many of which you had to face. [applause] let me thank you him for joins us. i think he hit on many key points on bringing it back to the u.n. role in many important crises facing us right now. i appreciate his comments. ..

>> i am thinking what is happening in washington is our own governments. president obama has played a next role in how he is asserting u.s. leadership. we have talked about the importance of diplomacy. but in the way that it played out in the area, there is an element of coercive diplomacy. i would like you to comment with use of force in getting action and getting states to act under

that make a difference in moving the parties along on this hearing? but more generally, i would like you to say a little bit more about what you're reading is of the u.s. role. we have rising powers that are warning of a bigger voice and we did not talk about the u.n. security reform and that is essentially a question for the member states. but i would like you to comment a little bit about that being role in the united states. please talk about that. >> thank you, i appreciate you having me. i hope that i'm not disclosing too much of i say that be collective pose, it is in fact growing and it is possible that the developments have played a role in this regard. and i wanted to say to you that

i spent -- i wasn't only an exchange student, i was ambassador for five years and i have been working in the united states so long that the commitment of the united states is actually crucial for the health of our organization and therefore it made the point that i would claim that the work that we did is in the national interest of every country. and this includes solutions for this issue in a number of other issues and and i would say also the larger countries sure the logic of the goal of these global operations and i realize that it's almost impossible to

think about things like migration requirement and i would hope that this would be realized. of course they are like the other for that realize what a tremendous responsibility and if they have been given by having the security. and i would hope that that would be part of this and more and more it would become a body where you negotiate. were become up with a solution in the end. we also hope that they will take more of the direction of prevention and that it is to act on threats. what is a threat? it is before. that usually we get there when the houses in full fire and we

have a match. so there should be a culture of prevention that would revitalize the security council. you are right that when i was president of the general assembly, it was one of the most difficult items to get the security council reform and there are many nations would say that this is a reflection of 1945 today and some of the emerging powers at play as well. and with the use of force as well. without chapter seven, it cannot be effective. i think the best use of force is incredible threat of the use of force. and it comes from a united

significance. if it is more problematic if it comes from only one or two in the security council, then he will have an action outside of the council. to show that the security council can be unified, we will probably have a positive effect to agree to the solutions according to chapter six. >> building building on that same theme, and we covered a lot of ground on syria, and i'm glad that we did because it is a pressing concern, there is a concept wrapped up in what we see in syria right now, and it has been a very important sign of progress as you talked about in international interest to protect. and adopted by all member states at the head of 2005 and used for the intervention in libya that has been very controversial and

the syrian people are the victim of that circumstance. what is the feature of this doctrine and how do you see it playing a role going forward? because certainly there will be the next crisis and it will look something like syria. for some government is not protecting its own people and the international community is called. >> i am very proud to be president of the general assembly. i missed out on the 16th of december and i think it is a great step forward. in the wider context, i would put it in the context of this part of the decoration that i will paraphrase, that there is no peace without development. there is no development without peace. and there is no lasting peace without respect to human rights and the rule of law.

for the international system to work, you have to peace development and you have to deal with it at the same time. you have to have a lack of prosperity. so that is a basis. so here's attention in this organization. we have a principle of solvency. and the paradox is sometimes international law with us in the position where solidarity has to stop at a border with those in need. so when you mention this is a concert in the early '90s, it is an infringement of sovereignty and it is going to be a political trojan horse by the western powers.

when we created it, we had to be a part of this. but now it's a stroke of genius. commissions and those in new zealand or australia, some of those have said that if sovereignty is so important, wouldn't that imply that you had an obligation to make sure that your own population is not subject to ethnic genocide and mass killing. sovereignty is unimportant. but if you accept that, then you have to answer the second question, what happens if you do not guarantee that security. and back in 2005, it is very difficult to follow this second paradox and it is at its worst.

on a collective basis which i do not mind, it is back here. but we have established a principle in the states are responsible. and syria is of course a constant reminder. but i was taking part in that and i came to the conclusion that this is part of it. >> there were only one or two individuals and we have to put strong emphasis on prevention and then of course spread the word because they have the prime responsibility. >> can i come back to the reforming and yummy thoughts on the issue? >> well, the veto right is

written into the charter. so we have a lot of the chances to change abolishing the veto and it is an unrealistic proposition. so the others have to include this veto. there have been several proposals would new zealand and others and they came up with a proposal that every time a veto is cast it should be reported but we should have an excuse of a situation where a veto is cast. we have more interest as a negotiating body that they have this veto as a last resort and they should negotiate. and this includes working like

the catholic church when they select popes. it's like at the chapel and then when the smoke comes up, there is and i say that this -- unfortunately for too long we had cold war impulsive and the vetoes were automatic. and i think we have a situation between the united states and russia. there is more of a negotiation. >> i'm glad you raised the issue of human rights throughout your comments and it's something that if you step back and actually look at what is being spent, it's one of the three main pillars at the u.n. but it only gets about 3% of the u.n. budget and i'm wondering. you know, we have had some dramatic reform and getting to

the human rights council and it has proven to be more active than the commission and a number of independent experts were deployed exactly as he said and they have provided this early-morning facility. should we have any hope that the member states are willing to put more money behind human rights pillar of united nations? >> i was mentioning the work that we were doing in the conclusions from this or later tragedy of 2009. i think that there were three conclusions. we have to improve and strengthen the human rights pillar and in my view there is need for a stronger presence and we need to better integrate these three pillars to see if they work and we also need to be better at protecting all provisions of the bill to listen to early warning signals of human rights.

and this is severely affected. no need to work speedily and change this with a complete development team and we didn't have the flexibility to change our presence in the field. so i think that we are moving in that direction. and we have seen this as a universal obligation and this is a universal declaration of human rights and i think we have to be very careful to make sure that the human rights complex is universally accepted. we have to also be a part of this and i'm very glad that we have so many countries in latin

america and asia and africa who really are behind us to make sure that it becomes universal. but the most interesting factor that i'd like to mention is that there is a concept that is revitalized, which is the rule of law and it is anticorruption and women's rights and children's rights and the rule of law is to me, a door that can open up to human rights when i talk about it with, we are talking about the institution and the sustainability of the rule of law. countries fall apart sometimes because there's no institution. look at afghanistan and look at smaller. some have the same character and institutions play enormously

important part. sweden was one of the country's eight years ago and three things happened in the '30s. building up a good of a structure, a strong education system and institutions and these are the things that have built our country and therefore i think institution is part of the rule of law and it is so important. and that quality development is very important. >> when we open the floor now. we have a couple of questions, and the label then we will come back to the deputy secretary-general. gentleman in the middle by the aisle. >> thank you. i'm from the university of wisconsin and am wondering if recent statements that we have seen in kenya about a possible

withdrawal might signal perhaps unraveling of some global organizations and that is just a political statement? >> in the front row here? >> thank you very much. i read the mitchell report and the like to ask the deputy secretary-general and a question that comes from one of your opening remarks about the global logic of our time. expand a bit on the question that ted asks you about the security general in the security council itself. we could please broaden out. in 1945, the global logic of our time led us to create three

institutions that have played an enormous role in an important role in global relations. now there is a new global logic of our time as you and the ranking member describe it. and i'm wondering if you could do two things. i'm wondering if you could flush out a little bit and try to give us some sense of specificity about the elements of the global logic of our time are. given that it has led the imf to give some institutional changes and doctor kim is at the world bank doing the same, i'm wondering if it calls upon the u.n. to do something along those lines. >> i saw one hand in the back. >> thank you very much. i'm part of the migration policy institute and i'm so pleased to

hear you mention migration in the context of the 2015 agenda because almost no one else does and i wonder if you could share with us what you think the u.n. has to offer on that subject in the last two weeks that we have seen 400 people dying in the mediterranean because of the lack of an effective migration regime. but is that a u.n. institution able to help with this? >> thank you very much. >> well, there is -- there is a situation now which is causing concern and that is that several african nations are reacting to the fact that africa and african leaders of the object of the icc. what we should remember is that

four of the cases involved are brought to the icc by african states themselves and to them by the security council. but it has become more dramatic after the fact that two people were going to hearings and became president and vice president of kenya. and there has been many discussions about where we can find pragmatic ways of hearing them in their own countries where the neighboring countries there was any reaction from the can and also some other states in africa but the sitting heads of state should not be prosecuted. this is problematic.

anyone who has been in this process should you go through this thread that there was a solution adopted last week along these lines and we have suggested to our friends to bring up this issue with the assembly in its meeting in december to go through whether there are changes made in their own statue to be brought through. i don't know to what extent that can be done. there is not a mass walkout, unfortunately. but we are concerned that this takes place because of accountability for the kind of work that has to be adopted and accepted by all member states. so it is now a challenge and it

takes up a lot of time and effort. so it is -- you know, i think that we have probably reached a state where we have a close cooperation between the united nations and the world bank particularly. and this includes worlds coming together in a great way and pieces translated into a very ambitious agenda. we are working with them on a number of issues and they visited the great lakes region in africa and we are also working on things like the rule of law and things that have

given us something that is very much a u.n. activity on the development side. there has to be a connection between humanitarian relief and development. it is not enough and you have to help them with crowded schools and we have worked now in this way. but my view is that the global logic of our times -- i could spend an hour on us. i won't, but the thing is that if you come to the conclusion that you're going to do it together, you look at the enormity of the tasks. you realize that the world they cannot do it come in the united nations cannot do it. and what is the problem and you

ask yourself, this is today's problem. and you need them not only to have the rule of law, but you also need to workout and sometimes expectations are too high on the u.n. and in some cases, the u.n. can sometimes be a capitalist where you can be a part of doing the job. and plus if we don't have the help with the world bank and so forth, not only the private sector of technology and training and innovation, we need the civil society and many of you have a background with creating an enormously important

road in the academic educations and we thank you. including each and every one of you. nobody can do everything, but everyone can do something. and it is part of this hopelessness of the situation is so difficult. including turning off the television and it doesn't work. you have to divide up a part to play in that international division of labor and a system of this and this is my take on the global logic. >> well, there are a couple of issues i have been asking for

that we should learn more about and we have the first dialog. and of course it is a huge issue in the developing systems. the political explosive nature and many countries where you have people in them, the tragedy and situation of the qualities is demonstrated through the second disaster and i was part of the european commissioner. and i was feeling part of the general assembly and i suggested a moment of silence and there

has to be action taken. but if we don't take into the migration dimension, we do a major mistake. so i hope the member states will build a nonissue because we cannot connect that. i think that this is growingly a part of focusing more on the organization which is a potential and they promise. it is mostly known the big cities. and that is where you have problems with sanitation and no infrastructure and poor people moving into poor countries and big cities. and so this is another issue that we need to focus on. one issue which i think is

disregarded is the role of organized crime related to drugs and innocent arms transfer and trafficking and what is now here in cybersecurity and opening for organized crime. >> yesterday on political finance, we just issued this and its impact on democracy in latin america. one of the comments made in this is what needs to be done and that we need to do that here. one of my heart, thank you for the comments because i found them to be not only thoughtful, but really inspiring. and i think that when we talk about the global logic we also have to think about it in terms of leadership and i think what

we have heard today is a global leader for our times. please join me in thanking you. [applause] [applause] >> i was inspired by tom when he said that i had tried to prove that diplomacy counts and i was a visiting professor at the university before projected into the job and is challenged by my colleague and has a great research. he said can you list the reasons you fail or succeed in negotiations and diplomacy. because we need to be more systematic about how we succeed or fail.

and we have negotiated six different crisis is a months of the equivalent. and i came to form conclusions as to why you fail or succeed on the first one is how you use your language. if you look at your own life, what is most important as well is your spoken word and trim work or your most important work and how do we take care of that, how much can we twisted turnaround and it will help you manage the program better. and how much we have a strong

statement with part of the markings and to misuse a word is part of that. the second reason to fail or succeed is a very simple thing intermediation and it is also timing. we sometimes offer do things too late and what we have done things too early. we need to think about this in the genus is when it comes to timing is children. including raising an allowance on monday morning on her way to work, friday night. and the third reason is cultural sensitivity.

the importance of respecting culture through the traditions is actually crucial and not in a manipulative way, but just in pure curiosity and interest in openness and recognizing the quality of people and the nation's and this includes personal relations. the most important information is trust. be truthful and be exact in the recording to create that relationship. when you meet a university class, will help your life enormously and build upon that. i cents goes back so many years and we have been in contact and

have to find each other and this is part of a group of ambassadors at the end of the cold war. we are still a group of friends that have addresses in the inside pocket and remember that personal relationship that is important. and i was inspired by tom to say that as well sumac thank you. [applause] >> thank you. if you could please take your seats. >> for guys like us who have been in the game for a long time, we already know that there are landmines out there and that you have to be careful about how you manage your way through these things. and issues to deal with the abortion issue in the united

states, guns, race, arab and israeli relations and i have worked with cartoonist in other countries and they have their own red lines that they have to be aware of and also did away with this in san francisco might be a way to get away with it that is different in alabama. >> i think if you are conservatives and that is reflected with one as well. it is generally not a conservative thing and they tend to draw this, people that are more liberal. >> they see the bad news is good for cartoons because it gives us a lot to go on. but i would rather work harder and have less bad news and know where you're going in the right direction. but i think that we are not going in the right direction right now, so i feel very much like a real calling to get my opinions out there. >> this weekend it is not all

fun and games for editorial cartoonists. hear why at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2 booktv on the life of the outlaw jesse james and the infamous discussion saturday evening at 7:45 p.m. and on american history tv, a look back at nixon and the saturday night massacre at 1:00 p.m. >> so much has been written about the decline and has been to look at what conservatives did to the liberals. and it sort of takes all agency away from liberals. so the premise of the book is to look at what the liberals did to cause their own decline and essentially what historians now consider a part of this.

american liberalism born and coined by franklin roosevelt and we talk about federal activism and executive led federal government working for problems to solve and not just solving problems that come to the door of the white house. this emanates from the new deal, which is a response to the emergency of the great depression. and the problem is for american liberalism at that time, and for john kennedy, to update it for an age of affluence and it was no longer the immediate postwar era and the liberal project of the early 1960s and how do you update liberalism when you don't have the depression of joseph stalin. >> more on american history tv

looks at the literary life of erie, pennsylvania, saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5:00 o'clock on c-span3. >> president obama met with italian prime minister to discuss the economy and nato operations in afghanistan. [applause] >> it is wonderful to welcome the gentleman to be over office. we have had a chance to get to know each other over the last several international summits that we have attended. and i could not be more impressed with the prime minister's integrity and ultimate end i want to congratulate him in a vote of confidence in passing the budget and it's clear that italy is

moving in the right direction and stabilizing the finances and embarking on the forms and we spent a lot of times discussing the importance of european growth. with high unemployment, particularly high youth unemployment and the challenges that have been created since 2008. as well as the challenges within the euro zone. i think it is important for all of us to coordinate in the united states has a great history in europe. if europe is doing well, we are doing well also and we discussed how we could partner on a strong growth agenda and part of that growth agenda is the transatlantic partnership

agreements and trade agreement that we are trying to shake tween the european union and the united states and we have had several meetings as well. and this includes a strong proponent of what is a very important trade relationship between the united states and europe. given the fact that he will be a ascending to european commission, it is a great opportunity for his leadership to insert itself during negotiations and we also talked about our security cooperation and italy has been an outstanding partner. and issues ranging from libya to syria to counterterrorism efforts and consistently has been a strong partner and an outstanding post to our men and women who serve in the region. so we think the italian people as well as strong support there.

and we agree that we want to continue to work with other partners to strengthen the libyan government and there is enormous potential and hope for the libyan people. what they need now is a government that is automatically included and can provide the basic security as well as the basic services that will help the libyan people achieve that potential and i think that we shall use an interest in finding ways in which we can help bolivians move forward. with respect to syria, we have been pleased to see not only the u.n. resolution, but also the concrete efforts to get chemical weapons out of syria. and italy has been supportive and we both believe it's important to build off that

success, or at least that good start to talk about the humanitarian suffering in the syrian people are experiencing and it really has been a contributor there and we want to partner with them to find ways to not only relieve the suffering, but to implement a political transition. we want to allow people to return to their homes amid the killing that has taken place there. we have a chance to also talk about afghanistan and italian troops have been extraordinary in their efforts in helping to create an afghanistan that is secure and safe for the afghanistan people and we have talked about how well our military coordinates with each other and the genuine

partnership that has been created and we have reaffirmed our commitment to make sure that when we have this at the end of 2014, that we are in a position to leave behind an afghanistan that has a strong professional service that has a government that is meeting its obligations to all its peoples, including all the groups and women and others who have started to see greater freedoms over the past several years. i would like to again say to the italian people and to the prime minister that we are grateful for your friendship and i think everyone understands the closeness of italy and the united states and a friendship

between leaders and also because of the incredible history between our two countries. italians and americans have helped make america what it is. and this includes a bond that will never go away and hopefully will continue to be strengthened during the time that you and i have a chance to work together. the last point i would like to make is the prime minister is from tuscany from pisa and he has extended the invitation to come visit and eat some very good food. [laughter] abramoff i will be able to take as much time that i want while i am still president, but having

been to test me before i am president and seeing how spectacular and wonderful it is, i told the prime minister that he will not have to twist my arm to try to get me to come to tuscany again. sometime in the near future. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much. of course, the invitation to tuscany is for whenever you want, florence, pisa, luca. i'd like to congratulate president obama for yesterday's success. it is his success and is also our success. because yesterday's decision was very important for the stability in the markets and the world in europe and italy. we need stability and low interest rates and we have the

lowest interest rates initially sends two years ago. and that was a very important achievement in the fact that we have to continue that and we need to have an alliance with growth and next year italy will be the president of the european council for the second semester to start the new european logistics. austerity without growth is a big problem for us and this is why we have passed a budget. a budget with a budget under control -- with the debt decreasing in public spending decreasing and families and

entrepreneurs for many years. it's very important to continue on having the budget under control and we need to include a start with the italian presidency, the european council, it will be based with growth and of course it is one of the most important achievements in my dream would be to sign this agreement together before the end of next year and before the end of the italian presidency next year. it is important that we have to fight against protectionists both with the g8 and the g20 meeting and we have very important common positions and fiscal invasions and fiscal

havens against protection and it is so important. for this, i have tried to present to president obama all of the concerns about the situation and the migration problems and of course the mission and the military mission and italy raised. because we do not want to have this as a debt and it has to be a sea of life. and of course we have a problem of failed states in africa and we have to help them and libya of course. we have to work together on syria to assess the revolutionists as possible and of course, there are work will be altogether and so i will

think president obama's words about afghanistan, of course. and the joint commitment is very important for establishment of the area. so i am very glad for the words. but i'm very glad for yesterday's result. it's very important for our future and the future of friendship and cooperation and the next european legislation has to be a legislation of growth. as italians we will work very hard in reaching this goal because growth, and first of all jobs for you, that is my mission, it is our mission. and we will work together on that. thank you.

[inaudible question] >> thank you everyone. >> coming up, a discussion about the obama administration's dealing with the press and a look at the housing market and mortgage industry. leader u.n. deputy secretary will speak to us. tomorrow a senior member of the syrian opposition will be at the johns hopkins school of international studies to talk about the state of conflict in syria and a planned peace conference. watch it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> during the depression she was thought to be out of touch with the people. after her death, it was discovered that she provided financial help to hundreds of americans in need and never cashed the checks of those who paid her back. watch the program on first lady lou hoover on c-span. live on monday night, arsenic

content series continues. >> this is eleanor roosevelt typewriter and this is where she wrote her columns. what i have here is the original draft of the con that i want to share. this first one is actually her first column and sets the tone for it to follow. so we are talking about the comings and goings as they are getting back to the regular schedule after the holiday season. this clipping is one from november 6, 1940, election day and she talks about how tonight a larger crowd than usual came in and the president went out to greet them and this was a tradition on election night. they would gather around and wait for the results and they would march down in the and the president come out and read everything. >> first lady eleanor roosevelt at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. also on c-span radio and

c-span.org. >> a new study by a former "washington post" editor and a committee to protect journalists are used in its dealings with the press, saying that they lacked transparency. a panel discuss the study's findings and this is one hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hello and welcome to a new america. i am the managing editor, which means that i edit the weekly magazine and i'm here to welcome you to the event. the obama administration and the press in post-9/11 america. if you haven't had a chance to see this report as i have, it made we want to rename the group community protection services, because it's all about

attacking. it is our lifeblood and if they come to the source, we better speak. and it is a bleak picture including the u.s. attorney in chicago, patrick fitzgerald, who put a lot of individuals a way who were investigating. we came here sort of blankley asserting that journalists can be witnesses to a crime, which puts us as a target in the crosshairs. it's a great report. thank you for coming. his fellows will have a discussion for it and we're pretty excited to have them. one bit of business also is that we are being broadcast by c-span. please be sure you have a question to wait for the microphone and speak into the microphone. and now, our moderator with the privacy practice.

he gave us a briefing yesterday which was helpful. in his past he represents a media coalition advocating for a federal bill. take it away. thank you. >> thank you. let me just say it's a great honor to be here along with these experts. i think i'm the only person on the panel that i've never heard of. [laughter] >> let me give you a brief overview. this is a panel that no one needs introductions but we do it anyway. to my left is the professor of journalism at the cronkite school of arizona state. very well-known to this audience where he was executive editor from 1991 to 2008 of "the washington post" and spent 44 years in "the washington post" newsroom. my apologies. joel simon is next. he is the executive director of

the committee, which is the organization that published this exceptional report. since his appointment as executive director in 2006, he has led the organization with expansion, including launching a global campaign and establishing a program and spearheading efforts in digital space. finally to his left is an individual that is very well-known to this audience with a long-standing work for "the washington post" who is currently a senior correspondent at "the washington post" and also the author of imperial life in the emerald city, a best-selling book which became the basis for the movie the green zone, a terrific piece of

work in film and on paper and he has been part of a journalist at the international reporting project at the johns hopkins school in washington. today i would like to start off by asking him if he would give an overview of what we are discussing. >> i will do that. i want to say quickly about the question and the subpoena was brought up just yesterday or the day before, james ricin in "the new york times" lost his appellate court case and to not have him be forced to testify by a source -- it's in the report we find his name. you will see she was up to the point of the achille court decision which has gone against him and will probably go to the supreme court, which will probably be a major test of relationships between reporters and sources on what kind of lives they had and

that case my be different than it is now. so that could be a very important supreme court case. i was asked to do this report because i've written a couple pieces in "the washington post" late last year in may of this year. about the obama administration's war on leaks. the aggressive way they have been going after individuals, particularly if we classify the information, but not exclusively. and so that was asked by the committee to explore the relationship between the obama administration to us in the context of the kinds of work that the journalists are doing worldwide about the relationships between governments and the press and the protections of the press is right to work. and i was very surprised because

it went way beyond the war and a lot of other areas, which i found this administration to be remarkably controlling and i will tell you how that happened. he reported my findings were based on several dozen interviews with news executives and government transparency advocates and government governed officials. the committee to protect journalists, i think those are the most complete that anyone else has come up with. during both the obama administration and the patriot act and national security agencies with the surveillance program. in summary, if the obama administration has an aggressive war on leaks and it has information that the news media needs to was accountable for the

actions, without equality, and in direct conflict with president obama's often stated goal making things transparent in american history. i'm old enough that i was one of the editors on the watergate story in the early 1970s, so i have made that comparison of knowledge. so there are six components to what i found. first is an unprecedented number of prosecutions, along with the concerns about the nsa surveillance program. the obama administration officials and employees are afraid to talk to the press and every single journalist i've i talk to say that is the case, whether or not they reveal classified information and especially if it involves classified information. to government contractors have been prosecuted since 2009 with weeks of alleged prosecution of

the press it has been done under 1917 espionage act during world war i to punish people and we are getting ready to prosecute under that act. and we have this through 1917 through 2009. and this is probably the most frightening thing for government officials. the justice department and the successful e-mail telephone traffic and supporters of news organizations include fox news and the associated press. and we have guidelines of subpoenas that are an outcry, but they still allow the attorney general to refuse to notify the news media by

communications records and also containing any information with what is harmful to national security and that is a big loophole in the news recently approved by a senate committee in a also has a similarly broad exception.

mid as a result they said many will no longer talk to them at there have a rot of investigations that -- routinely lie detector test given the government officials drn -- and reporters naturally don't want to get in trouble. number got insider threat program. the wick wick key leeks -- insider threat program throughout the government. not many people know about this. employees of all federal departments and agencies have been ordered to monitor and report. is one of the leading government transparency advocate in washington. told me it created internal surveillance, and made people

conscious in context of the public advocate in the press. the third issue the obama administration centralize all incoming administration want to try to control the me age for political advantage. senior officialses in this administration have called what they call unauthorized context -- [inaudible] discouraged. reporters are most often referred to publishing affairs officials are unresponsive. if they fail to discourage stories they don't think they like they refute and provide publish information and have a right to that. the government transparency that president obama repeatedly promised turned out to be a sophisticated public relations strategy during the presidential

campaign. white house activity. mrs. produced video and even a full newscast. one of my favorites about administration activities that are closed to journalist and the white house present the speeded news coverage of the same events. and post by obama aids on twitter, facebook, and other special media. the school of public media and public affair told me that the enrings is using social media to -- [inaudible] open dialogue with the public without good he said i agree

with that. but used for propaganda purpose and avoid contact with journalists it's a slippery slope. the fourth issue is a -- a normal -- it turns out information is classified. system of the documents exploiting the surveillance program. it it only sell only after revolution by the press on stories on documents leaked by snowden. the administration habit acted on a -- by a con tbreggally authorized board which recommended many specific steps to take to carry out the president's --

the obama administration said little progress on another one of the' first problem. the directive issue on the first day in office of january of 2009 to improve government -- they reject too many requests. or demand expense toif fulfillment. an associated press survey earlier this year found a number of foia request which were turned down for national security or internal administration deliberation that had actually increased during the obama administration. more than 80 prominent organizations that advocate for increased government transparency in the last week of washington to work on new recommendation in the obama

administration to how to finally make it work better for the public. u talked to some of the leaders they are worried about whether the administration will even listen to the recommendations. the fifth issue, the whistle-blower. president obama also said he supports encouraging and protecting government whistle blowers who reveal bureaucratic waste, fraud, and abuse. they draw a distinction between that and a revelation about the policies and action which they punish -- investigations by constitution. president obama signed the why l blower act of 2012 along with a policy directive aimed at protecting from retaliation all those including intelligence ago employees. at the same time they wanted appeal yat court decision that take away from many and designated national security the right to appeal it by the other agencies, which of course

retaliation for whistle blowers. lead the president's real position on whistle blowers l blowing. l.a. -- lastly the international implications. in addition to the threat posed by n sergeant a surveillance, which of course an american reporter for american said they can't sign the communications on the nonamerican citizen. four america reporter. the press policy provide a questionable example for other countries at the time when the administration has been outspokedly advocating for internet freedom in the rest of the world. president obama faces challenge during remaining time in office, obviously. the outcome of which will save the legacy. one 0 jective he could establish

without outside is fulfilling the first problem. the administration the most transparent in history by opening the -- thank you so much. i would like to invite anyone tweeting about our discussion to you the #-- [inaudible] and thank you for the customer. -- summary. it's a terrific work. it seems to me it hold together to a fabric that i did closes a lot about the administration. we start by asking for many years there seem to be a time between government and the press in that we recognize the government has secret to keep and tries as hard as they could to keep them. we try to get them. the one news worthy and relevant we publish them. it seems in your report you talk about the administration that has stepped over a line between those two areas and essentially

chilling the ability of any of this member to -- >> right. two historical things. three historical things to say about this. first of all, the disby the supreme court, which made a prior restraint vurm virtually impossible. if you're an administration you can't -- you can only punish in our sources after words. it's important to keep in mind. secondly, 9/11. a lot of attitudes changed after 9/11. and including i live with that balance with the bush administration when we published stories that required a lot of conversation from the administration officials whether we can publish the story. a conversation were useful. and they continue during this administration but in a somewhat

different atmosphere. the third is when obama administration came in to office they were put under great pressure by intelligence agency they were upset by the previous story. then i should say both democrat and republicans on the hill and the intelligence community and raise -- but also i believe that the president itself not really spoken about the threat. and president i.t. has a rather -- he said something to put our boys at risk. but at the same time i think he has a strong -- >> with a do 0 you think of the explanation? pretty compelling. >> it is most certainly and, you

know, the point he make particularly as an editor of with a we're seeing the publication of some of these stories over time. you look back at the cia of the story. you look back at the new york thyme's reporting on wiretapping. and the bush administration's responses to those. as well as the decisions and discussions that lead up to the publication of the story. particularly how previous administrations have responded to stories they have liked, they have thought have comprised in their view national security. yet in most other cases, in previous administrations, there have been expressions of, you know, discuss, if you will, there have been some investigations. but nothing of the sort we are

seeing now. you look at the investigations that have taken place over recent years, and you compare them to some of the previous stories, it seems like it's petty ante stuff. going after tom drake at the nsa which you write about. or even the verizon case. in the grand scheme of things. those -- if you talk to national security experts, those stories did not have a meaningful impact on american national security. yet those are some of the cases being pursued or have been pursued in recent years with particular figures. 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 proceeding decades. >> you could argue these were classic whistle blowers. >> indeed. >> it was about whether or not

the nsa was too expensive or protect the privacy. it wasn't about the content whatsoever. >> an and argument frank makes or made was the document -- were naturally funded by documents. they sort of went out and the case eventually fell apart. yes. what i want to do is obviously significant contribution is seen the attention has gotten and i think that, you know, some of these obviously investigations are aware of them. people are aware of the policy by putting them all together suggests that this was not a haphazardly to particular event. there was a systemic effort here to marginalize and undermine the work of the press. and i think that is what the report really accomplishes. what i want to do is is also talk about what we undertook the cig can of that.

since 1981. we started as a u.s. journalist focus mostly on the sort of life and liberty, if you will of journalist around the work who work in the press of dangerous environment and fear for their lives when they do a story. and the frame work of which it was founded was recognition that we have journalists in this country the unique protection of the first amendment. throughout our history, particularly in earlier the organization we focus on those kind of front lines reporting effort. but, you know, the recent events in it country and also our conversations with journalist covering the information lead us to conclude that was the at fear was fundamentally different. it had --

potentially on journalists around the world for a number of reason. one is you get -- colleague from, you know, the u.s. -- world pots reports so any erosion of an impact oning information available everywhere. secondly, the u.s. -- and other journalists around the world. so they are threatened by erosion. and thirdly because government from any key or it your ration in the freedom standards and potential cover to take reprezzive action on their own. so we saw the pattern and asked them to carry this, to do this -- and we asked him do. it and we provided some research support. we helped edit. obviously we reviewed it. these were -- and then we took the report and

reviewed it both among our staff and that provided remitses based on the -- that's not -- [inaudible] >> pretty remarkable organization that normally devotes, you know, resources and still does to, you know, investigating and seeking action jowrnltists murdered if the philippine or journalists jailed in zimbabwe. for them to want to devote resources to shining light on these issues and the thoughtfully investigate them is a remarkable step for an international press freedom organization. >> really true and the obama administration has many administrations there's a lot on trying to promote reexpression in other country. >> absolutely. >> what do 0 you think that the type of issues that are -- due 0 our credibility. >> i think i remember we have

been advocating far long time president obama to raise directly with the prime minister -- of turkey concern about that country's record. the action of the -- any other country in the world, and turkey is a key strategic ally. t a deep relationship with the united strategic relationship. president obama and prime minister never wanted to establish a personal friendship. we have been advocating for some time that president obama interviewed directly with the prime minister as well. they had a biliteral meeting back in may. and i think the day before that meeting took place news about the future of the app phone records. >> now i don't know whether it was on the agenda that discussion. it might be unreasonably confident because if president

obama had raced that, thing he would have been very -- and the same happened with the nsa surveillance and the stated policy that president obama had articulated he was going or it more aggressive in challenging china on its government orgestrated packing surveillance program. whatever you want to call it. i don't hear that from this that. i don't hear that from that. i don't -- >> i should add that i don't know how many of you work for the government or worked for the government, the investigation, the constant pressure to stop leaks of any kind not just national security leaks. the constant pressure to not talk with reporters at all but the public affairs officer discourage the reporters writing stories and just the presence of the nsa surveillance which far are no example of american

sources or reporters having been -- the communications but it's at the exist en. all of those things combined have a tremendous chilling effect on government officials talking to the press. since the report comes out, i can stop by reporters at "the washington post news room when i visited and said i wish i talked to them. i have four other examples that keep -- don't keep -- the people in the report. but this is the daily life. trying to get government officials to talk to them who are afraid to talk to them. that's not the way it should be. >> there should be a link between the nsa program and the other sort of government surveillance pressure issues that come up and reporters not feeling comfortable sending an e-mail to a government source. let me ask the post had an exceptional story a few weeks ago about the effect of the investigation on the whistle blowers. and it was really sort of going up against the mechanism of the

united states government as one person can destroy lives even for those that the prosecution fell apart that could find. do you think that some of these early prosecutions that didn't see pointed toward true national security information that was damaged the united states were really done to make a point and to say this is what it happen to you. >> we don't know about that in term of the justice department. but we know because they said so that the intelligence community of looking for that previous direct from national intelligence in the beginning of the administrationet told "the new york times" on the record that this was his intention to get the justice department to prosecute the people so we would a chilling effect on the others. >> let me talk about thed inner threat program. is ha urban your discussion you can imagine how the government would have some sort of a program after the disclosure taken the scope of the

documents. just to put your arms around how -- it seems to have become something quite different. >> right. yes. it's the prcial directive that set up a program which they started rolling out late last year. did emphasize the national security aspect of it. then it was left up to each individual agency to decide how to carry it out. and the one of the news burrow in washington did a very good job of surveying various government agencies to see what how they were carrying this out. and a number of them made clear any kind of leaking to the press was the same as giving something to china, and also supposed to be honor -- honoring your fellow employees. monitoring the fellow employees. being unstable or anything like that. you are required to report that. you can get in trouble for not

reporting something else is doing you may find suspicious. anything do with national security matters.

necessary accountability fudges to our government. think back to we talk about overclassification as one of these problems. that is a problem right throughout our government. particularly the part of the government i cover. military and intelligence community and, you know, one way that people at all the levels are simply trying to defeat or impede freedom of information act asks is now routine correspondence.

impede the ability of people making legitimate request of government. and it also comes back to, you know, it's all about selective enforcement. there was a piece in just reported the other day off the, you know, the senate

intelligence committee in getting in wake of the administration's rules on reporting -- and their own purpose there is no sanction. i've been in the presence of numerous military senior officers who are showing classified slides because it is serving the administration's purposes. they are willing to drop it out. is it helpful to them. when they don't like it, of course, different rules.

they don't allow the government. the administration get out the story, the message and impeded from reporting other things. it's the tale two of scenarios. one is the national security scenario and the other, as you describe is the day-to-day business of the government. unless you got website and other british television news director here in washington said whenever he calls the white house we say go to the website and see what we put up on the website. that's you can have. you can have that video, photograph, that information. we're not talking to you.

your example about the epa how much was the epa does this. >> right. >> but try getting meaningful information out of that agency. >> i al found that something that really did alarm journalist of the jim rosen case. we had james and jim rosen case in short order. about the rosen case was the use of the term, you know, cospear or it in the espionage act or activities that are basic journalism. >> right. there was a technical legal reason for doing it. it was still very alarming. the administration repeatedly said the justice department glieppeds are not going prosecute the journalists for doing their job. that's their position ours. it's frightening to reporters there are reporters who strictly work the national security area that are worried about being vubl initial or taking

extraordinary measures e-mail all the way down try fog solve that as well. encription of e-mail and secret room where they do their work and so on. this is amazing. i also should point out in the jim case in the decision by the appeal yacht court judge -- also said could not have been committed without him. in order they are still treating him as well. >> something you see in term of the type of news gathering tech neejs that -- are we going back to -- arlington parking garage and not using these electronic tools that have been so useful in the past? >> you know, 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, you know, ink on paper. much, you know, only for completely routine not very sensitive stuff. even this case i'm not doing a lot of typing and putting stuff up on the cloud. i'm not keeping my most sensitive contact on the iphone or any sort of electronic base. and, you know, i have colleagues that go even further working on machines that have no internet connection working in rooms that are sort of the the journalist equivalent lent of -- to prevent outsiders from trying to identify sources. this is -- look, there's nothing that i'm working on and i think for many of my colleagues that, you know, if the government were to learn, you know, the substance of the story that i'm building, that's

fine. in almost every what is a legitimate well reason for communicating. it's not people seeking to burn down the government. it's not people engaging in a wholesale depth of information. they are talking about specific issues in a narrow circumscribed way because they either want to -- they believe policies fundamentally flawed. they believe there is an injustice that need to be addressed. we lose sight of this when we focus so much on manning or on snowden. the lion share of the cases don't involve individuals taking volume -- reames of documents and sharing

them with the world. it is more often an individual wanting to share a specific piece of information because they believe there is a compelling public interest in doing so. they're not doing this because they want to make money. they are not doing it because they want to aid the enemy. they want to help the united. >> when i was -- from an international perspective, as i pointed out, if you're a journalist outside the united a non-u.s. person. you have no legal protection from nsa intervention in your communication. we know or we don't know but it's certainly been reported based on snowden leaking. the piece of the nsa act as the internal e-mail. now they argue it's a special case but never the less they feel it was within their prerogative to do this. i have talked to editors, for example the editor of the garden

talking about, you know, she's does not communicate using e-mail with reporters. that does not feel secure doing this. and, you know, lot of journalists i talk to outside the united take extraordinary measure to ensure they can communicate securely. i think it's a real question in most essential thing element of certainly public accountability journalism depend on the ability that journalists be able to protect the identified of their -- a lot of journalists don't feel they can do that. >> journalists care about it. it's been interesting to learn many other countries have stronger sprexes --

protections or journalist in term of not requiring them to testify in court, for example. then even we have on the state side where we have a protection in most of our states. the u.s. is -- obviously we have the first amendment and the most -- probably the world's most protected environment of what you can say even say just about anything. but in term of protection against being subpoenaed, there are many other countries in the world that have stronger protections. the u.s. is not a leader in that regard. >> at this point there's no federal protection. right. >> only state by state which vary state by state. if you're subject to a federal investigate your subject is -- any shield law. >> which can be arbitrated. in fact in the district if you get a subpoena issued bit spreer --

superior court. it's a good one. if it's issued literally across the street from the federal court house you're looking at testifying or going to scrail. itst an arbitrary situation. >> yes, it is. >> even then the justice department guidelines have been -- you still general still have this intent involved because there's leeway there for the attorney general decision making and the national security caption they can still biand large do what they want. guidelines are are in fact they can be followed or not followed. t not enforcement by a reporter. you can't say to a court this subpoena needs to be -- correct. >> follow the guidelines. having a shield law seeps to me would be a step forward. >> it would be. >> why don't we talk about that for a moment. i know, you have had concerns about the definition of journalists which is something that is one of the reasons why we have never had a federal

shield law. it's difficult to define and more difficult in the past ten years. >> i look at this from a special perspective. i don't look from a u.s. speft. i look at this in the context of how radical technology has changed the way that journalism is conducted and, you know, i think that there is a very pragmatic -- which is that journalists can't do their work if they can't protect their source and a shield law will help them go that. and it will probably help, you know, most journalists who work for kay on traditional journalism except for the national security which is a separate matter. in term of the -- in term of in this country but even more so globally not all journalist will be covered. a lot of people who are engaged in journalism at this day in and age are doing it informally. they are observers to news

worthy event and documenting that news sometimes in the systemic way. and then disseminating that information to the public. or they're blogging about it but doing it informally. they're documenting event using video. so. journalists and the people we consider journalistsists in places like syria, china or vietnam or cuba or places where people are using new techniques to engage in the practice of journalism. certainly any definition of the shield law being contemplated in this country would exclude that. so we are advocating our recommendation recognizing that a shield law is helping the definition -- and to focus to the extent only the news gathering. rather than on credential and professional status or anything

like that. we think it would be the best approach. if the law did have the breadth you're looking for. it would be okay with the concept of that. >> right. >> okay with concept. and even, you know, frankly hedging a little bit. we don't -- we think a shield law is used. we're going monitor the debate and push to the end for a broadest. and the definition of one does seem to be difficult now. anyone literally anyone could be covered simply by starting a law. that would be difficult to imagine how congress pass the law. there's a bit of pragmatic -- >> it's a pray pragmatic. the balancing the kind of, you know, philosophical approach and some people who i greatly admire say we shouldn't have a shield law at all. the first amendment is the shield law and the first amendment -- [inaudible]

[laughter] we want journalists do their work. but we amounts lying to see. >> we did a hope that the person would be enough. >> how much do these sort of issues play in to your decision about whether to grant considerably to the source. if you look at now the uncertain environment we live in. does it make it less likely you would, you know, say yes i'll keep it confidential. or become a more difficult nuanced about what it means? >> you know, i probably this will make, you know, you the lawyer shudder a little bit. it may well make the post lawyers shudder.

i do -- i grant the confidently pretty liberally. that's what we have traditionally done. now we -- if anything the pressure against it over the past ten plus years and maybe even longer that that. it's one he would know in our news room about the threat of prosecution with more in term of desire for transparency with our readers. you want people to know as much as who is providing that information. and in some ways it's a response to government officials often wanting to speak about routine matter on backgrounds. a senior administration official as opposed to coming out. it is over the years created this viewrmt in washington that, you know, get the weather report from somebody with their name attached.

on background they're telling you it's raining this afternoon. [laughter] our pushback has been against that. now enter in now this new threat not the threat but the reality of investigations across particularly in the world they cover.

but certainly adding a lot more complications. in fact, the -- a lot more meetings with people at their homes or in, you know, coffee shops or bars as opposed to in offices communicating with people. personally not the government one because of the insider threat program. it's not just the nsa is the worry. it's any agency. their system are going through

these sort of issues in national security reporting across a variety of administrations, you

mentioned that this was the most secretive sense the nixon administration. how would you compare it to some of the ones in between say the bush administration or the second bush administration? as said. they weren't our friend. they weren't egger to have some of the stories we published to be published. by and large, first of all the access to sources is much greater than it is now. they succeeded in tightening up access to sours. and secondly, you could have productive conversations. i think productive is the word i used before. productive conversations with senior administration officials sometime the president of the united. which happened on one occasion. about whether or not it was a good dwrod publish the story about what the advocacy of the story and whether or not there was any sensitive information that could harm human life. i don't recall my time of 25 years of managing executor.

i don't recall not publishing a story that an administration objected to. i know, under a productive cfg we did withhold technical informing, names of things, countries of origin. that would harm national security but not deprive the reader of needing what they need tow about but at the same time it makes them feel more heroic,

if you will, when they know that otherwise not going to be able to get the information that wouldn't harm national security tout normal channels. able to add to a national debate over the role of the n sergeant a.

she was able to do the reporting we were able to put the picture together included the fact there was a lot of counterterrorism cooperation going within the eastern european countries where it was located that when the administration said please don't name the country. we knew why they were asking. and we could reason about it. we don't have want the cooperation cut off. we published the story and in a

way that is responsible. you start to cut off the avenue new.

poem think want to be blessed with somebody like snowden coming in. in most cases you build on the information. learning more. learning more. it would be in the public interest to help explain something and add to another piece to the puzzle. and so these are people of

october acting the out of a sen of a belief in our system and out of a desire to want to make the united better country. it's not an artistic behavior even though one could point to the higher profile cases and say and try to use labels like that. i think that on curs the reality behalf is happening in the lion's share of these interactions between journalist and sources. >> did you see a strong threat of patriotism? >> if the investigative persecuted for it i was struck by something you reported about

and so did "the new york times." of it in the same place. an investigation going on that had nothing do with the story.

they had contact with people being investigated by the fbi. and without complete violation of the justice department guideline, they secretly subpoenaed and seized the phone records and discovered by the fbi after words in the previous administration during the bush administration, and he called me and the editor of the "new york times" and they did it without

notifying ap in advance. if the justice department was contemplating it in a civil case, they or some other way they want to demand something from us. they call to say we are contemplating this and having negotiations. usually we were able to satisfy their law enforcement needs and our protection of our reporting technique.

you have been patient. i thought it would be a good moment to turn to the audience for questions.

to sort [inaudible] are you optimistic there's any other way to regain it to change the posture to be more cooperative or sort of an curve down? >> and unless there is an appeal to the better angel. he still has more than two years to carry it out. we're essentially appealing to the better nature to do what you said you were going to do. and repeatedly -- i want a transparent

administration. i want the prez to be able to hold us accountable. i think by proving it's not happened to him. i'm hoping it will -- thank you. >> to the front. >> thank you for bringing out the very important information.

with so many different websites and so you name it. >> right. good news and bad news. the bad news is the disruption of the economic model support lag sincerity journalist organization and struggling with that. and, by the way, the post is not now owned by amazon but jeff personally. therefore it's not a public company. which gives people a great more financial leeway in trying to deal with that particular issue. at the same time, there are people who started out for profit and non-profit all kinds of news organizations. the founder ebay announced he's going to start a new one from the edward snowden papers.

and so that a lot of the new start-ups are competing in that. and they are even though they have much fewer resource some are doing really good work. like public broadcasting. and so again a future in doubt as -- they going to be there. i think that's helpful too. they also collaborate with traditional. "the new york times," "the washington post have published a number of things that provided them by non-profit investigative reporting sites. which is very useful. to come back to the first part of your question. yes, some states are -- one of these non-profits is

called wisconsin watch. madison, wisconsin. and the state legislature tried to legislate them out of existence. they are officers ared in the university of wisconsin and some of the people running around the university of wisconsin faculty. somebody sneaked state budget aid prohibition again state funds or university funds being used to support it. finally after a big uproar vetoed bit governor. it shows that individual states are trying to get involved in managing the news as well. >> we need to get to the floor of the senate and the senate has got a lot going on.