what i really, really understand having grown-up in three generations of family members is how much people need to rely on social security. things happen along the way. illnesses, death, tragedies, economic disaster. you need social security to provide that sort so people will be supported in certain bellies be able to pay the rent and pay for their food. the reason they put social security into place originally was because seniors were in such terrible shape. we simply have to have social security and we can do that by doing what ronald reagan did and others have done, which is tweet it. we can raise the cap of 110,000. people take taxes only 200,000. we can fix them and we will. >> moderator: we have to take a break.

we stay with us. we'll be back with more of the wbin-tv congressional district debate. welcome back to the wbin first congressional district debate. another question coming up from aarp member, sherry hardin. she asks come as health care costs rising the cost of medicare increases, how do you propose improving funding for medicare? we start with ms. shea-porter. shea-porter: first of all, we know we need to do a better job controlling the cost of medicare and we know that they're still waste and fraud in inefficiency there, so that's going to be a big target. the second part is the preventive care. we know that if we do not provide preventive care in people a rise at the age for medicare and they had diabetes or other illnesses that this does drive up the cost. so the emphasis come into the health care law is going to be

prevention to keep that down. i'm sure we have to tweet that appeared when you look at the benefits that people receive and recognize that this is the healthiest senior generation in our history because of medicare. before they put medicare at an almost 50 years ago, more than half of seniors do not have health insurance. we have to continue this program. what is the option? there is not an option. to privatize it, turn it over to a voucher program like my opponent would like to do would be just wrong. so we will tweet it and be more responsive and keep people healthy. guinta: i don't think tweaking solves a problem with a program on the medicare side, on the mandatory side that is as large as medicare. the trustees have said that this goes bankrupt in 12 years. that is right around the corner for a lot of people, so we've got to do something. what we propose that once but

twice in the house and bipartisan land might add is either giving you the option of traditional medicare, or if you are under 55, anyone 55 and older withstand traditional medicare. for anyone under that age come you can either choose traditional medicare for a program we put together the senator ron wyden, democrat from oregon, who really boldly move forward with an idea that we adopted in the house they said you can do to something called premium support. it's not a voucher program. the voucher is hx individual. on behalf of each of the federal government to pay for your choices and your options that you get to choose from a body of carriers trying to get your business. that's what lowers the cost. >> moderator: remove untoward panel. the next question is from clay wirestone.

>> minisub two, the recent attack on the conflict in may god seek to the bs and the death of our ambassador there shows tensions rising across the middle east. are we in danger of seeing the situation in the region spiral out of control? what steps do we need to take to restore peace? shea-porter: it certainly is a very tense area but not absolutely delighted with secretary of state clinton and i have every confidence that the study they're doing right now, looking to see what needs to be done will be very fertile. however, we have to continue working with those countries in that region there. it's up to them as well as us and other nations to provide the stability. we have to make sure we hold them to the standards for protecting our men and women who are serving them and our country there. i was an absolute outrage. i think we need to recognize that most people in that region

are really, really working hard for democracy. libya is an example of people who have tried very hard and have apologized. it's an outrage that it happened. wouldn't it be that the security, but we can't have a knee-jerk reaction either. we need to recognize for democracy to flourish is going to be a bumpy road there. >> moderator: mr. guinta, one minute. guinta: i wouldn't call the death of four markets ambassador a bumpy road. i think that does a disservice disservice -- i think it does a disservice to our americans, to our president into what we are trying to accomplish around the world. the reality is that there is a failure in security. it is one that should have never happened. this president should be immediately have handled this in a much different way. and i will tell you that the

most effective way is for people securing our own people, particularly ambassadors. we found out just this evening because of a hearing to transpire in washington at the state department has finally revealed this is a terrorist attack. it took the administration how long? took the secretary of state how long to actually admit the church that this is a terrorist attack. you know, people are so upset about this and you make it sound like it's a bump in the road. and that is disappointing and wrong. >> moderator: ms. shea-porter, 30 seconds. shea-porter: i have to say i'm so offended. i thought you do this in a bipartisan matter. as for democracy, not the disaster of our fallen ambassador. i said democracy is messy and there's bumps on the road. this has nothing to do with the ambassador i'm sure it's quite

clear same but a great tragedy it is. it's a terrible tragedy and eyes on the armed services committee for four years. so i recognize this is a failure, an absolute failure in our safety and protection plan would have for ambassador. so please, let's not make this a personal thing. it's a terrible tragedy. >> moderator: we have to move on. howard altschiller with "portsmouth herald." >> deborah mcdermott hears complaints from all political stripes of the lack of a national energy policy is hindering decision-making ability. would you support a bill calling for national energy policy? if so, would be some of the big ideas? >> i cosponsored a bill that is in all of the above energy policy for the nation. as a number of things we need to do. i would support what my opponent in supporting a national energy tax. that's going to add to the challenge that we are to have come this mall business owners and large business owners have in new hampshire. we need to do a number of

things. first, the president of the united states needs to allow for the keystone pipeline. he needs to allow the permit to go forward. there were particular issues worked out, and nebraska, that has been resolved as the only real pending problem to stop being the president from allowing that pipeline to continue. you're talking about the multibillion dollars operation. you're talking about 20,000 jobs immediately just i'm not one pipeline. in addition to that we are using intime barrels in the united states, but only producing 70. we can do conservation, but also explored for more, bring the price of oil down, bring the price of gasoline down. >> moderator: ms. shea-porter, you have one minute. rose forcillo i have to say my opponent not only believes in the oil subsidies, but he also

said that if they put subsidies away, the big five oil companies should have leases on public lands. our oil, our land, bwould cost the oilcompanies anything. that's not a way to solve energy crisis. it is all of the above. heavy investment in renewables as well. it means we have to take this seriously, just like china does, just like the department of defense does. they are already experimenting with alternative fuels. we can use gas and oil, we don't have a choice at this point. looking into her future, we should start a program now that will make us energy-efficient and free from beaded areas where enemies are. why would we enrich enemies being dependent on oil. it's time for investment in renewable energy and a new energy program. guinta: we don't want to be like china. my opponent said we should be

like china. america doesn't want to be like china when we come to energy policy. we need to be energy independent. we have greater expiration this country. police said the president can provide and agree to needs to do it immediately. we also need to focus on renewables and alternatives. the reality is about 15%. you still have to find a way to get fossil fuel costs down and the best way to do that is to have greater supply. with 19 billion barrels a day we use in only producing from the $3.85 a gallon at the pump, most americans demand expiration this country now. trent i've martin morenz has the next question. >> the tone in washington has grown increasingly polarized. you put the tea party for the gridlock and if elected, how you work to make congress more productive? shea-porter: it has gotten a lot worse on the 112 congress is absolutely gridlock.

it's been difficult for a number of years, but this has been the worst and it is the tea party and the colleagues went down. there's a book called is worth a look sentence written by republican and democrat. went for the american enterprise institute and the other by the brookings institute. what they are saying is because the politicians sent down in 2010 are so ideologically locked, when compromise won't trust science, won't work at all. we're seeing that. so i believe there will be a change in our recent cross the aisle. i did before. we can do that. i come from a republican family. the problem is we have a very right-wing group in washington right now that will not compromise. >> moderator: mr. guinta, one minute. guinta: first, she blames the tea party. i'm undergoing different tv station she found herself agreeing with the tea party and

says she agrees with many principles of the tea party, so you can't have it both ways. secondly, the freshman class was elected around the country because the congress who served in the spending and borrowing out of control and passing legislation that the country didn't want. the countries that enough in 2010. so here's always done in the house. firstly we did was cut her own budgets. the second day we did was vote to repeal the affordable carrots, something the country wanted us to do. the third thing was stop earmarks. the fourth thing we did was freeze congressional pay. and then went into the bipartisan work with more than dirty different jobs related ills, many of which bipartisan he was sent to the senate. most of these bills are stuck in the senate, harry reid the majority leader claims he will not vote on the bills, not on the budget or get regular order. i think josh

>> we have a follow-up for someone from martin morenz. >> can you name to people you've worked with the congress and it should accomplish them? shea-porter: yes, i can. i hesitate because i don't want to cause them any great harm, but on the educational committee, when astarte gone because he was a moderate republican, mike castle and we were together in legislation, education and labor committee. jason jay fitz and i had a bill together as well. so yes, there can be some compromise and there can be improvement down there. >> moderator: mr. guinta, same question. guinta: i've worked with peter bush of vermont and transportation issue. i've were on a bill with barney frank of massachusetts. the region have understood that it is important to focus on a

bipartisan approach, particularly when it comes to the region. so i spent a lot of time not just in committee, but on the floor on different boats come in making sure we had the best interest of new hampshire at heart i'm a worked with all bordering states amounted for members from the states. >> organa go on the street again to another question from another state voter. this is from rose in dover. >> hello, i'm rose forcillo. would you keep the home mortgage tax deduction? >> moderator: mr. guinta. guinta: thank you for the question. we have comprehensive tax reform in the next congress. in this current congress are focused on extending the existing tax rates, but i think which you can do is protect the home interest mortgage deduction for those families that higher income families second homes. you can find a way to phase it

out here that the bipartisan discussion. right now in the ways and means committee we anticipate will have a reform in place next year. for those of a certain income level are required at home interest deduction. shea-porter: that's an interesting answer. the congress has supported a flat tax that there would not be a home mortgage deduction. in the ryan budget that also appears to be under threat because there's simply no way they can make arithmetic add up and offer mortgaged actions because of the amount of money they will be giving two millionaires. about $265,000 will come two millionaires and they have to figure out a way to make it up somehow. so it's very, very worrisome that there's been talk that what they would have to do is go after the market should action. i think the middle class depends

on that. that's how they get their homes and keep their homes in its essential. >> moderator: are going to go back to our panel. guinta: the budget committee has tax policy and ipod should know that. she served in congress for four years at the ways and means committee set tax policy. so the budget committee does not have jurisdiction over it. you can't make the accusation there something in the budget proposal and budget committee that eliminates deduction. it's simply not true. >> moderator: minisub to if you'd like 30 seconds. shea-porter: he certainly -- the budget committee, and then he voted for the ryan budget a couple times. so it is pretty clear that you cannot give these big tax breaks and also have other deductions to the middle class. i'm not making that up. this just how it is. >> moderator: we have to go back to our panel. our next question is from howard altschiller but the "portsmouth

herald." >> you supported a failed bill that would amend claim underlie some of the authority of the epa to impose water quality standards. he also cited the several communities fighting the epa over nitrogen emission levels from wastewater treatment plant. why do you believe the epa needs to have its authority than the date? 's guinta: in this case the epa needs it limited. they are overreaching into the contiguous communities of great day. they can't advance that we desperately need your help. the epa is mandating for what they claim is logical science, but what the communities have said is failed science. but the nitrogen levels that go down to three milliliters per theater. so what i did the >> connector, work with the epa, work with the communities to find a middle ground, which is i think eight milliliters per liter comeau chevron thinks it's

reasonable. nobody must see great big dirty including continuous communities. in a number of rochester testified here in new hampshire that this mandate from the epa would cost the communities $250 million, which is wrong. after that on this issue is able to get jeanne shaheen and governor lynch both supporting the actions i took. >> do think the epa is abusing its power? shea-porter: no, i don't. i think our server compromise, the congressman's guinta has abolished the epa. he just voted for the stop the war on collecting you can figure out what that means and start the war on lungs out. he has voted to allow pollutants and senate to keep mercury comes this pretty much removed any protections that we've had in our water and our air.

buckley has not been able -- they have not been able to get it through the senate. but the environment is severely under attack. he has a zero from the sierra club and has very, very low scores on pretty much thinks most of of us care about. and why does this matter? think about who started the epa. it was president nixon's because they used to work in a bipartisan way to protect the environment. i know which turned hard right and this is overseeing. guinta: this is about committees that portsmouth in rochester and what they're asking from. i'm not sure that when my opponent was serving as the representative that she actually been listened to the issues of the communities, one of which she lives in. but when you have the mayor of rochester who comes to you and says we need relief. we want to work with the epa.

that's what i provided them of leadership in with communities and the epa to find common ground for the long-term benefit. >> moderator: ms. carol shea-porter, you have 30 seconds. shea-porter: we talked about all the ways to make today -- we've been working on that. the whole point is you have to believe in this. you have to believe there is a government role and i think there's a tremendous difference between you and me on that issue. so compromise always and try to work together. when you start off wanting to abolish the epa do when you're voting for bill sykes stop a coal act, it gives an understanding of where the differences between sr. i'm proud to say i'm an environmentalist. i believe in protecting the environment and working with communities. >> moderator: are going to move on. clay wirestone. >> ms. shea-porter, after 11 years, anniversary couple days ago and more than 2000 american

lives lost, not to mention many thousands of afghan lines, what have we accomplished very as u.s. troops began their final withdrawal? shea-porter: as in afghanistan twice. i led a delegation to talk to karzai about some of the abuses there. and before that -- before i took my first trip, i said we were right to go and take out the training camps. the terrorist training camps where they are and we had a right and obligation to remove them. after i went the first time, i realized we were not going to deal to rebuild a country that's never been built. but could not be country that had tremendous literacy and so much violence inside their own orders and didn't even recognize essential government. so our troops have done everything they could. the men and women i saw were just remarkable, but it is way past time to bring them home. it's a mission that is an unfair

mission because they're not able to accomplish the goal. they move the goalpost about what we hope to do. take a nap at terrace grants, so you can catch the terrorists that do come through. but having troops on the ground, no. guinta: i also went to afghanistan last december and i am truly amazed at how our troops have served our country and have protected our freedoms and liberties. i think that they afford, what we need is to have an assurance of a group of american troops that will keep the site of terrorist activity away from america. unfortunately the only way we can do that is to have some assets in that region. that is an unfortunate reality. but the notion is spending billions of dollars on nationbuilding in a country that

doesn't seem to want that activity is some pain we should be looking not in the next 10 year window and how we actually expend those dollars. that was the purpose of that trip and as a result, we have reduced the long-term funding for that component of the mission. >> moderator: for a final question, martin morenz. >> we recently has been a lighthearted exchange because of the presidential debate over the future of big word. so what do you say? we throw big bird off the fiscal cliff or how would you vote on cutting funding to pbs? >> mr. guinta. guinta: is interesting. i watched the debate the other evening and the reason the president is talking about the bird is because he did not have a good debate. let's face it. we've got big issues to software america.

i believe that new hampshire public radio, new hampshire public tv go very, very strongly they can do this on their own. and they mention it. they stated. so is governor romney talked about, let's start looking at the budget in the sense of, are we going to borrow money for every single program? i was the mayor. i prioritize. it got to make tough decisions. hopefully the economy comes back and thus become easier and easier. shea-porter: i know that congressman guinta want to tick off funding away from the corporation for public broadcasting and her millions of children around the country whose parents are able to be confident that their children are learning abcs and how to get along and it's a safe place for them to watch and also enriches our lives and the many ways. it is interesting to me that my opponent would like to give the

leases for free, which would cost billions of dollars to the american economy and yet is going basically after public television. it just doesn't make any sense at all. if they wish to cut the budget in the shed, they have not done it and they should do a better job. but if they're going to do that, they need to concentrate all of the tax advantages they are giving to the very wealthy. >> moderator: it is time for closing statements. we acquaint us earlier. ms. shea-porter was the winner, mr. guinta, go first. guinta: i want to thank howard in clay and margin for being our panelists and i want to thank wbin at aarp for hosting this debate. ladies and gentlemen, ask for your vote because we couldn't have a clearer option for who is going to serve you in the house of representatives. back in 2010, we asked new hampshire replaced my opponent because she was spending.

she borrowed money, she focused on voting for things like the $800 billion stimulus. she voted for the national energy tax. these are things that are not consistent with new hampshire values in new hampshire needs. i take my business experience in executive experience in my legislative experience to washington to support new hampshire and bring in our economy back to where it needs to be and i ask for your vote on november 6. shea-porter: actually we haven't been spending. "the wall street journal" gave a report that the amount of spending under the obama administration and a timeout to say was the slowest rate of growth, and even that's not sure. the reason i'm in this whole situation run of congress is because this country has turned in the wrong direction. this country is turned away from the middle class and forgot what made this gray.

it's not fair anymore and people understand they are not getting the same opportunity. it's time for the country to dream big again and believe in the middle class and bring people forward into the middle class. we need to educate our children. we need to rebuild infrastructure, communication and transportation structure. we have to take care of older people and make sure we all have an opportunity to succeed. this election is about fairness, opportunity and the selection is who will have the site envisioned to go forward and ask for your vote. >> moderator: on behalf of or sponsor any error he new hampshire and wbin come would like to thank the candidates and you for joining us for this evenings debate. please come back again tomorrow night at 8:00 when the candidates for new hampshire's second congressional district, republican congressman charlie bass and end pester me to debate right here on wbin-tv. thank you, everybody.