interests and we would never allow that to happen again. another negotiation and dialogue because first of all, this is always our present option for an international be. and besides, we don't believe in the conflict are just pressure alone to solve this problem nuclear issues. the six party talks made diebel assets and contributions to resolving this issue. i'm not ..

well, i hope you'll all join me in thanking ambassador cui. [applause]

>> a live picture now from the new america foundation here in washington. they host a discussion looking at the obama administration and the press, more specifically a new report by the committee to protect journalists which investigates press freedom conditions during the obama presidency. leonard downie is the journalism professor at arizona state university and former executive editor of the "washington post" to other speakers included senior correspondent for the "washington post." this is live coverage on c-span2. it should start shortly. ♪

♪ >> hello, welcome in america. i'm managing editor at new america which means i added the new digital magazine weekly walk. i'm actually here to welcome you to this event. the obama administration and the press. if you haven't had a chance to see this report, which i have come it made me want to rename the group that wrote it

community protect sources. it's all about protecting sources but those of us have done the job of investigative reporting now, the sources -- if they come to the sources they better speak. so i think your ultimate with the court cases against sources. it's a bleak picture up to and including u.s. attorney in chicago who is a hero to investigative journalist in chicago, pat fitzgerald who put a lot of guys away. when it came to prosecute libby sort of blankly asserted that journalists who gets leaked information are witnesses to a crime which puts us in across as. so thanks for coming. it's a great report. if you haven't read it yet please do. we have a fine discussion for it. we are excited to have them. before and it is the moderator, one bit of business. it's being broadcast on c-span so have a question when the questions and comments please be sure to wait for the mic, speaking to mic. now your moderator come use

chair of public privacy and data sharing -- he gave a briefing yesterday which is very helpful. in his past he was all counsel at the net. thanks for coming. kurt, take it away. >> thank you, fuzz. it's a great honor to be here along with these experts. i think i'm the only person on this bill i've never heard of. [laughter] so let me give you a brief -- this is one o of the panels were anyone needs no introduction but we will do it anyway. to my left is leonard downie, professor of journalism at cronkite school at arizona state. very well known to this audience of course as vice president a large at the "washington post" where he was executive editor from 1991-2008 and spent 44 years in the "washington post" newsroom. to his left is -- my apologies

-- joel simon, executive director of the committee to protect journalists, an organization that published this report that we be talking about today. his appointment as executive director in 2006, joel has led the organization for period of expansion including launching a global campaign against the purity established journalist assistant programs and spearheading efforts to defend press freedom in the digital space. and, finally, to joel's left is rajiv chandrasekaran, also very well-known to this audience from his long-standing work at the "washington post." currently senior correspondent and associate editor at the "washington post" but also the author of imperial life in the emerald city, a best selling book which became the basis for the movie the green zone with

matt damon, a terrific piece of work both in film and on paper. he's also been the post bureau chief in baghdad and he's been journalist in residence at the international reporting at the johns hopkins school for investment in national study in washington. so today i would like to start off with asking lynn if we give an overview of the report. >> i'll do that. that. i did what is equipped at the outset, the question of reporters being subpoenaed was brought up. just yesterday or the day before james of in your times lost a case to, do not have can be forced to testify about a source about a story that's an report when you find his name. you will see it was up to the point of the court decision which is gone against them and will probably go to the supreme court which would be a major, major test of relationships

between reporters and the sources. what rights to reporters have not be forced to give away their sources. and the shield law plays into that. that could be a favorite important court case in a year or so, however long it takes. i was asked to give his report because i'd written a couple of pieces for the outlet section of the "washington post." late last year and in may of this year, about the obama administration's war on leaks, very aggressively in which they've been going after government officials who provide information to reporters, particularly classified information but not exclusively. and so i was asked to explore the relationship between the obama administration and the press in the context of the kinds of work -- worldwide about

the relationship between governments and the press and the protections of the press right to work. i was very surprised t but whati found. it went way beyond into a lot of other areas in which the administration is remarkably controlling and i'll tell you about how that happened. the report and my findings are based on several dozen interviews with news executives and government transparency advocates and current and former government officials, plus research that i did and that senator grassley of the committee held an investigation but i think those are the most best accounts of those in anyone else's come with. during the bush and obama administration so we can make comparisons. the patriot act, the fisa law court and national security agency communications surveillance programs. in summary i'm a one sentence summary of the big, long report is that the obama administration aggressive war on leaks and it's

determined efforts to control information that the news meanies told the government the government accountable for its actions are without equal -- and indirect conflict with president obama's often stated goal of making his administration the most transparent in america's history. i am old enough that i was one of the editors of the watergate story in the early 1970s, so i make that comparison with the knowledge. there are six components to what i found. the first is the chilling effects of the unimpressive numbers of leaks and prosecutions, along with the concerns about the nsa surveillance program. obama administration officials and employees are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. every single journalist i talked to said that's the case for their sources in government whether not they feel it's classified but especially if it involves classified information. six government employees and to

government contractors including edward snowden of course have been prosecuted since 2009 for leaks of alleged classified information to the press. and has been done under and 1817 espionage act does enacted during world war i to punish people for spying for foreign entities. and he we have reporters, who have government officials talking to reporters who accosted under that act. there are only three such prosecutions in the 90 years from 1917 until 2009 when they begin during the obama administration. in several of these investigations it's by the most frightening thing for government officials, the justice department was successful and secretly subpoenaing and seizing telephone and e-mail traffic between government officials and reporters for news organizations that include "the new york times," fox news and the associate press. there were revisions made in the guidelines for such subpoenas after an outcry from the news

media over those cases but they still allow the attorney general to refuse to notify news media about subpoenas for the commission records, and also still contain and acceptance for any leak information that the government considers is essential harmful to national security. that is a big loophole you can drive a very large truck through. that journalists feel -- approved by senate committee also has a similar broad acceptance for national security information although it would require a judge to make the final decision rather than leaving it to the attorney general. passage of such a law is too much in doubt and also how it would find that euros will be covered by of all. the digital age obviously, i guess the definition of a journalist is very broad. anybody could be a journalist of one kind of another. there's a concern in the build the talk about that by defining who journalist is deleted government licensing of

journalists to say you're a journalist but you're not the jealous, debating on what action the government wants to take. washington reporters tell me they weren't about compromising their sources when the context could be traced to surveillance and investigations of phone and in a record. as result they said many sources will no one would talk to them at all. we are not just talk about these investigations. there have been others that would not lead to prosecutions in which he had been routinely lie detector test given to government officials. reporters naturally do not want to get their sources in trouble. number two is the insider threat program but in the aftermath of private manning leaks, president obama ordered the establishment of a pervasive insider threat program throughout the government. not many people know about this. employees of all federal departments and agencies have in order to monitor and report and i quote any suspected insider threat activity which includes communications with the press. the director of the project of

government secrecy at the federation of american scientists is one of the leading government has been she advocates in washington tells me this is great into surveillance, heighten the degree of paranoia in government and made people conscious of contact with the public and to the press. the third issue, the obama administration centralized message control. all incoming administration -- but senior administration officials of this administration call come with the unauthorized contact with the press are discouraged. instead, they make clear that they do not want any kind of leaks to the news media and not just those including classified information. these inquiries from reporters are most often defer to public affairs officials who reporters have found to be unresponsive, hostile and even abusive. yet they failed to disgorge stories that they don't think they would like, they sometimes refuse to provide reporters public information at we all

have a right to. the government transparency that president obama has repeatedly promised has turned out to be a sophisticated public relations strategy. creating government websites, social media operations dispense to the public large amounts of federal information generated by his administration while restricting the government's exposure to accountability by the press. those websites are full of government created content. photos of obama taken by the white house press photographer all other photographers are banned from most white house activities. administration produced videos that even a newscast called west wing week about administration activities that are closed to journalists and then the white house presents its proposal of those same events. ubiquitous post by obama aides to promote administration views. the former cnn reporter and anchor and a director of the school of public meeting at gw

tells me the new administration issues and social media to end run news media completed. open dialogue without filters is good, i agree, but if it used for propaganda purposes and to avoid contact with journalists it's a slippery slope. the fourth issue is the executive classification of government information. are the problem reports have come to call someone up to ask a normal question expecting a routine answer turns out the information is classified. even though there seems to be no good reason for. the obama admission she has recently taken credit for declassifying and posting a new intelligence community website. some of the greatest secret documents -- but it did so only after revelations by the press the stories based on documents leaked by edward snowden. the administration does not act on a december 20 report to the president by congressionally authorized public advocacy board which recommended many specific

steps to take to carry out the president's best introduce all this overclassification. which would free government officials from discussing more of the public to the press. this issue is the failed to approve the freedom of information act process. the transfer also has made little progress that another one of the president's first promises, in fact a directive you should on his first day in office in january 2009, to improve government responses to. >> host: request. reporters and government transparency advocates have found that too many government agencies to reject far too many foia request or delayed for ever and respond to them to order to demand excessive fees to fulfill them. and ap survey earlier this year found the number of foia request from the press were turned down on the grounds of national security our interim administration deliberations. another huge loophole. has increased in the obama

administration. more than 80 prominent organizations that advocate for transparency met last week in washington to work on new recommendations the obama administration proud to finally make foia work better for the press and the public. i talked to some of their lives and their words about whether this administration would even listen to the recommendations. to this issue, the treatment of whistleblowers. president obama also has said he supports encouraging and protecting government whistleblowers who reveal bureaucratic waste, fraud, and abuse. but he and his in administration have a distinction between that and revelations to the press about government policies in action which they, for which they punish leaks with investigations, firings and prosecutions. president obama signed a whistleblower act of 2012 all blog with a policy directive aimed at protecting from retaliation all government whistleblowers including intelligence agency employees, but the very same time his administration on an appellate

court's station that takes away from many federal employees designated national security position the right to appeal personal actions by the agency which, of course, could include retaliation for whistleblowers. that and the prosecutions of some whistleblowers under 1917 espionage act for providing information to the press leaves the president real position on whistleblowing very unclear to me. and lastly, the international applications was a great interest to protect journalist. in addition to the threats posed to foreign journalists by nsa surveillance, which, of course, they're not supposed to five -- spy on america reports who are american but they can spy on communications of non-and american citizens, including foreign reporters or for an american reporters. the obama administration post provides a questionable example for other countries at a time when this administration has been outspokenly abdicating for press internet freedom in the rest of the world.

president obama faces new charges during his time in office. the outcome of which will face his legacy. one objective he couldn't congress without outside obligation is the phone to very first promise, to make his imagination the most transparent in history, beginning by opening its closed doors. that's the summary. >> thank you so much. i would like to invite anyone who is reading about our discussions use the hashtag obama and the press. and thanks again for the summer. it's a terrific work. it seems to me it pulls together a number of different threads into fabric that discloses a lot about the overall thrust of his imagination. let me start by asking, there seem to be -- between government and the press and that we recognize the government has secrets. we would try as hard as we could get them. the ones that were newsworthy and relevant and could be

published we would. it seems in your report you're not talking about an administration that has stepped over a line between those two areas in essentially chilling the ability of any of this, of its members to speak to the press. >> first of all, the pentagon papers, which made prior restraint virtually impossible in the united states. and, therefore, if you're an administration your face with the fact you can't stop it in advance but you can only punish us and our sources afterwards, and that's important to keep in mind. secondly, is 9/11. a lot of that has been changed after 9/11. and including the whole balance between exotica what we're talking about between revelations of government activity and national security. i live with that balance during the bush administration when we publish stories including the cia prisons for that required a

lot of conversation with administration officials about whether we were going to publish that story and what details it will contain. those conversations were useful and they do continue during this administration but in a somewhat different atmosphere, as the report explains. and the third historical thing is that when the obama administration came in office they are put under great pressure by the intelligence agencies who were upset by the previous stories. our secret service stories, surveillance stores, they put a lot of pressure on the obama administration to do something about it. some of these investigations have begun under bush but under pressure from tells agencies and should said both democrats and republicans on the hill also put great pressure on the admissions and. but also believe the president himself has not spoken about this. i believe the president has -- you said something, some things that he does not want secrets to put our boys at risk. but at the same time i think it's a strong secret himself.

>> qureshi, joel, what you think of the explanation? >> it is most certainly, and to the point lynn makes, particularly as an editors overseeing the publication of some of these stories over time and you look back at the cia black site store to look back at the new york times reporting on warrantless wiretapping. and the bush administration's responses to those. as well as the decisions and discussions that led up to the publication, but particularly how previous administrations have responded to the stories they have not liked, they thought of compromising their national security. yet, in most of the cases come in previous administrations there has been expressions of,

you, discussed if you will. they are then perhaps some personal investigations but nothing of the sort we are seeing now. look at some of the investigations that have taken place in recent years. you compare them to some of the previous stories. it seems like it's any anti-stuff. going after tom blake at the nsa which you write about, or even the verizon case but in the grand scheme of things those, if you talk to national study experts, these stories do not have a meaningful impact on american national security. and yet those are some the cases that are being are sued or have been pursued with particular vigor. so there really is, has been a fundamental change in my view in

the approach taken by the government in recent years compared to in the preceding decades. >> these were classic whistleblowers even by the president's own definition. it was about whether the nsa programs to expensive and protected privacy. it was about the content whatsoever. >> an argument made was that the documents were naturally classified documents, and yet they still went out, the case eventually fell apart. >> what i want to do this sort of -- obviously i think it's very significant contribution, the attention it's gotten, and i think that len, some of these investigations people are aware of them. table were aware of this policy but putting them all together suggests that this is not haphazard response to some particular event. there is a systematic effort here to marginalize and

undermined the world to the press. and i think that's what the report really accomplishes. and what i wanted it is also talk about why we undertook at and what is an event of that, around since 19 a one and we start out as a small group of u.s. journalist focused mostly on the sort of life and liberty if you will of journalists around the world who work in dangerous environments and have to worry about their lives when they go out and get a story. the framework in which we were found is the recognition where journalists in this country have unique protection of the first amendment. and so throughout history, particularly in the early years when we are a small fledging or position we focus on those kind of front line reporting efforts. but, you know, the recent events in this country and also our conversations with journalists

covering this administration led us to conclude that the atmosphere was fundamentally different. and that had an impact not only on the work of journalists here, but potentially on joe's around the world for a number of recent. one of our colleagues wrote the u.s. press in some ways is, reports for the worlds of any erosion of press here has invoked information of people ever in the world. secondly, the u.s. and the work of journalists, they are threatened by an erosion of century endured because government pays solace from any -- takes solace in any deterioration in press standard in this country and gives them potential cover to take repressive action on their own. so we saw this pattern and then we asked len to carry this, to

do this report and we asked him to do it independently. we provided some we should support. we reviewed it but this is lends independent funnies. then we took the report and reviewed it both among our staff and at a board level and provided recommendations based on the report. those were done independently and that's how the process went. >> that's pretty remarkable. normally devotes, and still does, investigating and seeking action, journalist murdered in the philippines or jailed in zimbabwe. and for cpj to want to devote resources for shining a light on these issues, the thoughtfully investigate them is a remarkable step for an international press freedom organization. >> really too. and the obama administration at sydney administrations before focuses a lot on trying to

promote free expression in other countries. what do you think that these types of issues in the catalog your due to our credibility when the center of the country's? >> i think it's a specific example. i member we have been advocating for a very long time for president obama to raise directly with prime minister or the want of turkey concerned about that country's press freedom record. -- prime minister erdogan. turkey is a key ally, a very deep relationship with the united states, a strategic relationship. president obama and prime minister erdogan have established a friendship and so we've been advocating for some time that president obama intervened directly with primers earned one and raised this. they had a bilateral meeting back in may and i think the day before that meeting took place, news about the ag phone records

broker under the weather was on the agenda for discussion. i had early indication mib but i'm confident it did not, because its president obama had raised that i think that he would have been very upset and the same thing happens with the nsa surveillance and the stated policy that president obama had articulated is going to be more aggressive in challenging china on its government orchestrated hacking sevens program, whatever you want to call it. i don't hear that so much anymore. i don't hear that so much anymore. >> i'm going to add, going to add come under the heading of your work for the government or did work for the government, the leaks investigation, the constant pressures to stop leaks of any kind, not just has to security leaks, the cost of pressure to not talk to

reporters at all, and then just the precipice of the nsa surveillance which so far there's no examples of american sources or reporters having been spotted on through the committee cases been processed. by the very existence, all those things combined have a tremendous chilling effect on government officials talking to the press. then the report comes out when i visited, i wish i talk to me. i have another example but as it was the cpj people said don't get in your report. this is their daily life. daily life is trying to government officials to talk to them or ways to talk to them. that's not the way it should be. >> there seems be a link between nsa program and other sources, government surveillance issues that come up and reporters not feeling council and singing and enough to a government source. let me ask, the post had an

exceptional store a few weeks ago about the effect of these leak investigations on the whistleblowers. and it was really sort of catalog are going up against the mechanisms of the united states government as one person can destroy lives. even for those for whom the prosecution fell apart. do you think that some of his early prosecutions, would they be pointed towards true fascist good information that would damage the united states, were really done to make a point and to say, this is what can happen to you so don't talk? >> we don't know about that motivation in terms of the justice department but we do know because they said so that intelligence community was looking for that, a previous -- at the beginning of the administration told "the new york times" on the record that this was his intention to get the justice department to prosecute people for it would have a chilling effect on the evidence. >> talk about the insider threat

program. you can imagine how the government would've some sort of the program after the disclosure that chelsea manning has taken the scope of documents yet. it seems something quite different. >> yes, the original presidential directive that set up to study that introduced the program which he started going out late last year did emphasize in the security aspect of it but then it was left up to each individual agency to decide how to carry it out. one of the news he bureaus in washington did a very good job of surveying various government agencies to see how they were carrying this out. a number of them made clear that any kind of leaking to the press was the same as giving something to china. and also you're supposed to monitoring your fellow employees, a 1984 thing.

monitoring your fellow employees to see if you see any signs of their leaking documents or being unstable or anything like that and you're required to report that. you can get in trouble for not reporting something that someone else is doing that you may find suspicious but again that's i think unprecedented. it's just now being rolled out. we don't even know what the effect is. >> interesting. >> and seems have a chilling impact already on just the day-to-day routine business. but the sorts of work that journalist in this down to every single day that in many cases has nothing to do with top secret or even materially class at a lower level, or anything to do with national security matters. simply calling up and official in this administration come in the white house or a cabinet agency, and wanting to have a discussion about a subject that

perhaps a senior official is spoken about publicly the day before is the sort of thing that now routinely, commonly government employees will refuse to engage. notches on the record but even in many cases on background like i can't even speak to you until it's cleared by the press office. and in many cases the press office won't authorize. they say we will talk to you, or in some cases they won't talk to you. it's create this chilling effect across the government, and it is impeded the work of journalists to provide necessary accountability functions to our government. think back to, talking but overclassification as one of these problems and that is -- one way that people at all levels are simply trying to in

some ways defeat or impede freedom of information act requests is now wreaking correspondents. it is slopped with artificial use of the label. and so when you're trying to document it may not be classified, even if it is in many cases it's not even all that sensitive. we can't release it. it's for official use only. what i want to do is bring that press person to the office, show them my inbox and shouldn't hundreds of e-mails from military officers all stand for official use only saying would you like to come to this lunch with the general odierno next week for official use only? because there been no system is all set as a default. so again, it's intended to import impede the ability of people making legitimate foia request of government. all this also comes back to there is, it's all about selective enforcement.

there is, there was a piece just reported the other day off of the senate intelligence community getting, in wake of the administration's roles on reporting the disclosures come inside information, distinction between what is an awfully sleek and an unauthorized leak. and how may times on any given day to senior officials share details that is classified or that is otherwise sensitive but serves our purposes for for which there is no sanction? join the classified slides but because it is serving the military purpose, serving the administration's argument, and so they are willing to trough that stuff out when it helps them. but when they don't like it, of course different rules.

>> this is all about government accountability. the government has said -- the president has said, but these kind of distinctions are that. spink it seems to me the report is almost like come it's the tale of two senators to one is the national study center and the other is as you describe is a dated -- the day-to-day business of government. i was struck both by your quote that this was the most difficult administration to cover under seven that she has covered which really is saying quite a lot. lot. >> things that were routine in other administrations, access to beginnings and endings of meetings in the white house, just with the subject of the meeting is are now off limits. it's impossible to find unless you go to the white house website. a british television news director in washington said one of because the white house

basically say go to this website. that's what you can do. you can have that video, those photographs and that information. we are not talking to you. >> your example about the epa, how much was epa does? but try getting meaningful information out of that agency. >> i also found something that really get along journalists of the jim rose in case. we had that james rice and james rosen case. but the rosen case was the use of the term potential co-conspirator under the espionage act, or as you pointed out, activities that are basic journalism. >> there was a technical legal reason for doing that test it was very, very alarming. while the administration repeatedly said justice department guidelines will not prosecute a journalist just for doing the job of reporting,

again that's their discretion, not ours. so it's frightening to reporters at the our reporters he work and the national security area are worried about being vulnerable to themselves still to investigation and prosecution who are taking extraordinary measures, encryption of e-mails. encryption of e-mails, secret rooms where they do the work and so on, which is quite amazing. i also should point out that in the jim bryson case, the decision by the appellate court judge, majority that said he still has to testify or go to jail, also said that this kind could not have been committed without him. in other words, they are still treating him as a criminal as well. >> is this something you see in terms of the types of news gatherings, i was sort of going back to meeting in the basement of the arlington parking garage and not using these electronic tools that's been so useful in the past?

>> i joke that this is forcing me to go back to being a lot more low-tech. a lot more face-to-face interviews, a lot more notes taking, ink on paper. much, only for completely, you know, routine not very sensitive stuff, and in that case i'm not doing a whole lot of typing and putting stuff up on the class. i'm not keeping my most sensitive contacts on my iphone or any sort of electronic space. i have colleagues who go even further working on machines that have no internet connection, working in rooms that are sort of journalistic equivalent of -- to prevent outsiders from trying to identify sources. and this is all -- look, there's

nothing that i am working on, and i think for many of my colleagues, you know, if the government were to learn the substance of the story that i'm building, that's fine but what i'm worried about is protecting the sources. i'm worried about keeping people are cooperative with me from getting hauled in front of, yeah, court, into jail, or almost every case what is a legitimate, well-founded reason for communicating. these are not people are seeking to burn down the government house and not people engaging in wholesale theft of information. these are people talk about specific issues in a narrow circumscribed way because they either want, they believed policy is fundamentally flawed. they believe that there is an injustice that needs to be addressed. we lose sight of this when we focus so much on manning or on

snowden. the lion's share of these cases don't involve individuals taking volume readings of documents and then sharing them with the world. it is more often an individual wanting to share a specific piece of information because they believe that there is a compelling public -- in doing this because they want to make money. kind of doing this because they want to aid the enemy. they're doing it because they want to help the united states. >> i would add from an international perspective, lin pointed out, if you're just outside the united states, a non-us person, you have no legal protections from nsa intervention, communication. we know or we don't know but it's just been reported based on snowden leagues, eric spiegel did a leak that the nsa hack into the e-mails of al-jazeera.

they did feel that this was within their prerogative to do this. i talked to editors, the editor of "the guardian," the u.s. editor was talking about, you know, she does not communicate using e-mail with reporters. does not feel secure doing it. and lots of journals i talked to outside the united states are taking extraordinary measures to ensure that they can communicate securely. i think there's a real question. one of the most central things that come elements of certainly public accountability journalism is, depends on the ability of journalists to be able to protect the identity of their source spent a lot of just don't feel they can make that promise. journalist care about that. people don't often realize how

much jurors do care about the welfare of their sources. >> also from international perspective, it's been interesting to me to learn that many other countries have stronger protections for journalists in terms of not requiring them to testify in court cases, for example, than even we have on the stateside but we do have protection in most of our states. >> the u.s., obviously with the first amendment and then most probably the world's most protected environment in which you can say because you can actually say about anything. but in terms of protection against being subpoenaed, there are many other countries in the world that have stronger protection for journalist. the u.s. is not a leader in that regard. >> there is no federal protection but only state-by-state. if you're subject to a federal investigation your source is

subject to a federal investigation. >> which can be very arbitrary. in the district you could get a subpoena issued by the superior court and have great protections which is a good shield law. if it's issued across the street from the federal courthouse, you're looking at this fine are going to jail. it's a very arbitrary situation. >> and even though the justice department guidelines have been greatly strengthened and a lot tactical changes made in them that pleases largest generally still have this intent involved because there's leeway there for the attorney general decision-making and the national security exemption that they can still do what they want to do. >> guidelines are, in fact, they can be followed or they can not be followed and it's not enforceable by a reporter but you can't say in the report the subpoena needs be squashed because you didn't correctly follow the guidelines. having a shield law seems to me to be a step forward. >> it would be.

why don't we talk about that for a moment? >> i know you've had concerns about the definition of journalists, for example. which is something one of the reason why we've never had a federal shield law because it's difficult to find and can be more difficult. >> i looked at this from international perspective. i don't look at this from a u.s. perspective. how radically technology has changed the way that journalism is conducted. i think there's a very pragmatic consequence, which is that journalists can't do the work ethic and protect their sources, and a shield law will help them do that. a shield law will probably help, yeah, also journalists who work for, carried out traditional journalism except for the national security exemption which is a separate matter can but in terms of constituents, in this country but even more so globally, not all journalists

will be covered because a lot of people who are engaged in journalism in this day and age are doing it informally. there are observers to newsworthy event and they're documenting those events in a systematic way. and then the sending that information to the public or they're blogging about it but doing it informally, or they're documenting events using video. some of the journalists that we consider journalist in places like syria or china or vietnam or cuba or places where people are using new techniques to engage in the practice of journalism, certainly any definition of a shield law that is being contemplated in this country would exclude that. so we are advocating our recommendation, recognizing that a shield law would help many journalists, the definition be

as broad as possible. and the focus to the extent on the newsgathering process rather than on credentials or professional status or anything like that. we think that would be the best approach. >> if a law did have the breath you are looking for, cpj would be okay with it concept of the. >> we are even, and the, frankly hedging a little bit because we feel a shield law issues for. we're just saying we will moderate the debate and we're going to push right to the end for the broadest possible definition. >> the definition one does seem be difficult because anyone, literally anyone can be covered simply by starting a blog. it would be difficult how congress could ever pass that law. there's a bit of a pragmatic -- >> pragmatic, you're balancing the kind of philosophical approach to this issue, and some

people who are greatly admire say we shouldn't have one of our own because the first amendment is a shield law and the first amendment does come and do not consistently -- you are deep in these issues but i'm just saying that's out there. we are taking a much more pragmatic -- we want journalists to be able to do the work but we also would like to see as broad as possible definition. >> at one hope the first amendment would be enough. how much do these sorts of issues play into your decisions about whether to grant confidentiality to a source? if you're looking at now the uncertain environment we live in, does this make it less likely that you would, you know, said yes, i will keep confidential? or does this become a more difficult nuanced negotiation about what the confidentiality really means? >> you know, i probably, and

this will make you the lawyer shudder a little bit and it may well make the post shutter. i do, you know, i grant all mrs. of confidentiality pretty liberally. that is what we have traditionally done. now, if anything, the pressure against it over the past 10 plus years, maybe even longer than that, this is wonderland would know well, has been less traditionally in our newsroom about the threat of prosecution, more in terms of the desire for transparency with our readers. what we want people to know much as possible as who's providing the information. in some ways this is a response to government officials often wanting to speak about routine matters on background, a senior initiation official.

it has created this climate in washington that you can't even, that the weather report from somebody with an attached but on background of type it will be raining this afternoon. and so our pushback is that sort of against that. now, enter in the own this new threat of -- not just threat but reality of the investigation and prosecution, particularly in the world that i cover. it certainly has come up through discussions, you know, and when it does come up on sensitive matters it's something that we talk out. but when i make an explicit promise of confidentiality, it is just that and i will honor that. it's not a written agreement but it is part of what i see as my professional oath. but even getting to that point

requires jumping through a lot of hoops that we didn't have to before. it's the old face-to-face meeting. it's not, you know, it's not, these deals are not struck over e-mail or phone call. >> not quite as convoluted as that, but certainly adding a lot more complications. in fact, a lot more meetings with people at their homes or in coffee shops or bars as opposed to offices, communicating with people because of the insider threat program. it's not just the nsa, it's an agency, their system tax are

going through part of the insider threat from drama looking at what e-mails were exchanged with wash post.com and in why post.com domains or any of those messages coming from people who are not in the public affairs shop. if not, let's flag them for further scrutiny. that stuff is happening routinely. >> the other element is important for the reader, for the audience and that's accuracy and credibility. if you can't talk to the people that really know what's going on, you are liable to find other sources on background have axes to grind and so on and will tell you think. and you will make mistakes and we've seen that happened in national security porting, law enforcement reporting when the authoritative people won't talk, somebody else will. that can create type is a problem and can create credibility problems. the administration's may have an interest in making the media seem less credible by denying them after information but

that's for the audience. >> len, you've seen these sorts of issues across a variety of administrations. you mentioned that this was the most secretive since the nixon administration. how would you compare to some of the ones in between, say the bush administration or the second bush administration? >> as rajiv said, they weren't our friends and they weren't eager to have some the stories we published to be published, but by and large, first of all, the accuracy of sources was much greater than it is now. they seem to tighten up access to sources. and secondly you could have productive conversations, productive is the word i use and report, with senior administered officials sometimes including the president of the united states, at least one occasion about whether not it was a good idea to publish this story,

about what to ask you the star and but whether not there's any sensitive information that really could harm human life and national city. i don't recall in all my time of 25 years of managing editor, executive and other posts i don't recall us ever not publishing a story that an administration objected to but i do know i had a very productive conversation that we did withhold technical information, names and things, countries of origin to anything that would harm national security but would not surprise the reader that they needed to know told the government accountable. if you cut off those conversations, then you're left with whatever wikileaks puts up without talking to anybody including names of people who could be harmed because their names appear in those diplomatic cables and things that are put up. that's the other side of this. and also it imposes people, in which snow does believe he's performed important public service. you can argue he did.

before he licked all that information, but at the same time it makes them feel more heroic, if you will, when they know that otherwise they will not be a blue get the information that wouldn't harm national security out through normal channels. >> look at the front page of the post today top left column about the nsa's role in drone strikes. the post with no technical details based on discussions with administration officials and intelligence community officials to avoid divulging sources. the same time the story was able to come out, was able to add to the national debate over the role of the nsa. >> i always think -- the issue

was reported, kept confidential i assume under a request from the government. so the secrecy of the government needed to maintain was maintained. but the public was informed about the issue. >> that's a good example to cite. it was not a leak like an edward snowden lead. is based on a long period of reporting in discovering certain officials in senior intelligence community word about something. it was reporting, not a leak as such. and she was able to do that kind of reporting so they would have enough access to the kind of reporting that were able to put the whole picture together, including the fact that there was a lot of other counter terrorism cooperation going on with eastern european countries where the secret black sites were located, that when the administration said please don't name is countries, we know why they're asking and we could recent about okay then, we don't

want to have this other cooperation cut off so, therefore, we published the story and the only effect of it was, was they had to close those black sites, bring those prisoners to guantánamo which doesn't harm national stood at all. there have been investigations by the eu, we've kept our promise not to name them. that's an important part -- david sanger for the new york times talks about the factor between you and the government, you go about doing this supporting. they trust your motives, can you trust the government notice indeed with you? that makes it possible for bring this information that needs be brought to the american public in a way that is responsible. you cut off those avenues, they get very worried, you have lot of a responsible information out there. >> len's point about the sort on the black sites is incredibly important. i think there's a perception

that national security will wait for the phone to ring. here's your link today. .. off in whose dog of destruction and sources understanding what a journalist is trying to do with being what they are doing.

i really do believe the vast majority of those people that the administration would call beakers. these are people who are acting out of a sense of launcher as them, they believe in our system and a desire to want to make the united states a better country. it's not an artistic behavior, even though one could point perhaps to some higher profile cases and say by using labels like that, the fact that skewers the reality of what is that in the lions share of these interactions between journalists and sources. >> udc strong patriotism through many of these are late. >> if they're investigated, persecuted, prosecuted for it,

they then wonder if their patriotism is suspended. >> was struck by some being that there was an e-mail by memo sent out at the white house saying please retain any e-mails that david sanger -- >> within the white house itself. >> estes said, they call them up and asked him a question and say david, we love you. no responsible report name. they just can't talk to them. >> i was also struck by an annex to any report about the governor calling to apologize for a subpoena they had. >> this was quite some time ago when moeller with the fbi director in southeast asia and

so did i think "the new york times." there is investigation going on but had nothing to do with the story. but the fact that they had contacts being investigated by the fbi. without complete violation of the justice department guidelines, the secretly was discovered by the fbi afterwards in the previous administration and the bush administration. the editor of "the new york times," first of august at half the non-apologize for it because it was outside the justice department guidelines. people were disciplined for it that was proper. be back there's a lot of subpoenas of phone records.

i was wondering about the associated press issue that the subpoena seems to cover about a phone lines, including one in the capital itself. did you have a sense that was narrowed or the judge had to be involved, they may have been a different result up to 100 journalists. >> they did it without notifying. >> my experience quite often is contemplating the subpoena in the criminal investigation or the civil case. or some other way. they were called to say we are contemplating that and usually we were able to satisfy our protection of our reporting and work something out. sometimes it's the logic negotiation. in this case, the ap would

instead i have a hundred different reporters. the florida switchboard. we don't want to cooperate with you at all. let's narrow down what you are doing here. we don't think that's a good idea. they probably would have gone to court. even though the investigations by that time is here sold, they just didn't want to take the trouble to do that. there is no way to negotiate, no way to negotiate, nowhere to go to court and have a court decide. >> it's all been very patient. i thought this would be a good moment to turn to the audience for question. in the back and then we'll miss up front. >> in the report, it's gotten

worse every administration. it seems to attract the media itself when there were so few channels for the illustration to get their own message out. the posture of the administration. not before echo chamber media and their ability to get the word out themselves. you no longer have the leverage of the institution. so the question are you optimistic is there anyway to retain the leverage to change their posture to be more cooperative or is that an inexorable? >> its inexorable must they're confronted with that, the public is confronted with it an appeals -- [inaudible] to do this report. they will go to the administration with the recommendations. they have the most apparent transportation in history.

we are essentially appealing to do what you said you were going to do. when his confronted with some of these issues, i really want a transparent administration. i want the president to feel accountable. by proving that it's not happening, i'm hoping he'll take success. the next administration would see how much more sophisticated we should be. >> thank you for bringing up this very important information, mr. downie. i will follow up a little on the gentleman's question are concerned with the impact of how the federal whistleblower is going to slow down to the state and local levels, along with the increase in websites.

i don't know, but as newspapers become more difficult to hang onto and i don't know it's going to happen to the pose when it takes over in your reporting to some degree to tab to someone in person. you get a better picture, better story. but what impact is their website now having i'm reporting the news and getting out accurate news with so many different websites and cable channels, you name it. >> both goodness and badness. the bad news obviously is the destruction of economic models to the journalistic organization. the post is not now owned by amazon and therefore is not a public company which creates great more leeway in trying to do with that particular issue. at the same time, people start

for-profit and nonprofit, all kinds of new organizations. he's going to start a new one with glenn greenwald from the edward snowden papers. a lot of these new startups aren't even though they have much fewer resources, some of them are doing really good work. another thing i spend a lot of time studying and writing about. there are travel, need support. they are sensibly organizations at the low. and so, their future individuals are in doubt. that's very helpful. they also collaborate. the mayor times in newspapers that the country have published a number of things and nonprofit

investigative reporting. the first part of your question midstate soundstage, one of these nonprofit in madison, wisconsin in the state legislature by the resistance, their offices there in side the university of wisconsin and some of the people who run it are the university of wisconsin faculty. it is a prohibition against state funds coming in diversity fund, especially after big upper was vetoed by the governor that does show to get involved in managing the news as well. >> sitting next to me. [inaudible] >> what is holding it up? lackey moving ahead with? >> the movement on the senate side is good so far.

we just need to get the floor of the senate and the senate has a lot going on of course. it's been difficult to get their attention on this. we're optimistic we should be able to get the floor of the senate if not before the end of this year, next year. there is a house bill introduced by representative john conyers that is moving ahead as well. and they take a lot longer. we've had some success in the past. we passed the house twice. so were optimistic. it actually is bipartisan. for many years, our greatest champion was representative mike pence, republican from indiana, who basically said i'm not doing this because i let the media. in fact, sometimes they don't like you guys, but i really believe in representing the source. >> many conservatives be at -- [inaudible]

>> are the answers on these past two questions. i don't want you to shutter here, but there is -- there is a defense to be made of a group that everybody, at least part of the political spec to his immediate. yes, there's a new news website at the state, local and even the national level. new ventures here in air. citizen journalists. and all that is applauded. but "the new york times", siobhan gordon "wall street journal." fox news, they are part of the news media. they are mainstream and large. these are the organizations that have a base for the moment deep enough pockets they can sustain this sort of investigative journalism.

this is the result of a lot of hard work. it takes time. it takes money. and so, while i think that these issues do pose a threat to journalists with large, what we've seen thus far in my humble opinion, the principal kind of threat still going forward leads to the largest news organizations have their the really devote resource to national security matters and such. they decided it was the administration in any investigation should be the track record of these large organizations. i know why france and the military and intelligence community laugh when i say this. who but you guys in charge of determining what the public should know?

when presented with sensitive material, particularly national security, the mainstream news organizations have almost always taken a thoughtful examination of how to publish, went to publish, what to publish. these are the issues agonizer time and time again is executive editor of the "washington post." even when providing the entire wikileaks, we didn't put it all online. we used it as the basis for journalists and then going out and asking. the "washington post" and the receipt of material. i can, they are just pasted up willy-nilly out there. they are being used to caging journalists on and portions of it are being put out there.

>> your reporting based on that but only with some of the expertise can handle it that way, too. >> justin overclassification. i can't let the event go without noting i guess it is the guardian posted last week or the week before, had stories that did the nsa crack the system. among the five that were revealed, i think of the guardian report, the nsa deck, all classified, top secret. two of those flights were actually material because the nsa stole from the frontier foundation. their own descriptions in the frame of an nsa powerpoint and top secret on that. so again, there are legitimate questions. people talk about

classification. >> among the thousands of pages of documents that chelsea manning gave to wikileaks for thousands of newspaper stories were then classified or sent to washington. [inaudible] >> okay. why don't we go here and then here. >> in any kind of federal shield law are probably going to get national security exceptions. in that particular field, is a really going to help you? may be a bit higher notice. maybe a good judicial involvement. how much is going to contribute in the national security arena? >> i not see it as fundamentally changing. it is an issue with both prosecute the real discretion, but it is an issue that the

administration at the seniormost level chooses to address these issues and whether it wants to create a sort of chilling effect of the defense department and the intelligence community or whether it believes that in our system and our system to be healthy, every now and again you might get something on the front page of the pose for some other newspaper that he won't really like, but our country is strong enough to move on from that and some of those disclosures actually help stimulate the national debate and the reality is about the administration likes to talk about congress plane in a great oversight role, among the key takeaways this far is congress really wasn't doing a whole lot of oversight.

>> thank you first. very good job of showing we are closer to 1994 then where 2013. my question is this though. priya president obama, i think may be very person. he's the president. and i was headed the administration, which is very secret. how much of that is 10 leading and how much of that is in following based upon the security field. it doesn't matter the end result. the only reason the question that matters for those of us who feel it is all, we first need to know where to focus that change on. is it more in the general belief of directors in that type of thing? where would you assign on a pie chart, where does it fall? >> it appears to be a combination of those factors of

the post-9/11 world, pressure from the intelligence community and both parties, particularly in 2012 for reelection and the republicans to every week to get reelected. so the response was to conduct investigations, whether they should have been conducted are not. the second part of your question, what can you do about it, he has the power to see that those are actually fulfill. he could do it. the maximum benefit of the aisle. >> jim byrne, regional editor. we played a central role on these income taxes with a crooked lawyer of his book the gift of his vice presidential papers -- [inaudible] but the hero of it all was the leaker. it is the irs earns her come west virginia who nailed his tax

returns, who helps getting caught eventually. so i have someone to vent his oracle background. the real question is where do things stand end this legislation to talk about on the issue of the definition. i favor the most broad definition possible. who are those things? >> i'm in terms of you with a broad definition. you're giving up in this river in the west, which is something the congress passed. the wait set up now is essentially a three tiers definition. it started off as a one paragraph definition and he became longer and longer as the process would not. the idea was to capture more people who are really committing journalism. so the first test is a straightforward one, steve shields was. are you -- do you work for, have

a contract with, an agent for an industry that publishes a news website, a mobile lab, newspaper. and it's quite broad. most haven't entity, when you think of talking points memo or others, they would be covered under that along with the "washington post." there's a second definition that says don't fall into that bucket. you can be covered if you can teach in journalism in the past as one pointed out in the report. support for the journalist and one entity for the past 20 years or contributed it to get me to a product as freelancer in the past five years. a third caucuses if you're not covered under one and two, if it suggests you should be covered, you will be. so that's the way the senate bill has.

the house bill is a much more straightforward structure that engaging in journalistic and committees or financial livelihood, that is something that is benefit of the controversial in the past. we find the name away to cover them too. that's the one i'll end up on the floor. >> please say your affiliation as well. >> i created an llc. i used to be a columnist in a small newspaper. this report has been rolled out and it's a very important how we become friends the pentagon papers. what are your terms than correct

collecting directly the true test of whether this is going to reverberate into the white house in fact to tell the public is going to react because there is a national security issue that is lingering since 2001. you may get some pushback against it. how are we going to know how this is going to resonate with the public click >> well, first of all we've been very pleased. it's gotten a tremendous amount more than the effect media tells you that's natural, but we see a lot of social media, for example, a lot of discussion in engagement. that is really what we were hoping for. if you go to the last page, we have a recommendation spirit has been mentioned, those recommendations were developed by a staff, board of directors in consultation. we sent several reports and recommendations to the president

and then not under, we also asked for a meeting with our board and we are going to be following up on that request and we actually hope to have some sort of face-to-face dialogue about these issues with senior figures in the administration's. obviously we are not the only working on these issues. we're lucky where he can to build . we're lucky where he can to build coalition. one of the things i said when we had the press conference is that the challenges the administration haven't seen it as a problem. they sought as a flareup with a very considerable outcry and a stewardess address that with department guidelines. but this report is saying is you're wrong. this is a problem, a very

significant problem that has to do with your legacy that has to do with the kind of government that this country has done deserves. we are seeing a response on the public as a whole. so that's the strategy. you're right that the overline challenge is the national security environment to many other countries around the world. we are willing to engage with the government on that issue. we have very significant challenges. national security in this country or any other country has never been used as a pre-fast to give the government authority to prevent people from getting the information they need. >> i'm talking about it to the media regularly.

>> the administration amongst the american people it has said explicitly that the tide of war says we are entering a different. now then we have them in in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. so if you accept or not that perhaps the standards are different are in the immediate aftermath of the nations getting attacked in 2001, this is the president who said we are entering a different period. should not the way the administration addresses some of these matters also filed? >> the worst about the administration's reaction report. >> there's been a little bit of a reaction. they issued a statement of reaffirming that we are committed to transparency and the administration.

we are so very defensive. we want to talk about it. i hope you looking for direct engagements. i'm hopeful that the report itself once ongoing outreach and media make the case that this is a critical issue and it's not going away. we engage in train address these issues. >> as a foreign journalist, i find your report very shocking. the way we describe the administration is sending, the price remains me --

[inaudible] so, can you tell us something, is it going to be better in the next admin ration -- or ted cruz. >> i've heard is that a pessimist couldn't possibly get any worse. and they said sure it can. [laughter] >> the administration appears to technique that allowed will depend on whether obama reacted to this and decides he's going to to put more transparent the into this administration in a different kind of example for the next administration, whether democratic or republican. i think the main reason why is the media is pushing that will

continue to push back. these reporters who have to deal with the white house every day. when david sanger says this is the most control freak administration. he knows his good to talk of the day. the media's pushing back. it will help to balance out. even the next administration tries to be more control and can immediate sale aggressive and see how the balance works out. it's expected that promised to be different. so far it's been different in a good way. >> thank you very much. please join me in thanking our speakers today. thank you to all of you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [roll [inaudible conversations]

>> that wraps up this panel discussion on the relationship between the obama admin is ration in the press corps. earlier today, the president commented on yesterday's bipartisan agreement to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. the president called for the two parties to come together on issues relating to the budget, immigration reform in agricultural programs. he did not take any questions, but later his press secretary did. this white house press briefing runs about an hour. >> hello, everyone. welcome is always to your daily briefing on this first day back from our first manager of the white house, after the government has reopened. i want to start by echoing what the president said about the many people just in our world

here who were out of work for the past few weeks and say how glad we all are to have them back and how much we appreciate what they do. in fact, we now appreciated more than other knowing what it was like not to have them here. i know many of you work with folks in the press office and are glad to see them back because there's no question that many of us to fulfill the responsibilities to do such a great job. i also want to welcome back jamie smith, deputy press secretary. great to have her here. i have no other announcements, so i will go straight to "the associated press." >> jay, negotiators take up this morning. as the presidency a direct role for himself in those discussions or is he basically going congressional democrats to advocacy on behalf of the priorities you'd like to see a? >> what we are hopeful about is

that congress will seize an opportunity here to return to what has become known as regular order, which is how the budget conference and were appointed members of the house or senate come together to try to reach a compromise budget. each house has a starting point, a budget that was passed. they also have a document in the president budget that reflects his views about what a broad-based budget compromise would look like, his views on the kinds of tough choices that he is willing to make when it comes to a balanced approach to further reducing our deficit as well as his views on the kinds of investments we should be making. you heard him speak about some of those earlier today in the state dining room. so our engagement with that process will be what it has

traditionally been a privilege is to provide technical assistance, to provide insight into the president's views on matters. the research they hope as the president made clear earlier that it is a success. obviously this is a tough business and always has been. but there is an opportunity here to find common ground and the president sincerely hopes members of both parties seize that opportunity. >> the president at the beginning of the year and his union address laid out a progressive aggressive and progressive agenda for things he wanted to do this year from gun control to suspended pre-k and urging congress to act on climate change. today we heard an outline basically been able to get a farm bill, budget. has the president had to scale back on his expectations for what can be accomplished this

year? >> i appreciate the question. let me say two things in response. first, i think no one in washington could possibly suggest that getting a bipartisan budget deal, getting comprehensive immigration reform passed a bipartisan basis and gain a farm bill passed on a bipartisan basis would be small or inconsequential in terms of the achievement. the president laid this out because he made clear those are things that congress can do working together in a bipartisan fashion this year in what remains this year because there are budgets that have been passed by the senate and house said there is a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform that passed the senate and is waiting for action in the house. and there was a bipartisan comprehensive farm bill that was passed by the senate. the house could act on as opposed to pursuing the purely

partisan effort that they worked on in the past. but that is not the limit of what this administration will be working on or what can be achieved in the months and years ahead. other issues are obviously a focus for the president or his belief that a program that ensures there is pre-k available to all in this country would be enormously beneficial to our nation. he believes we can continue to take action on energy and climate issues and he will do that. he's committed to pursuing commonsense measures to violence that has been demonstrated throughout the year. of course college affordability is the subject he has highlighted and believes we can, the administration and also congress cannot run. he identified those three objectives because those are

three that already had some momentum in congress. they require congressional action and he was urging members of both parties to act on it before the end of the year. >> you held up as being a big accomplishment to get it done, are going to be real uphill battles and have already showed that there is a lot of disagreement for congress to get that through. are you operating under the assumption that following the revolution crisis the past number of weeks that there's dynamic change for the atmosphere can make progress on those issues? >> we hope it is. we have to hope for the best tennis in the best here. we saw a lot of time and effort was spent because of an ideological pursuit, it led to the shutdown of government and the threat of default. except for the harmful

consequences for the economy the president outlined. so rather than continue down that path, there is an opportunity for congress, including those lawmakers both democratic and republican who helped for each solution to the shutdown and the threat of default, in a way that moves the ball forward on all these issues. there's no question they are all difficult given the current environment. some of these, especially the comprehensive immigration reform bill and a budget bill are big items and they require bipartisan support. but we see not already in the senate when it comes to immigration reform. we have seen at least in conversations that the president has had with republicans on budget issues. when it comes to immigration reform, a big item to be sure, we are confident of that bill passed the senate or were put on the house today when a majority

of the house. i think it would win significant republican votes because there are many republicans who agree that comprehensive immigration reform would help our economy, would make our middle class more secured, would make us more competitive around the globe when it comes to watch printer shipped in harnessing the talents of those who come and study it should start businesses. an archer said in the senate bill. the president is not at all convinced by this step takes to say that we can't get things done. he refuses to believe that. that's why he called on congress to take action on these items today. >> thank you.

>> as you know, the rollout of the affordable care act has hit some snags along the way. why didn't the president mentioned that as one of the priorities this morning? >> again, i should've mentioned that in my list. that is something the administration is working on 20 for seven, implementation of the affordable care act. the items the president mentioned, the three action items were focused on congress could can do working together, republicans and democrats. the implementation of the affordable care act exempting the administration is engaged in, including the after to address the difficulties and riches that have occurred with the website. i think it's important to remember the website is not allowed in the affordable care act. as i've done some in recent days, it's important to remind folks even as there have been challenges in when the website,

those challenges are being addressed in progress is being made and people are enrolling across the country. we are going to keep working on this to make sure the consumer experience is improved in the interest of all those millions of americans who have been exploring options available to them through the new affordable care act and market places will be rewarded with the opportunity to enroll for so many who've never had affordable health care options in the past. >> the individual mandates are essential part. is he happy with the way it's gone? >> the president made it clear in an interview he gave the other day that he's not happy with it and has insisted everybody worked 24/7 to fix the problems that exist. you have to remember now that we've hopefully taken us out of a political context that this is not just about the presidents health care reform bill that some opposed in some supported.

this is a battle of that was upheld by the supreme court that has been implemented in providing benefit to millions of americans across the country. poverty is about to provide significantly more benefits to millions of americans. as i said in the past, the desire for millions of americans in so many families across the country to have affordable health insurance exists outside of partisan preference. we've seen it reported in newspapers across the country are individuals who identify themselves as conservatives or republicans didn't vote for them, maybe both republican and congressional and local elections say they are extremely happy with the fact they now have affordable health care insurance options that they did not have before. i think one of the reasons, and

factors needed by some who pursued this fight after was made in these last several weeks to try to derail the affordable care act was because of the recognition that the implementation of the law would make it so much harder for opponents to overturn it in the future because so many millions of americans would see that it is delivering on the promise of affordable health insurance for them. >> one question about the presidents remarks this morning. he read reference to ideology, extremism. you know, in collaboration with congress, does the president need to take any steps to improve relations? >> the president absolutely. i think has made clear in his comments both last night and today, believes that we all need to set aside other object is then focus on the objective of helping the american people.

i don't think there's any question that the episode that we just went through occurred in western and by coming in no, coming up on party in one house, one branch of government for some considerable assistance by a couple of members from the other house in congress. the president doesn't believe that that approach is one that was supported universally by republican lawmakers. he doesn't believe it because he has in the many conversations he's had with republican lawmakers and he doesn't believe it because he's a republican lawmakers say to you, to reporters how counterproductive it was, how harmful it was to the economy, how damaging a bus to average americans, how unnecessary it was and how in fact harmful localized to the party itself.

as i've said in the past from the president believes strongly that we benefit as a country from two strong parties, where there are differences of view, but where there is a commitment to working together to try to resolve our differences where we can to move forward for the american people. i think that is the spirit of what the president talked about today and is the spirit with which he'll approach other work that needs to be done. rhianna. >> about to fall follow on that. the president's remark were received very well by republicans on the hill if he really is service about moving forward in a bipartisan way on some of these initiatives. why did he shied them for following bloggers and radio talkshow hosts? >> i think the president made two things clear, which is absolutely appropriate to do. one, as i just said, bichette and we went through had real

consequences, real cause as did the threat of default. was precipitated by the pursued on capitol hill. you can't ignore that. you have to acknowledge it, identify and say that is not the path we should be pursuing. the farmer believes there are republicans as well as democrats who don't want to pursue that path again, who want instead to work together and compromise, find common ground so we can resolve some of the budget challenges that face us and make sure we are investing in our economy and people in a way that is best for growth and job creation, that we can work together to pass for the first time in decades the comprehensive immigration reform so we kid gathered the benefits from that for our economy and for people and for our future economic growth, that we can move forward for rural americans

on bipartisan legislation in a farm bill that has the potential of being accomplished it finished at the end of the year. i think the american people had to watch him our first treated by the destruction we saw here in washington. the president made clear on numerous occasions, his view that there are no winners when something like this happens because no politician wins when his or her constituents lose and everybody lost. every taxpaying american out there lost because of this wholly unnecessary shut down and flirtation with the fall. we need to move beyond it and work together and that was the essence of the presidents remarks. i have no doubt there were some republicans are still espouse a strategy and think they did the

right thing who took issue with what the president said. i think many, many others agree we need to work together to find common ground and move ahead for the american people. >> created a login and user name on health care back october 9. she is still unable to use the website. today she called the 1800 number again in two different representatives told her that she needs to create a new account. last week hhs was, we were told by hhs the operators were mistakenly given this script and were telling people their usernames and login needed to be redone. is that true? they are still saying that today. >> hhs events at this. i don't have the experience cnn has had. there's no question -- >> it appears to be a script. two different representatives saying the exact same thing.

they were told that a -- this has been corrected. >> briand, i would simply say two things. one that hhs has been answering these questions and that's not true that if it registered in the passing of one has to reregister. but there are certainly issues with the website. people have been working 24/7, around-the-clock, to resolve them and make a consumer experience better. nobody is more insistent that work be done and be improved on the president as he is made clear. there are still problems we need to get that fixed. >> he wants a 100%. it's october 17. >> 17 days into it 180 day period. >> he wants about 100%. when do we see that it has held accountable for the failure of the?

>> the people responsible for making artwork are hard at work fixing problems that need to be fixed and that is the focus of the president's intention and hhs who are working on that. the president wants to work done. the consumer experience is improved. it is important -- the goal is absolutely to make sure that americans across the country have access. >> what's the data should be done? is there a time, date? >> they make pertinence every day. i think the president's goal is that there is a process in place through the various ways people can get access to the information they need to enroll so that everybody who needs affordable health insurance in states across the country can look at the options available to them because of the affordable care act, because of the marketplaces, because of increased competition created by the marketplaces and make choices that fit their budget,

the work for them because of subsidies available for those with low incomes and the result will be millions of americans who have insurance to did not have it before. that's the goal. the goal is not about the website. the goalies to make sure the american people who have been shut out of affordable health insurance options in the past have those options available to them. that is what this has always been about. the president is making sure his team and everyone working on this is focused on making it the best possible can to my experience they can. >> to present them as the event this morning when he said the american people are fed up with washington. does the president include the white house as some of the target of that unhappiness? that the president made clear during a winners here. everybody here looks bad when

washington can't function properly. what you've seen again and again and again is from the president, from others on his team, for me, is a rejection of the assertion by analysts and reporters that this is a zero-sum game or for political reasons that somehow there's benefits politically out of a shutdown, were so many people are hurting in the economy is hurting. we reject that. it's not the way the president views it and it's not the way anybody here tuesday. >> does it change the way considered last week he called in each of the groups from congress and things began to start moving after speaker boehner was here. as you know from covering here, past presidents have had regular leadership meetings on a regular basis. not just waiting for a crisis to happen. does the president said any change -- >> i didn't bring it to this briefing. i'm not sure if you were here,

right read at least some of the multitude of meetings and dinners and conversation the president had with republican lawmakers this year and the chief of staff is that with republican lawmakers. the president was well reported by many of you come to begin his second term embracing the idea that more direct engagement with lawmakers of both parties was worth the effort. he has done it throughout the year in hopes that he can work together with willing republicans to find compromise, specifically on budget issues, but not just budget issues. national security issues and many others. he is going to continue that. you know, you would have to ask leaders in congress about what led to the ultimate decision to pass bills that reopen the government and extend the debt

ceiling. i think again since this was a wholly unnecessary shut down and flirtation with default, there's a lot of questions about why that is pursued and how we ended up where we were. the president's position never change. it never changed in a single one of the meetings he had with republicans here. speaker of the house or others. he was asking nothing in return for the simple action by congress and during its job of keeping the government open and spending levels have been accepted by both parties and promoted by republicans and for filling congress' responsibility should make sure the united states could pave those. he took that approach not just in the last week sturdiness, but from the beginning. i think it's instructive to remember the president made clear back in december 2012, december 19.

he said i put forward a very cruel principle. i will not negotiate about the debt ceiling. we are not going to play the same game that happened in 2011, which was usually distract it. hurt our economy, provided more searching due to the business community than anything else that happened. on january 1st, when the so-called fiscal cliff was averted and legislation was passed that locked in tax cuts for middle class americans and raised rates for the wealthiest of americans. he said and i quote, one last point i want to make, which would suggest it is very much on his mind, while i would negotiate over many things, i will not have another debate with this congress or whether or not they should pay the bills they've racked up in the laws they pass. so there was a relative simplicity to the position the president took on the wishes are not asking for anything in return. congress not to do its job and

not harmed by shutting down the government are threatening to fall. >> looking for lessons learned. >> i think the lesson the president has learned throughout this process is the value of the full faith and credit of the united states is so high that we cannot mess around with it. he anything learned that lesson to the 2011 process and believes -- [inaudible] >> i think you're misunderstanding the lesson. the lesson was we can't have what happened in 2011 happen again. we checked into a cycle of washington with the opposition -- that we didn't because the opposition party no matter who's president in the party is the opposition party can't imagine that it's profitable to make policy or

political demands in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, i.e. agreed to pay the united states, threatening to default if you don't get what you want. allowing that cycle to repeat itself and embed itself in the way business is done here in washington would be hugely on perhaps permanently damaging to our economy. the president felt strongly we could not let that happen. >> mark moeller. >> i understand that president obama doesn't want to say that he won, but behind closed doors, would he admit that he stood up against duffers to be given on obamacare the republicans weren't able to force an out of this position? in that sense, wouldn't you say he won a standoff? although i understand why you don't want to be seen --

>> is not about being seen. but think that's how we where he view it behind closed doors. if that is when income is not worth winning at the harvest under the american people in the american economy, he doesn't want that. he does believe absolutely that he took the correct position and assisting that no ransom should ever be paid in return for congress not defaulting by any president of either party or any future party. so he does believe that was the right position to take an array position to to take for our economy and the american people. but he takes no pleasure in the fact that it took congress however many days, 16, 17 days to pass bills that could have passed in september and had they

done so would've averted all the damage done to our economy and the middle-class, to our small businesses. >> can you elaborate on the very firm no president obama give us money wiped out the door last evening to breanna's question about what way does he think he may go through this again in january? via so he sure that he turned around and said no when asked that question? >> because he believes to this experience, many folks here in washington right eyes at the outcome here was again good for no one and in particular, not good for the american people or the american economy and that he believes it is an optimist to be sure, but he believes that insight will prevail when it's necessary to make sure that government functions are funded properly in the future and that

the proper actions are taken to make sure the u.s. treasury can always pay our bills on time. ..