job as president. 93% disapprove of his handling of the economy, 90% disapprove strongly of his handling of health care, 87% disapprove strongly on foreign relations, and maybe even on afghanistan, 63% disapprove strongly on that particular question. so almost across the board on all the obama questions. we had a whole bunch of feeling thermometer questions. obama,16 from the tea party on that 0-100, 0 being the coolest, that compares with 35 for establishment republicans. and if we go down the list, you can see very, very low ratings. but this number really stood out at us. michelle obama, for crying out loud, michelle obama, 28 from tea party republicans. so even the first lady who isn't even controversial, right? she can't even break 30 with the tea party republicans, and that compares with 45 for those

establishment republicans. tea party republicans were, however, favorable towards mitt romney, a 77. paul ryan, a 79. ann romney, 77. even george w. bush, 72. more favorable even than the establishment republicans. so this is consistent with the last paper that said, you know, as we got -- when they really had a rally behind their candidate, the feeling thermometer questions indicate that perhaps they did that. so whether those divisions are going to persist is when we looked add the media question. so i'm going to turn that over to jay morris. >> well, it's clear that there's a division on several issue positions and on how tea party versus establishment republicans view, um, certain candidates, certain issues. do they get their news from different sources, we already know through the research on partisan media that democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, get their news from very different sources in

today's fragmented media environment. when you look here just at tea party versus establishment republicans and where they get their news regularly, we can look at these several shows from fox news, and we could see a dramatic difference in tea party republicans, tea party members versus establishment republicans in whether or not they watch these fox news programs, and these are four of several fox news programs. regularly, the division is clear there. talk radio, nobody's surprised, i don't think. look at the bottom though. one part about the democrats, the very bottom in all things considered liberals versus moderates -- [laughter] okay, so the democrats also have their divisions, and i'm surprised there's 7% of the tea party that listens to all things considered. that's shocking. [laughter] >> by the way, it's worse with "the new york times," but we

didn't put up all the numbers, so if you guys want some more, we've got 'em. go ahead. >> we wanted to look at new media as well. because the advent of social, social networking platforms has allowed the rank and file members of the tea party to be able to express themselves. the era of one-way mass media is over. and that allows the tea party to voice their opinion. and how did the tea party assess -- or how did they make their views known in the twitter verse? we're not looking at facebook. facebook, i guess my students tell me, is already passe. so we're going the look at twitter. [laughter] so we want to look at the sentiments of the tweets from conservative-leaning posters. and does it reflect divisions

between those that post that are in the tea party versus those that post that are establishment republicans. so we did a content analysis of about a quarter million tweets with the following hash tags that you see at the bottom there. from october 1 through october 24th, we searched every tweet that hash tag top conservatives on twitter, hash tag gop, hash tag tea party. that gave us about four and a half million. we sampled it down, it got us to a manageable quarter million. then we looked at the entire sample we had over time from the 1st to the 24th, and you can see that our content analysis, which is looking at positive verse is us negative ratio in terms of the comments made in an individual tweet, you could see the top line is the positive to

negative ratio for mitt romney, and the bottom is barack obama. the mentions of either one of these candidates. and you can see that barack obama momentum vary too much. but it's much -- doesn't vary too much, but it's much low or than mitt romney. and you can see with the positive comments, the positive sentiment spiked after that first debate. you can see that conservative leaning twitter posters, they were excited. and they were posting positive things, and it dropped off. then you could see it spike again with the debates. that's the overall trend. but we're not interested so much in the overall trend of how conservative posters posted during october of the general election. we wanted to look at tea party versus gop, and here's where our findings overlapped with that of the previous discussion. if you look in the far-right column, the positive/negative ratio of positive to negative tweets, tea party versus gop, they were equally as negative

towards barack obama. it didn't matter if you hash tag gop or hash tag tea party. the differences were there. asylum thing with mitt romney. exactly the same positive to negative ratio, positive statements to negative statements. now, when you look at mentions of the republican party, the democratic party, now you can see a bit of a division. tea party members or were more critical of both parties compared to establishment republicans. um, what does that mean? it means we have a divided republican party when you look at issue positions and attitudes towards the candidates comparing tea partiers to establishment republicans. media habits clearly differ. we didn't show you all our findings, but fox and talk radio it's clear. but at the end, in the month of october at least in 2012 when it came to posts on twitter, the

posters for the tea party, the gop -- the people that hash tagged those tea party and gop, they rallied around their candidate. and as i heard earlier, maybe more significantly they rallied against the opposition. and so that's what we show here. divided in some ways, but the rally effect at the end is still there. thank you. >> okay, thank you. next we'll have william miller from flagler college and michael john burton from ohio university who will discuss who needs enemies? the tea party impact on the republican party. >> thanks. and i also want to echo peter and say that it's great to be back at akron, and we always appreciate the state of the parties conference and the opportunity to talk about these issues. i think it's interesting to point out on this panel especially that if we go back to the 2009 state of the parties, i remember only one conversation about the tea party.

it was at lunch, and it was not very kind. it was much more of a they're going to have these nice little rallies, they're going to dress up, they'll be gone in a few months, and instead a few months later we started to see the idea that robert boat wright talked about at that conference, of elected officials being primaried within their own party and the effects that could have. what we're going to talk about today is a little bit different at looking at actually speaking with activists or tracking money back to causes. instead, we want to discuss the intellectual history of the tea party and how what we're seeing today and hearing about today is not necessarily new to the conservative discourse, but instead is simply being present inside a new way with a little more organization than previously. and again, really focusing on the fact that when the tea party first came into existence, it was using the acronym taxed enough already, and the assumption was it was an economic movement. instead, what we argue is they

are not the johnny one note necessarily, but it found kind of a consistent theme that allows them to apply the same principles to issues that are not directly economically related. so what we want to do, first of all, is kind of place the tea party into the intellectual -- place the tea party into the beis lek chul history of american conservativism focusing on modern beliefs and looking at how a lot of what we see really became cemented under reagan and has only altered since. and illustrate this idea of this unifying concept of constitutional liberty. constitutional liberty, allowing us to talk about the economy, abortion and drones and be using kind of the same language amongst the same individuals who bring that to the forefront of american politics. and also to show the strategic position of both traditionalists and libertarianism within the gop today and how together they're forming this tea party movement that is directly competing with the more prague mattive wing of the republican party -- pragmatic wing of the republican party. and the major claim, obviously,

being that the intellectual history and strategic position of the tea party movement is going to allow it to have an enduring place in american politics as long as it doesn't self-truck. self-destruct. if we look at the reagan coalition and the republican party and what he was able to do, he was able to bring three rather diverse groups together for electoral gain. obviously, focusing on the christian conservatives, the free market conservatives, and then also the more republican-leaning pragmatists, moderate in their views but willing to negotiate and compromise as necessary to advance their causes. and what we start by arguing is that largely that's what we see today with a little more recognition that individuals can exist in multiple camps. this morning at the first panel we talked about rabid paul and how -- rand paul and how some identify him as a libertarian, some identify him as a traditionalist. and be at the end of the day, we say there's a middle ground where he can be both and still fit into the overall picture of the tea party.

but it's not simply just the reagan era times. we've also seen some structural alterations to this design beginning with the decline of pragmatism. whether through polarization, reticketting, whatever cause -- redistricting, whatever cause you want to attribute it to, the modern republican party seems to be less pragmatic, fewer individuals. we see more ted cruzs and rick perrys than mitch mcconnells and john babiers. again -- boehners. again, tying into the idea of polarization where the moderation we used to see is being replaced, and as a direct result, the midling area becomes smaller and smaller which impacts republican policies and national policies. and then also perhaps most importantly, the traditionalists and the libertarians have grown closer together. there's more opportunities for this bridge than there have been especially during the reagan administration, and that alters not just the political discourse, but the political outcomes especially for today's

modern republican party. with that divide in mind and with that configuration, there's really four ways that these three groups can cooperate in order to achieve their ultimate goals. the first being the idea of a supremacy inferiority split which we've seen within the republican party is not work workable. the traditionalists and libertarians are not willing to say you have control over this issue, you are in charge. there's much more give and take than that. second, you can have the simple split. and the idea of the simple split being we agree to disagree. also something we're not seeing within those two camps in the movement. third, you could leaf it ambiguous. finish leave it ambiguous. this is kind of the argument where activists sort of fudge the difference between themselves and in reality it's not there. what we argue instead is that we actually have a pattern of mutual reinforce bement between traditionalists and libertarians that they aren't even necessarily always aware it's occurring, and that mutual

reinforcement centers itself on the concept of constitutional liberty. we can talk about divergent issues but do not necessarily have a common tea party economic thread, but at the same time, build off of each other in a way that allows for a, shall we call it a spirited discussion. um, and this just gives two examples. libertarian defense of traditionalism. ron paul, all life begins at conception, you cannot defend liberty without defending all life. and on the flip side, a traditionalist defense of liberty. stephen fisher, the role of citizen, of humanity is to take care of each other but not for washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country. so lincoln, the economic libertarianism and the -- linking to reinforce but ultimately making the same sense of an argument. and what we argue is these contours still come from a reagan-style conservativism. starting and building with the idea that we have families and

markets having a symbiotic relationship. the idea being here that a good upbringing will lead to good workers, good workers will lead to the ability to raise a family, that family will lead to a good upbringing. and at the same time, we still recognize the government has a place at the margins. but most of the time we want it to get out of the way from a reagan conservative-era stance. powers to tax, spend be, regulate and incur debt need to be limbed, obviously, a discussion -- limited, obviously, a discussion we've had recently and that families should largely be left free to follow their dreams. ultimately, what we want from government is to protect security and liberty, including religious liberty, and not tell individual citizens what to do. um, and, again, the idea of constitutional liberty and mutual reinforcement. so if this is a strategic situation, what we ultimately have are traditionalists who revere old style politics. it is the moral base, it is the

christian conservative base. we have libertarians who want primacy of individual choice in both social and economic matters, and then we have the pragmatists who understand the politics is sort of the art of the possible that are willing to compromise, that are willing to strike bargains and deals to get things done. and now we have a couple of different policy issues to kind of illustrate where we can see traditionalists and libertarians coming together and having the impact on pragmatic republicans that we've seen recently. and we'll start by looking at obamacare, the affordable care act, an issue that -- wow, it doesn't like me. an issue where we see all three sectors of the modern conservative movement in agreement. and, obviously, it starts here with we don't like obama, we don't like obamacare. if you want to dig deeper, for traditionalists you obviously have concerns with obamacare that have been raised related to birth control and other various issues. for libertarians you have government intervening on

something that they obviously believe the free market can do better. and for the pragmatists, obamacare is simply a mess. funding, determining, figuring out the policy has been messy which makes it unappealing. .. >> there are other issues where we see one of these sectors coming out as an outlet. woulwe consult with traditionalm as the outlet, same-sex

marriage. to the christian conservatives this is an important issue, one they're willing to fight for. for libertarians you can argue either it's not an important issue or government has no business regulating the idea of marriage. and for a patent dispute as somewhat of a bargaining chip and understating moderation not miss only a quid pro quo the something or they may be willing to make necessary arrangements such as pass it off to the states in order to assure the win in other issues. if you want to look at libertarianism as the outlet to consider the drone debate. you can look at this either domestically or internationally. if we look at internationally, drones are great. less costly, less loss of life. we a ledge we can get more targeted killings, that we wouldn't be able to do through conventional means. we protect american pilots. there was a famous atlantic weekly quote about six months ago, it doesn't matter how many innocent pakistanis die, the american pilot will be home for

dinner. building on that idea. for the libertarians we still have a problem. this is unnecessary interference into international areas. domestically we heard the argument. this was rand paul's filibuster and all of his concerns waged on the idea that even for domestic security purposes we can turn these groups towards us. but then we look at areas where the traditionalists and the libertarians unite in -- and oppose the pragmatist and what that can mean for republican policymaking into the future. i'm going to speak to both the shutdown of the debt ceiling sort of in the same vein. the pragmatic republicans, the mitch mcconnell's and john boehner's understood that the folding on our loans was not going to be a positive solution to this problem. they willing to make necessary negotiating tools and necessary compromises to prevent that from happening. i suppose traditional sort upset with where funding was going, libertarians rebuild we sort of

overspend for the sake of overspending. they reunified in the fight against the pragmatist on this which ultimate led to the shutdown. without that voice going against the pragmatist it likely could have been accomplished far earlier. the central point is all comes back to i guess it's good to november 2012 we had tons of media reports that the tea party was dead. we had tons of media reports this morning claiming the tea party is dead. we are arguing it depends on what lens you look from and for what the tea party is judging its ultimate success. is the tea party going to become their own party? no. they have made it clear that's not their stated goal or intention, whether it's mass level or elite level. they're having an effect even as the media is blowing the tea party off. at least we beat a rhino in a primary our lost the general election but we can feel good about ourselves being represented by a democrat now. this would be one of many headlines looking back into 2012

on the tea party into the death come near death, whatever experience you want to go with. kind of on this summary peace, what we argue is it strategically places and has the potential to cause headaches moving forward. what the tea party is talking about has been honed over the past 30 years. we can argue far longer. we go back to the 1960s, the idea of explicit racism within the republican party was rebuffed and told this won't work going forward. the idea being even for the tea party today if there's an argument made or a question asked, they have a response of something. and may not always be the strongest response but they know what lines of attack are coming and what they stand for and believe in. that's the intellectual history. then the simple idea that the tea party is not done. if you look at the report from this week, we can see where there are plenty of argument to be made the tea party is suffering. you look at the alabama house

race with the chamber of commerce through in $240,000 over the last two weeks. chamber of commerce acted as a pragmatic actor prevented the tea party house member from entering the house. you go look at colorado with the koch brothers have gone to throwing $300,000 into school board races. you can look at the virginia gubernatorial race which was discussed earlier. you can even look at new jersey building on the data presented before we of chris christie who is by no means classified as a tea party republican, having no problem getting reelected despite some tea party individuals not being happiest with his potential. what it really comes back to his, and idea behind the law with the idea that they can't create their own party and be successful. as a third party they will never have the power they need to get elected on their own, what they can do is remake the party in which they reside. that's what they are attempting to do through the redesign effort. if you think about it, if at the

libertarians versus the traditionalist opposed, republican influence as a whole ultimately suffers. but at the same time if you have an issue where the libertarians and the traditionalists together sharing sentiments and arguments against republican pragmatists, they have a chance to have a significant impact moving forward and policy areas. the pragmatist are beginning to realize they can't necessarily win without some minimal tea party support. but at the same time the tea partiers, whether traditional some libertarians or both have realized they aren't necessarily as relevant as it would like to be without some support from the pragmatists are. >> okay, thank you very much. our last presenter will be john berg from suffolk university will discuss the failure of the minor party movement, causes, consequences and the way ahead. >> i really did talk about the tea party so i'm not completely

out of place. i do want to thank john green and janet, and ginny and all staff for putting on this great conference. haven't come the last couple of times. happy to be back it. it feels great. i only wish i could figure out a way to get your longer and accuracy akron outside this particular building. i'm going to step up to 30,000 feet and kind of take the stratospheric view of this. happy to see all the dated but i'm not used to seeing that kind of thing. here's how i see it. right now we've got intense party polarization as we been hearing all day. obviously, based on extreme disagreement on many issues. and yet i think the are many, several important issues, issues that are important not just objectively but the voters that

are kept out of the party debates. a couple of examples, our lease at the presidential level kept out of the party debate. one example, time may be passed now but i'm not sure but during obama's first term, there were two nobel prize winters in economics, paul krugman and joseph stiglitz. robert wright, a former cabinet member who said what we need to do now is forget about, stop worrying about the deficit and spend more money. a lot of people agreed with it, wanted to do it. the major party debate was limited after the stimulus passed to, show it cut the deficit by raising taxes or by cutting spending ?-que?-que x important debate but left out the whole side of it. is easy to understand why you would leave it out if you're trying to get a majority. it's having to educate people if that view is correct about why i deficit might be good is always

much harder. national security, you just mentioned drones. drones only made into the presidential debate because there was an online petition that 100,000 or so people signed and sent to bob schieffer saying please ask about drones. so we did editor cursory way. governor romney, what do you think that's romney said they are great. a lot of you were horrified by to inspect all national security thing, spying on people, assassinations. not so much the drones what they are doing. climate, right? we are seeing every day how serious it is. one of the debates spent time where both candidates talked about how much they were in favor of clean coal. we're here in ohio where they mine coal. swing state. you can see again in a two-party system why you might do that but it does mean we've got a

phenomenophenomeno n going on that might destroy civilization, and is not entering any significant way into presidential debate. globalization, this is a free trade debate that's been going on a long time but it's not a debate that has polarized the party. that's a debate more splits the parties. but both parties are dominated by pro-free trade, pro-globalization people. whatever you think of the merits of those issues, they are issues in which a lot of people are not well represented by the major parties. in the past what you would expect to see from that is maybe a realignment of something like that, some kind of change in the party system where you get an anti-free trade party and a pro-free trade party, for example. it hasn't really happened, and i don't say anything about the reform party with ronald rapoport here with us because i would probably make a mistake. i would probably make a mistake.

they had a run. and didn't really get, create a debate about free trade are diminished great the day they about the deficit which was solid economic growth. and, finally, collapsed sort of proving marxist statement that history repeats the second time as farce this time, the third time but it was enough to make up for. the green party made a smaller one, right? didn't make a difference in the 2000 election. and but, didn't get any leverage out of that at all, right? they might have in past cycles but this particular time it was just led to a determination to destroy them. well, this is sort of the context of what i want to say so i would be quick about it. there's lots of theoretical attempts to say why. you mentioned the law. it doesn't work for this is

because it may, first of all doesn't seem to apply to any candidate over the first got the votes but also it can explain the long term what we don't have multiparty system. but it can't explain given that republicans came out of nowhere to become dominant, we had the people's party got very strong. it can't really explain why you don't get a short-term disruptive upsurge of minor party activity. so i think that the our multiple causes but basically it gets harder and harder as time goes on. peter hanson argument that is basically with the adoption of the australian ballot at the end of the 19th century, we got the situation where the government had to decide who the candidates were, it would be printed on about. once you decide that then you get to exclude people. for the next 100 years the major parties got better and better at creating obstacles so that, i

mean, nader for example, after 2000 or 2004 spent years battling this loss in pennsylvania. didn't have much merit but it served the function of taking most of his time and trying to take money so it made it hard to go on. so that role has kind of block and that's reinforced about laws that control the presidential debates. it also has become reinforced by the media and by our political culture. so the bulk of this paper is meant to be about what happens now, and i think one reason we got not a tea party, i want to look at three massive protest movements. one reason the te tea party devp the way it did is because, i agree with you guys, that they see that there's not really much potential as an independent party and maybe they could have more potential primarily as a non-party for us, mostly within the republican party.

i look at the tea party, the madison labor protest in 2011 i think, and occupy wall street. sort of reaction to the situation which argue that they are. i think probably people are fairly familiar with the way each of those movements developed. so i won't dwell on not on that, but i want to sort of compare them in several common dimensions. one is jack walker's idea, you can overcome the irrationality of forming an organization if you have a patron, right? and with the tea party i think that pretty clearly -- i have to be careful. there's a book out there this is the tea party never really existed. it certainly existed. it's a real thing, and it really did come out of grassroots and happiness and protests with, not

originally helped it recover joint the stamos and the bailout. it got going before health care past but the protest in washington was focused on what she called the port deal is bill. but the idea the government was stepping in going too far may be violating the constitution but it was very quickly picked up by freedom works which i guess is the tea party group that predates the guard and is funded by the koc coke brothers and dik armey was a present for a while. and were looking, they saw the rant on tv happen, a couple of guys said this is big and then you put it on the website and created a whole apparatus where groups, interviews could write in and tell them where the nearest group was, how to start a group of cells and really attitude.

and then fox news made a campaign, a crusade out of reporting on the tea party all the time and really helped it get going. the wisconsin protest, i think these people ask me with that. it sort of started with democratic senators leaving the state so they wouldn't be a quorum but also with the graduate students union at the university of wisconsin marching into the middle of the state house and sitting down, other people follow would've been a big demonstration around the building. it went on for quite a while. clearly their pitching was the afl-cio. which person really got control of the direction. it turned from a mass protest to a long, drawnout series of electoral campaigns. first, over a judicial election, and then attempts to recall very

state senators and ultimately governor walker. most of which, they never recall state senators and none of, respond by trying to recall democratic state senators. didn't recall any democrats. some republicans but not enough to change the majority. and, of course, a failed to recall walker. a lot of the original activists were unhappy about that whole direction because they thought they were more interested in the protest. secondly, because once there was an electoral campaign, it looked just like any other electoral campaign. they lost the ideological thrust. looking for scandals. the people they beat were most because they found some kind of scandal and played that up. they lost him public support because result a lot of people were really not happy. some people were obviously and voted that way but some people

were really not happy about the idea you're going to elect supreme court judge on the basis how you expect that person to vote on the particular case. some people said, remember reading a column. whichever she wished both is going to be terrible. it will destroy the. she didn't win. and a lot of people said in the campaign -- i'm told -- that they didn't think, especially for walker, they didn't think you should recall summit if he hadn't done something illegal. they might not agree with what he did what he ought to build a serve out his term and beaten in the next election. enough people thought things like that. he got reelected. it's still exist, still organizations and people getting up for the next election. but no longer what it was. okay, goals. the goal of the tea party i think to be this is not quite right but some don't want winning primaries.

that's the primary culprit they want to win elections but they care more about winning primaries, about getting the candidates in, or at least giving republicans a don't like out. in fact, the first electoral activity of the tea party was not a primary at all, but supporting the conservative in the new 23rd to undermine -- throwing the district to the democrats. none of the tea party people i ever saw expressed any regret about that at all. they were delighted. wasn't getting a primary but it was getting rid of a moderate come in our case, probably a liberal republican. the goal of the wisconsin movement, the immediate goal was to reverse the budget repair act and restore the right to organize labor unions as it had existed. but a strategy for getting the

goal became winning elections for the democratic party. and i would say that was somewhat of a blunting of the original thrust because the candidates, they ended up supporting for governor who is not the most prolific candidate coming in, and sort of the argument, and begin the arguments in the campaign, the advertising things were not really about the real issues that everybody was voting on. you could say they didn't have to talk about that, but it probably hurt them somewhat. the goal of occupy wall street was, everybody knows they didn't have any goals but they didn't have any demands. the goal of it was to win the war of ideas. for everybody participating, i think it was that. and for the core, the goal was to model and uses cited by having, by running these things for the genoa summit.

i think outside of occupy wall street that wasn't understood very much. people were tremendously proud that they had libraries in the intent was, that they had medical clinics. they were furious, they thought it was just terrible when the police raided the library and threw away the books. it's like this was a major thing. and in boston they had major campaigns around, the city said you're serving food and it's not meeting sanitary standards. they went out and bought an industrial sink that apparently did meet the standards and tried to break it into they had a major confrontation with police over whether they could bring the sink in or not. and for the rest of it, as long as they stay the, every time to demonstration they would be holding up cardboard models of the sink, to demonstrate the silliness to the police. what they're trying to do was show here's a different way all

the peoples, the stacking table for debate, that was all about modeling a new way of running society. that's why they were able to move into occupied same be said with a because who had occupied wall street when said it, this is what we do, went after and did it pretty much same way. the red cross odyssey eventually swamp them with the resources although they are still there but they were the first on the scene, almost. okay. so where does this -- i think i got into my next point. my next point is where does this go lead to? the tea party more ideological than republican party. the wisconsin movement just democratic victory, democratic majority. and again for occupy wall street, a new form of society. so let me go back to my original point which is how you evaluate

the potential of these kind of shaking up the party system, making it more responsive to the issues i was talking about. first, the tea party. the tea party had some effect but if the tea party were able to take over the republican party even more thoroughly, i think we would see some kind of relentless probably to their disadvantage, but we would see things falling out differently in some other issues been addressed. where that's going is another question. i'm interested in that last paper, but your prediction, looks to me as if they're pulling back a little bit. that there is some talk about well, we got to maybe not knock off everybody in these primers. i'm not sure about that. where the wisconsin movement is pretty much delivered and defeated i think. it set an example and it will come back but i think the momentum is lost and maybe they will be able to beat walker the

next time through. or not. occupy wall street obviously was dispersed, i can't say as an organization because it was in an organization, but dispersed as a phenomenon, that just about activist. i think there are still some general assembly's in the cities where it was that continue to meet and might decide to do something else. on the other hand, i saw somebody said, obama wouldn't have won without them. that's hard to establish, but you can make the cas a case fort there will injected the idea of inequality as an issue. the 1% versus the 99%, if you look at the history of the campaign, romney was not being attacked. he was torturing himself as a successful businessman rather than an and exploitative venture capitalist. that change. that really hurt him. the guy from indiana has come a been bought out by bain capital

and lost their jobs, they had done the same thing when romney rant against ted kennedy for the senate about 10 years earlier. it wasn't a ministry but it wasn't a secret that they were around but it was just i think the impact of occupied made it more relevant for them to come out, you know, and give them more bite. are any of these things? i think we're going to be stuck in the same kind of stalemate situation for some time yet. i think all these things are kind of percolating comment and it's not really biting enough to make a change. one final thing. somebody mentioned, maybe nobody mentioned, earlier today somebody, maybe the tea party will develop on the left. people talk about that. i think there's a big difference, and that the tea party wants government to do less, doesn't really care. we saw figures about what happens about the government

doing anything and people don't have health care, or for poor people. and so for them to shut down the government, to block action, it's not painful, right? actually it's getting a little bit of what they want, where as the democrats are really, the people in wisconsin, the union's, protesters in wiscons wisconsin, work for state agencies, there were teachers, health care workers, that the action believe in what they were doing. and wanted to protect their own working conditions. more generally, democrats are people are democratic as they want to provide social services. so for them that's why they end up supporting moderate democrats if they have a better chance of winning. because if the prospects of, for the tea party, the prospect of having obama being president, they hate him but they can keep fighting them.

they are not losing a whole lot right now, whereas the democrats have prospects of losing control of every part of the government is too horrible to think of. >> thank you very much. we will move into the part of our talk here where we're going to involve the audience, and your question jeff on the tea party. i thought i would start off with a question i have of my own for our esteemed panel. a couple of you mentioned that you don't envision a situation in which the tea party could split and become it's own party. i have talked to some tea party activist here in ohio who have mentioned the idea of possibly joining with another minor party, like the constitution party, for example, and i just wonder, any of you for see that as a possibility or if you think it's more likely the tea party will continue working from within the republican party? >> i think it's very likely they will continue working -- i think

it's likely they will continue working within the republican party. i think it has a lot more influence there. and i think as we heard this morning, it really hates the democratic party. so the choice is between a mitt romney or even a chris christie and hillary clinton, i don't think that's a real challenge to them. so i think the goal is only to take over the republican party. mav tv who is head of freedom works, the name of his book is hostile takeover. i think that's the goal and i think that the reason why they're willing to support candidates who might not be the strongest in the general election because i think that's all part of this strategy of sort of ridding the party of the writers come of groups that they don't approve of. i really don't see -- i think you may get a few rogue individuals doing that but i think that they've been very six vessel. i think it really would, i would

be the surprise, and we did ask the question about how do you see the tea party and one of the choice was a third party. the only group that really bought into that at all whether ron paul supporters. and, of course, ron paul has run as a libertarian candidate. maybe a tad, but i think very, very unlikely. >> i think that they would obviously stay in the republican party. it's suicidal strategy to break apart. they would accomplish nothing more than splitting the republican vote and electing democrats. i'm going to quote david campbell and one of the earlier papers today, talked about this deepening reserve of negativity, and it captures i can what a lot of the findings were on this panel, that tea party activists are very much antedated -- animated by their dislike of the

democratic party. at the end of the day, there's a motivation to the democrats lose, if that's how you feel. the most viable strategy out there would be to continue to do with your doing. after all, we're talking about the tea party right now. they had a major seat at the table during the whole government shutdown but it was all about satisfying the tea party. so what they're doing right now i getting involved in the primaries has arguably been a pretty effective strategy. they may not be getting everything that they want, but i would imagine that there are enough smart people there who would understand that staying the course makes a lot more sense than trying to jump off and form a third party. >> i agree. the same time david kimball was making for the sport, it was said it's not that we love our parties or would love our candidates, ability hate for the other side can be a powerful

unifying force. i think when you look at mitt romney, the person who was the author of bromley care in massachusetts and was a moderate -- romneycare -- and 93% plus of the tea party supporters turned out to vote for him in the german election, there's your answer. >> okay. >> add one thing. i agree that they are not, but i want to start another part at all, and they now, originally they made a big deal that we are against the republicans and democrats both as far as the party establishment. we don't like george w. bush at all. that's what they were saying. i think their strength and they know the strength is that they are willing to lose, to see the republicans lose, so they're

willing, i think that's a stilted if they're willing to put up a tea party candidate and a moderate district even if it will be harder to win for that candidate. that's where their unlike the democratic left. it's much more concerned with winning the general election. >> okay, thank you. there's a gentleman with a bowtie here. we'll start with them for our questions. >> i'm curious whether you have any data or anyone else does about the tea party and turnout? we just had data dropped on us but overall we know that white turnout was down in 2012. is there any evidence that tea party supporters stayed home and that could have hurt romney and republicans? and for francia and morris, a question that goes to david campbell's early date as well and to what extent is the drive-in behind the tea party movement race?

>> one of the things that we just mentioned the paper was, ma there's the enthusiasm gap that we all heard about in 2010. it turns out if you run, and i just did this with gallup, that non-tea party republicans showed exactly to the decimal point almost the same level of enthusiasm as democrats. the entire enthusiasm gap was tea party republicans. so that's 2010. what we define, what we are able to look at is because we have overtime, they become and look at the freedom works. this is not a mass sampling. but the impact of the tea party activity controlling for 2010 activity, 2008 activity, is quite strong. so what we really defined is the tea party people -- i guess i see them -- this isn't one sende the right wing of the republican party but i think it's super

energize right wing of the republican party but i think it's more active than was there before. i really see the tea party again based on our data as tea party identification did, among the activist groups, certainly to much higher levels of activity. among the mass grouping we can only look at and 2010, and we find some of the same things but that's a little different. i don't think you have this, i'll take my marbles and go home. i think this is a group that is committed, and i think that it is not diminishing turnout. i don't think the decline in white turnout was tea party people. i don't have real evidence on the mass assembly. allen may look at this more. >> to david's question, we put up the numbers for government assistance to blacks, but that

could really argue will be about government assistance. after all, the table before show that tea party members with the most hostile to the government giving away anything. so i think we have to be careful there in a tipping that to race but it could be but i think in light of the of the number we have to be somewhat careful. i know some people say it's a good -- [inaudible] >> well, okay. [inaudible] >> well, there was one thing though i do want to say to be just a little more cautious here. we looked at the thermometer question on the feeling thermometer towards blacks, and the numbers were 60, for tea party republicans, 614 establish republicans, 60, 68, 72. not huge differences. now, again, social desirability effects may be in play here. people don't want to say that

they are cool towards a minority group perhaps, but again, all we have are the data to look at. i didn't look at all the racial resentment questions for this particular paper. there was only so much we could present after all, but on the feeling thermometer we didn't really see. and with hispanic, similar numbers. 61 versus 60, versus 59, 65, 71. so again sort of all in the same range. from the numbers we ran i can't really give you a clear answer to that. >> okay, thank you. let's take another question from the audience. >> hello. i'm from university of akron. following up on some of that come it seems and we can establish that hating obama, aiding democratic principles really drives the tea party. and i'm wondering, now that it's

possible or even plausible because of thei of the actions e of some of their leaders actions that they might actually lose the house in 2014. tough challenge but possible. and keep the senate, and then everything they hate would just be like reading mandated by the american people. i wonder, wouldn't have like a true sense of expanding everything they hate just got reaffirmed? wouldn't the small movement fall to pieces like a lot of them do, reform and another way but in this particular fashion it seems like a hate obama and the hate of democrats now really keeps them together? wouldn't a we mandate be a true ending blow? >> i'll take that spent sure, go ahead.

>> all future events we're going to guess at what it would look at this week, the results in virginia have members of the tea party doubling down. if only the mainstreamers have backed this up we would have won this. there is a strong sense in which the end of days makes you more religious. i think that would be a pretty good parallel in which the way defeat might be seen. if you ask a tough question, they haven't answered. they have a libertarian tradition to a have a moral conservative tradition that will provide answers for why it is that you were defeated. so the next step is to defeat of those forces that defeated you last time and to stay and again.

in the american system we have two parties for some fairly strong structural reasons. in a winner-take-all election, if you take your toys and go home, home is a lonely place. the desire to stay within the party, the desire to not lose your principles but to continue working harder, and perhaps even to blame those who didn't back it up in it in the first of i think will be pretty intense. >> also, i think to answer your question from a media perspective, the leaders, the media personalities that you can were look at and really say, these are the leaders of the tea party movement, they don't rally the troops from a strategic perspective, talk about how we might be able to influence the election to get more republicans in. know, they think they are right

and they are claiming moral authority to rally the troops. at i don't think that's going to change under any circumstances of more of a mandate for the democrats or anything like that. those leaders are in play. they have the following but i don't think that's going to change anytime soon. as long as there's a democrat in the white house. >> okay. we have a question over here on the site. >> i am from ohio state university. i'm interested in having a comment on the internal dynamics within the tea party movement. i mean come we know there are a whole bunch of movements out there under different names with different leadership. some of them are, don't agree with each other necessarily. we also know that the movement started out in 2009 as a movement that had two targets.

one was government, the other was wall street. and that wall street target has a long history of course in american politics. but that's kind of an were as the and the government part has expanded over time. receive groups like freedom force that is more a beltway group, at least its leadershileadershit'sleadershipf driving the movement in some ways and supplying a lot of the financing. so please comment on that. how do we sort all of this out? >> does someone want to jump in? >> i think part of what we spoke to at the constitutional liberty argument hits on that where they found the least common denominator thread so that you can have multiple groups that are taking somewhat divergent views on even similar issues, but still i get back to some broader peace with a look and said, and may not message to agree with the policy statement being made, but i sympathize with the logic behind it being

it is back in some way, shape, or form to liberty. and they been able to successfully use of that. >> as we talked about the occupy movement, i think a serious case can be made that the occupy movement not only wasn't find it but it prided itself on an utter lack of central ideology. so if you have -- and there are no occupy movement panels at this conference. for a good reason. once it got cold, it's time to go home. in columbus, we had an occupy movement where they didn't seem to be actually occupying their kids but every time i walked by there was nobody there. perhaps there's more than one reason for that is you don't have a central unifying idea. and it's are difficult to rally people around that. if you do have ideas that can reinforce one another, the quote

from ron paul, if you can't defend life, and you can't defend liberty. strongly speaks to the fact that they are finding ways that an outsider might not think can reconcile different views. so on one hand, libertarianism might tend towards anarchy, or that traditionalism might trend towards authority. but they're finding ways to bind together and you don't have a unified ideology, what i don't think would be passing on anytime soon. >> there was an ongoing discussion in occupied in campus after a while, we been doing this pretty long, despite losing its news value, it's probably time to move to something else and forget how. in boston, the proposal was that stay there until the first day of spring. primarily because a lot of homeless people have joined them and didn't want to leave them out in the cold.

they were dispersed not because he got cold, but because the police raided and destroyed the enchantment. i'll make a prediction about the wall street thing is i think as the health care debate goes on, now we're starting to hear about some elements of business who were making money off of it. and i think that the tea party is going to latch onto that. because that was generally what they said about wall street. they worked for dodd-frank but they were for -- they did argue that a lot of these government programs that are supposed to be helping ordinary people are really pumping, taking our tax dollars and giving them to big business and wall street. >> let me just say one thing in response. this is something i've been concerned about based on our data. so one thing was, in the cces, again, we found that you really an awful lot of people -- to say

that you're a subscriber to freedom works doesn't say anything except on a mailing list, which includes people who listen to glenn beck and people who do things that are sort of tea party. with a very large sample, over 12,000 to i was able to sort out people on the list who have done nothing for freedom works but have worked for other groups. and i found very, very little difference there. now, that shouldn't be totally convincing. i would love to have multiple groups that i'm working with, but i think that's a very good question. i was not able to find a lot of different and so that gave me more confidence in the. on the other thing, i would say that the occupy wall street movement kind of misunderstood the fact. they were inspired by herbst bring, if he didn't understand it was herbst bring and not arab winter in the probably wouldn't have been as successful either last night. >> what i remember most about the occupy movement was everybody saying, what are they protesting? and not getting a very clear

answer. we have a question here in the middle. >> one comment and one question. the comet is about opinions of big business. there's a feeling thermometer question about big business in the nes. tea party supporters like big business better than other voters, better than other republicans, way better than democrats do. >> we also find speech that our pro-big business, not anti-big business. they might be against something like government subsidies to business or something like that. >> at least according to the way we coded tea party supporters they were 61 on a feeling thermometer versus 50 the fourth establishment republican. 44, pure independent, 45 for the moderate democrat and 37 for the liberal democrat spent my question that it's about looking forward a somewhat you've all seen, looking at these tea party supporters. how are they going to respond to

a chris christie candidacy for president? and even in republican primaries and then looking, you know, will they rally behind a chris christie candidacy for president if he becomes the republican nominee the way they rallied behind mitt romney? >> chris christie is better from their point of view, isn't he? i have a full-time closer but he is more conservative. romney was governor of massachusetts and there's times. he was for gay rights. he was against, i mean pro-abortion. chris christie to have t to do s much transformation. so i think if he runs and wins it will be like the steins but they will try to put up their own candidate but when they lose, if it is a will, i think the we just as enthusiastic. [inaudible] >> right. [inaudible]

spent one thing, alan, among people who, in december 2011, who rated not only do they not support romney, but they rated him below average. two-thirds of them were active in this campaign, and i think that's, you know, the last slide kind of -- >> i just want to add one thing that i thought was relevant. labor unions, tea party republicans on the feeling thermometer, 26 versus 41. the tea party republicans really don't like labor unions. was christie has made a reputation in new jersey for being very anti-labor. so clearly they didn't invite him to the cpac convention but that's an indication they don't love the guy. his numbers have gotten worse with tea party republicans since he embraced obama after the hurricane. but i think, if he ends up being the nominee, i'm not sure that's going to happen but if you were,

there are these things there that they can convince themselves they liked. so i think in the general election will come around. >> i was going to mention, the one thing for christie that romney didn't possess is the art by begins of exact point where there's one thing they can point to and say we really like this. with romney that wasn't there. some of the chris christie videos of him going off on teachers and teachers unions, those could just play in the background of the tea party route and they could talk about nothing else and people would be very happy. with romney there was nothing they could do. >> and it doesn't matter -- democrats have to nominate somebody, and -- [laughter] hillary clinton will generate a similar amount of dislike, and so we'll have the same thing whether it's hillary or -- >> not by much.

29. >> weight. for now, yet. spin she had a high rating in december 2011, but when we were back in march 2013, a rating had dropped significantly. so i think that's -- >> we have a question here. spent bob taft, university of dayton. this may be too pragmatic but i'm going to ask the question of resource been tea party candidates and the impact of the mccain-feingold limitations on political party, unlimited donations to the local donations post since united, the rise of the old super pac movements. entrance of the tea party goals, to win primaries or to influence moderates in congress, seems to me the availability of resources is a huge factor because if i'm a member of congress, moderate, and looking at the possibility of not just an opponent, some opponent, unfunded opponent, now

looking at some kind of super pac coming in may be recruiting a credible opponent and funding that happen. in terms of their day power and terms to move forward and stay prominent, resources seem to be a factor. just a comment on the. i don't know if anybody has studied that but i'm interested in that point. >> i would just add on computer dramatic republican you better watch what you say during the campaign for the lead up to the campaign or you could be calling, even by accident on a challenge that you don't expect community look around the landscape and see there's really no credible candidate who can get the funding u.s. the connections but with the threat of a super pac coming in. suddenly someone can come in from nowhere. >> anyone else? on finances. well, i think john is going to want us to wrap up. to be a time for one more question? okay. we have one more question from

the audience. how about steve brooks? this better be good, steve. >> steve brooks from this isn't too. about six weeks ago john zogby was here promoting his research that he has been doing on the younger generation and response the question about politics, he said that he thinks the liberal conservative dimension is going to diminish and be replaced by libertarian communitarianism division. especially for the three circle guys. [laughter] do you see the tea party movement and that kind of movement moving to be more of a libertarian movement and the traditionalists being left behind? >> i think where that becomes problematic is that there is no one thing called liberty. there is no one thing called around the.

the two concepts work want desperate with one another and we may redefine what needs to be a republican or democrat and to be a staunch democrat or start republican or a true believer. but the idea that we understand what liberty is, would liberty be for example, the liberty to get a good new at night, or the liberty to carry a gun as a side arm? we may be redefining those things, but to be honest, i think in seeing my students as they go through, they sort themselves pretty well by party. >> anyone else? okay. >> we need to do two things, ladies and deliver the first thing we need to do is thank stephanie and our panelists. [applause] >> tonight an encore

presentation of our first ladies series featuring the life of rosalynn carter. she attended cabinet meetings and traveled to latin america. the life of first lady rosalynn carter 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think it's interesting to sit here and talk about how the republican party is less unified when we saw to think about this historical but i just think it's a really interesting time to be studying this because really for the first time in recent years we are seeing a republican party that is facing many of the struggles of the democratic party faced 20 or 30 years ago when they were tinkering with the reform of process every four years. >> the interplay of what happened, how can this can do with what happened in the context in which they're running all really matter. more than the underlying scandal itself when it comes to these comebacks. and especially if you're running in the context in which you can

present yourself as an abuse, part of an abused group, abused by the system, you can really played out quite well. and whether that's the case that jeff talked about or whether it's roy in alabama who used the 10 commandments controversy as very effectively in terms of kind of an attack on christian conservatives. i think that's very much the case. >> this weekend on c-span the state of the national party and a look at the political scandals and the politics of recovery. saturday morning at 10 eastern. live sunday on c-span2, your calls and comments for talk radio host mark levin, best selling author of five non-fiction books and his latest, the liberty amendment. that's at noon on lpds in depth. on c-span3, american history tv looks back 15 years at the impeachment of president william

jefferson clinton. saturday and sunday at noon eastern to. >> we are going to bring you live coverage this morning of a discussion on the national council of la raza public advocacy, but that event was canceled due to the overnight snowstorm. instead, a discussion on the future of tv news. the university of north carolina recently hosted abc news president and first television chairman for a conversation. students and faculty with new technology, whistleblowers, investigative journalism and choose the freelances and protection of content to this event from chapel hill in early november is an hour and a half. >> thank you, david, very much come and thank you susan. it's been a delightful day. i got here from new york last

evening, and got up bright and early and we visited with class with some students and it' thats the second time that i've been on campus, and i am always impressed when i am here. i will go anywhere for weight. wade has been my friend for 25 years or so and also been my lawyer, and wade says i need you, i'll go where ever that goes and wade has also been my most trusted business advisor. so i the high appreciation and this is been something that's been on his mind for years. we talked about this over long nights, long night conversations and various industry gatherings. i smoke a cigar and he tells me that his vision for the university of north carolina. i'm delighted to be here. i also want to give a shout out to hang price. i'm not sure where he is but hank is my colleague over in winston-salem and the station we're very proud of and hank is

one of our great leaders. i'm glad that he is here. and also a guy who was here who wore the hearst jury for a number of years, jim hefner who got on us and came to university for the closing chapter of his great career. but jim was an outstanding executive and made the company a lot of money. so good to see jim again. i've been blessed to work with first for 30 years, and i was a lucky guy that had an opportunity there to run the radio station. and i found the company to be a great fit for what i was all about. ours is a country that was founded in 1887. we've been at this an awfully long time and have been at the forefront of media as it has evolved over the last 126 years or so, first in newspapers and magazines, and in radio and television, then cable television. and we are very active in the digital media space and will have an opportunity to talk about this tonight.

..

about what has occurred under local town and be plugged in. we can talk a while about national and international media. our business and bread-and-butter is local media and we will have an opportunity to talk about that tonight. another thing i think we have a chance to focus on is how the culture is so important in any organization i think it's particularly important in the news organizations and the notions of the core purpose and values along the built to last notion of transparency and honesty and integrity and reporting. our values that transcend strategic changes and tactical changes that occur in the media on a regular basis those are lasting values. there was a great piece in "the new york times" by the public at

hurt margaret sullivan a couple weeks ago on october 26th that talked about values that don't go out of style. and one of the things that we as a company are very focused on is ethical decision making in a digital world. we will talk about that a little bit. i think that's terribly important. it's been a time of disruption. ours is a company that views this as a time of opportunity. and the hearst name and the visionary randolph hearst was a gentleman that believe in innovation. we tried to be innovative in the things that we have done and have associated ourselves with. that often means taking risks and risks are a good part of what we do and yet acting responsibly is in the journalism works that we do is equally important. i love the quote from none other than bob dylan who says the hero is one who understands the

responsibility that goes with freedom and i think that ought to resonate with all of the journalists. in recent times just in the past year we've had experience with the boston bombing. we are a washington bureau who has covered the navy shipyard shootings will. there's all manner of these stories some of which have been poorly handled by people in the media. and i'm not here to criticize them, but i hope we take away learning from how people did things in the right way and how they did things in the wrong way. and there is an opportunity for us to be better as journalists. this is a great calling. i applaud the people who are engaged in the pursuit of their journalism careers and i think that you should be very exciting about the future holds. as an old guy now i wish i had the opportunity to wind the clock back and have an opportunity to enter the business at age 20 or 25 because

i think it is a time of great opportunity. i think there are important careers available to people. i always think a lot of important role of the storyteller and the editor is, and i think about mr. hearst's father as a part of the gold rush in a part of the country and there aren't review stations or television stations and there were a few newspapers but not as we know them and at the end of the day of longer travel, people settle the campfires and talked to one another and a few among us are very good storytellers and a few among us are very good tellers of jokes. and to me were the journalists and i would say the same thing about the armies of napoleon crossing the world. the gift a storyteller has is a very important to the people we interact with and that's what

you learn. there is a high prt on storytelling that is the centrally important to people in the society is that we serve. there is now an opportunity to go and pursue the individual pieces of information and different bits of media, video, audio and as a light but the notion of a media company that is an aggregate her and the notion of the media company that creates content and carries the content is still very important. on bedrock principles of the corporation as a media company, we've got to have a proposition for the viewers and readers. you say you are a media company and you don't put something on the screen or on the page that resonate with the viewers and readers you are not in the media business. harkin's on the line sam used to use from time to time that anyone who says they want to be a leader ought to look over their shoulder and be sure

there's someone behind him as he marches on the road. that is absent anybody behind you you are just out for a walk and aren't really leading at all. it may be nice for the walk but that isn't what it's all about. we are going to have an opportunity tonight to chat about some things that i hope are in your mind and we will take some questions and i am delighted to be here with ben. it was good of him to come and join us. no one is more veazey than the president of news organizations and he's a young guy i think that he's the dean of the network news executives which tells you what a perilous job field and he is in. but he's a brilliant guy that has been a brilliant producer and he is about innovation in the work he does. he has made abc news a better place and has offered a better product for the affiliate's. he and i have become good friends and i am delighted he is with us tonight. so we will have an opportunity to hear his point of view about

abc news and the important institution that matters in this country and in this world in the same way that the work that hank does at winston-salem and the stations in sacramento and albuquerque in many places beyond that that matters to the local communities. i just assert from the bottom of my heart people care about their towns and about the issues that occurred and it's important for us to be the storytellers in those communities. local journalism is job number one of the science and commercial -- fines commercial success and it makes us who we are in these markets where we have important businesses. and i am one who feels that it is an exciting time ahead. i think there is a great future for journalism were going to be serving people on a lot of different platforms. and we are adapting to how we produce and deliver our content. but it is an exciting time. and i believe the best is yet to come for this industry and we will have a chance to talk about

that tonight. with that, i will be seated. the fit, come back and talk about ben. [applause] >> the second speaker this evening is ben sure what, president of abc news where he is responsible for all aspects of abc news broadcast including world news tonight with diane sawyer, nightline, good morning america, 20/20, this week with george stephanopoulos. he oversees abc news as radio, online and satellite services and he began his career in journalism while still a student at harvard college. in 1984 during a year off from college, he worked for the news and observer in raleigh. the "los angeles times" paris bureau and the united nations border relief operation in thailand. and i have to imagine a was especially hard for him to leave raleigh for that assignment in paris. [laughter]

mr. sherwood launched his career in earnest when he joined abc news in 1989 and serving as an investigative associate producer and producer for abc news primetime live after a brief stint at the network with the peacock he returned to abc news and 2004 as executive producer of good morning america. it wasn't long thereafter that mr. sherwood was named president of abc news entire division. under mr. sherwood's leadership, abc news has been anything but complacent. last week it launched a partnership with yahoo! to create the number one use information as for online, reaching nearly 100 million people and serving up to half a billion videos a month. this year, he d.c. news and univision launched fusion recently. they stole one of my favorite lawyers that assures them of good legal advice. this is a network that is to serve and in power the u.s. hispanics.

the fastest -- the youngest and the fastest-growing demographic in america. as if that were not enough, mr. sherwood is also the author of two critically acclaimed best-selling novels. the the death and life of charlie's unplowed, which was adopted as a feature film starring zach efron released in 2010. and the man who ate the 747, which is also being developed as a major motion picture and a broadway musical. mr. speed of's latest book is a exploration of the secrets about who bounces back from everyday adversity and who doesn't. who beats life-threatening diseases and who succumbs them. and who triumphs after economic hardship and who surrenders. i see some of these parallels there with tonight's topic on the future of television news. please join me in welcoming ben sherwood. [applause]

>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. it is a great privilege to be here tonight. dean cain, of boger and professor packer, we appreciate your warm welcome. wade, c ante, congratulations on this great night, the inaugural might. as my colleague said we jump on planes, we will fly anywhere and especially for this wonderful institution tv digest have to say that it is extremely humbling to be invited to share the stage tonight with my friend, david barrett. we began to work together a few years ago when i came back to abc news in this role. david has been a friend and mentor. usually when we sit next to each other, it is even in the more contentious board meetings of

the abc television network. sometimes we sit next to each other at a new york basketball game. but it is a privilege to be here and an honor. thank you, david plebeian i'm looking forward to our discussion. when i looked out tonight at this audience, i see a bunch of friends because as the professor mengin, 29 years ago, i packed up my car in massachusetts and drove a beat up to north carolina to start what was a formative experience in my journalism career. i began to work for the new census herber -- i mean the news of the server. laughter could they were a beacon of journalism. but i want to say is, an introduction, is that it very simple. i echo david barrett's observation that if i could do what all over again, i wish that i could start right here and

right now. i wish i could begin a career right now in this highly disruptive, highly volatile and highly uncertain media environment because i think that the future of television news is very bright and i think the future of news and information is extremely bright. there is history to share with you very quickly about the disruptions that have taken place over the last thousands of years because i think it will give you a sense to come in the next five, ten, 50 years back to the communications on storytelling and david put it the best which is the news is essentially fundamentally in activity. and with the saber tooth tiger is worth and so fundamentally the news is coming back to the heart and saying do not hunt over there but over there. it is still social in nature but it took thousands of years to go

to the first stories that were told around the fire to the advent of being able to write things down being on time to print among the press and people to create a radio recording was around 377 years. treen to 77 years and that another 71 years at the advent of television. and then about 40 years for the advent of the internet and about ten years before the advent of the social and local phone and some futurists predicted the way to change in the next 100 years what he called something like 20,000 years of change in human history. 20,000 years in change in the space of about 100 years. and we know that those discussions are coming fast and furiously. and at abc news, we welcome those discussions. we are excited about that change. and as the professor mentioned, we have begun to make the preparations to live in that new

world. the new world of digital, transformation, the new world of demographics transformation in the united states has this country becomes a majority minority nation over the next 30 years. and so, the future is highly disruptive. that is one of the things i look forward to talking with david tonight, and it is also very, very bright. this is a thrilling moment for journalism. and it's an exciting moment to be here at chapel hill. my job in 1984 was to write the letter box. that was the first intern job and after that little leather box, i occasionally would get an assignment to go out and mop up after the great rot christiansen, the political reporter to leave and sometimes cover some even in some far-flung place where the reporters didn't want to go and they would send an intern and i would relish the stances. one of my jobs was to run around

north carolina in my little car and go to every television station in the state and look in what's called the public file and see what the candidates for spending on political advertising. i write the things one of the few people in the room and perhaps in the state is regularly visited every television station in the state. it's where i fell in love with journalism triet i fell in love with north carolina. and in fact i called my parents at the end of the internet and i told them delhi was going to leave college for a year and stay in north carolina to see that 1984 senate race to the conclusion. it was the battle between senator jesse helms. at that time, the most expensive senate race in the united states history. at that time, the senate race of - national attention. and at that time that i then went on to write an honors thesis and college about the changing role of race in the north carolina politics, going back to 1898 and 1900 with the white supremacist and pains to

1950 when senator frank gramm ran against willis left and the democratic primary and then the runoff and in 1984 race. all for the conversation later but so the games began. and i would join david over here for the discussion. thank you very much. [applause] >> you get the first question. >> the first question. so today in "the new york times," bill keller, the former executive editor of the times, describes this as a golden age for journalism and in particular the golden age for international reporting. and my question for you, david, is looking at where we are today and looking ahead, is this a golden age for television news or is this a bronze age or silver age or what age is it in terms of what is in the news? >> i lean more towards being a golden age. i think as far as a world of

opportunity out there for us to tell stories on all kinds of different platforms i am one who believes people gravitate to the best available screen. but there are so many of her screams that they can to get in touch of. that's an opportunity for people to engage with a journalism and engage with storytelling that is very profound. our company this year is going to generate 5 billion page views on our website. 250 million video clips of news and weather information and stations that cover 18% of u.s. tv households. 10 billion impressions. 60% of those are on smart phones and tablets. the migration to mobile is really extraordinary. so, my view that as a great opportunity. also, on each of these markets where we have tv stations, we

strive to have the leading source of local information on the traditional television. and our markets about 80% of the newscasts are treated 81 or two. and we have go to television stations. so i think there is a world of opportunity out there. it's not contracting. hearst is involved of course in the newspaper business. and i see that business as contracting. our business is expanding because of the proliferation of all of these new devices and all of these new places to view the video. the world is interested in video and that is what we do for a living. >> do you think that some people would say that the number of people who are watching television, in the studies that come out periodically, people are asked, young people in particular asked yesterday did you watch television news? and six or seven years ago

people under the age of 30 said that they watch television news yesterday. and that number out of the most recent statistics is somewhere around 30%. so, there is this sense that there is a decline particularly among young people. how do you feel about the changing demographics and the changing audience? >> people are migrating to different places. and if we are going to do right by our viewers, we have to go there for them and be there all the different devices so they will consume the media. it is very important that we have established brands. i talked briefly about the value of the editor, the value of the storyteller. and in boston wcc is the best television station in the market. he's expecting me to say that. i'm the boss. but it's a great television station. and we saw when the bombings occurred around the marathon that people's viewership increased. younger people migrated to words

a known and trusted source for local information. the audiences were typically greater than that of our two or three largest competitors combined. so, sometimes it takes a big event in the city and there are tornadoes in that market and demographic patterns change. younger people who gravitate to watch local news and local information. it is a challenge to be remain relevant. you know, you say to me what am i worried about the next four or five years, it is maintaining that relevancy. and i think we tuesday invested in the business. we have to recruit the best and brightest people in the institutions like this and find a place for them and put their resources to this business in a pro-active way that we remain relevant and create reasons for people to watch our stations and to read our publications. so i think that the actual title of this conversation tonight could, building on what david

said, could be slightly modified. because i think that we both share the belief that the word television is one that is of questionable relevance. because in fact, what these kids station is creating and abc news creates, we create video journalism, video storytelling that can exist on the television station. and they can also exist on an ipad or iphone or any smartphone. and so, the question to me is what is the future of the video journalism in the digital age. because all of the content creators and all of the students who are here tonight who are living in to television journalism, who are really going to be going into a profession that is video journalism, telling stories with pictures that will then be projected to all kinds of screening. some of them will be television screens. many of them will be the little devices, a little television stations in your lap that one can watch on an application on

an ipad or tablet or iphone. so i think the future of the video journalism comedy this point is very bright and very robust. and in fact, there is clear evidence that more and more people are consuming more and more video journalism, not just on television on all kinds of devices. >> how are you adapting your story telling, your production for different devices? it's one thing to do gma, the diane show at 6:00 come 6:30 in the evening. how do you view the need to adapt the production techniques for all these different devices? >> once upon a time, when the web was bolted onto the side of the news organizations, and the digital was literally struck on to these broadcast organizations, the theory is that one would simply take the creations of the television shows and just put them out on

the web and maybe make them a little bit shorter. and i think that it's not profound or a regional to note. they require their own content you can simply take what works on television and put it on a local phone or tablet. doug who as our product ingenious took the ipad out. they took that and they decided to look at how people use and consumer information on the ipad which is very different from the way the consumer and the television set. people get one experience in the morning which is short and when people like to snack more we

create a different format for the lunchtime period and then we know people at home at night people like to curl up on the couch or in bed and consumer long form videos so we create three distinct experiences. that sort of approach which does not fit all we cannot take television and put it on the web where we are having to create content for a different experience. social media is a spectacularly interesting tool. the organizations are trying to figure out how to use it and they're responsible way. it's fraught with opportunities and also enormous challenges and risks. how do you manage your newsroom to read what kind of conversations you have in the newsroom about using the social media as the sources and the like? >> so, in 1984, in order to get that here grasp of the weather

copy into the news of server is a circulation of a couple hundred thousand readers. they had to go through to editors that was running the gauntlet of two editors that seemed completely fears and ferocious and what we write all of the 75 words because they were not up to snuff. today at abc news, some of our younger people, right out of school, who are social media editors have access with the flick of eight letters which. they can communicate with literally millions of people without any editorial, direct editorial oversight or editing because they are the social media interaction with the audience. millions of people but world news, millions of people at good morning america, millions of followers at abc news.com. is this is one of the things we think about a lot.

there are few filters and editing of the layers in the social media interaction but because it is branded abc news it has the same stand. it has the same as abc news and so we think about that. how about the stations, david, what is the relevant importance to the social media and getting your anchors and correspondents and television stations engaged in the audience? it is an important tool but it requires the real responsibility in determining how we use that tool. and we are very mindful about sourcing and using facebook for instance as a source that carries a risk with it. i would ask you to raise your hand if you believe that you are -- your closest friends facebook pages 100% accurate on everything that is portrayed on that page. yet in the newsrooms around the country people will go to facebook and use that as a

source. it carries a lot more responsibility than ever has before in the after-hours that follow in their random reckless nature of social media posting accusations and implicating individuals who have nothing to do with what occurred in boston and mourned her death and this was portrayed on websites and some news organizations ran with it. the reporting by a lot of the news organizations about the

apprehension of the bombers, the implicated a fellow in brown university who was connected in no way with the scene of the daily news ran a picture on the front page. and you have seen these people. and they were not the people involved in the bombing. the recklessness of it was frightening. >> our experience is that we have committed to an entire program that we call adc which is for accuracy and credibility. is whether it is the social media editors like i described earlier, who have to go by a series of extremely strict rules about what they can send out and what they can do for all of this different reporting, the priority is to get it right the value of this being first has declined rapidly has never been more significant. what are the things that you

know during the attacks in kenya on that shopping mall is that very quickly the parity utter feeds began to appear in al-shabaab it's the modern social media as soon as that happened, there's all kind of valuable information that we can gather and collect from the social media about what is happening. everyone can send in pictures and see what's happened. and at the same time there are all kind of pranksters and other types that jump in there that want to have some fun and calls all kind of mischief. and so the importance of having on the receiving end. seóul filtering all of that information to find out what is real and what's not real and have checks and balances and be able to check out all these different accounts we have a team that mobilizes to begin to try to digest that information

to check out what is verifiable and what is not verifiable. >> you have said it's better to be right the first and certainly i would agree with that. talk about election night in 2012 when ohio was up for grabs and everyone was clamoring to be the first one to declare president obama r. dee elected -- president obama reelected. we had the first on times square, we suffered right around 11 p.m. eastern time we suffered a massive power outage in our studio. thinkers, diane sawyer, george stephanopoulos and the entire team, literally sitting in the dark for 20 minutes of hitting it because we plugged in some heaters on the outside to keep

the team warm and times square and they had just been struck into the wall. there were lots of power checks. one of the things that i've seen in my career is to see our electrical team running from the basement of the building at times square up the stairs with a cable to plug us back and to keep us on the air. this is our network. >> david knows the story. >> the second thing that happened that night is that we know what happened in the previous presidential election when they didn't call it correctly and we had said to the team and the projection specialist that we have to be right. that we just have to be right. and so there was a gap between abc news coverage and the projection of ohio and some of the other networks and summer between eight to 15 minutes and that is an agonizing time because one sees other networks proclaiming the president obama

has been reelected president. and abc news is not there. and in fact on some of the screens behind our people, and the various headquarters the crowds are going crazy because of their organizations are projecting a winner but abc news is not there. so as i said to many of the people at the abc television networks, our job is to get it right and if we get it wrong, we lose credibility and trust. and sometimes it is going to take as a little bit longer. in other elections and in other situations we have been ahead of other people. so we have a great trust in our team and we cannot push the team. we have to let them come to that in our own way. >> was abc news damaged in any way because it wasn't first that might? i don't know the answer to that. we would have more damage if we would have gotten that right. people remember today i bring up

-- i remember but i don't think that people remember who was first or second or third on the air. the consequences of being wrong are much more embarrassing and much more damaging. >> can i just interrupt there because you talk about path about the importance of winning. can you define winning because most people think that winning in television or women in television is designed by ratings. how do you define this on election night and on all other nights? it is about conducting ourselves with integrity, it's about representation and respect the viewer has for us. then it's about the top revenue and top profitability which allows us to reinvest in the

business to provide the kind of service that means to be provided to employ the people that we employee and fulfill the nation as broadcasters. so it is a lot more than just ratings. and i think that there are some people in the narrow point of view that says you when and at whatever cost is worth the when. we do not want to put our name on the wan that came with a loss of integrity. we don't want to damage their duties and and the end doesn't justify the means in terms of how we conduct ourselves. the ratings are critical and important and revenue generation is important and profitability is important. we have been in business in the television space in the very first days since 1948 and we have been in business since 1987 and one's ability to stay in any business that long depends upon

successful operation of the commercial enterprise. the idea is in the right way. and we are pretty greedy in this test that we have pretty high standards in terms of wanting it all but wanting it all to the right responsible way to conduct themselves as the business enterprise. >> in that context for the students that are here what are you looking for when you are hiring someone for hearst? what are the qualities among the young people you are bringing into your organization? >> not necessarily in this order. passion is really important. love what you do. i don't think that you can be successful in any endeavor unless you have got passion for what that is. i think the people that the higher are smart curious people. curiosity is something that i like to see when we chat with people and interview people.

there are skills that can be developed and a lot of the skill development in this institution. but, you know, passion and curiosity and the sense of urgency are really important. i think a sense of humor is really important. and i think that eisenhower said a sense of humor is one of the most important qualities that a leader can have. and i look for that. and people that we talk to. but now i think the people who are most successful in any endeavor have a passion for what they are doing and they bring with it a whole package of skills that are required. writing is important. a good i pity the people of our photographers. how elusive the good judgment is for people. it is a quality that is hard to tell people and show people and educate people about how to have a good judgment. but it's terribly important.

when we are in the newsroom and you have someone that has to make a decision about whether they go to air with a story, judgment is really important. so those are the kind of qualities that we are looking for. >> could have one quality which is sort of that inner go is what the historian lewis mumford described it. it is the fire from inside. but up from inside. salt start to read driven through that an hour ago and that in your drive to get things done to make a difference. how does the live news room learn from and respond to mistakes and i think that from the needy are shooting in d.c. last month a few weeks back and a few of your competitors is identified to the shooter was quickly or not so quickly when i have had to retract the name

that they put out over the airwaves. how do you deal with mistakes? how much is the management involved in the control room for the breaking news environment? >> first of all, we take the trust that you described up the station at parallel. and we know the trust of the audience and the integrity is primary. we know that mistakes have been. we have the leverett systems in place to protect against making mistakes. we train and a drill for every kind of scenario so that we make very few mistakes. we also know that they do have been. and when they do have been we try to correct them as quickly as we can and then set about to learn from them and not make

them again. so i think one of the things we know from our friends and newspapers and magazines is there is a little spot in the newspaper where mistakes happen in journalism and it's part of the process that we want to reduce as much as we possibly can. there's many good systems and people in training. and we try every single day to make sure that we are as we talked about being right not just first. >> we make mistakes we try to correct those. first you have technology made the mistake. that means there cannot be a sense of institutional arrogance in any station. but we try to address the mistakes as quickly as we can in the same spot and get out in front of that but it's also just a matter of common sense and

that helps us preserve the trust that people have for the station. you cannot make excuses about the mistakes that the main. i have one experienced it is ugly to tell, but one of our stations some years ago the station was doing a story about pedophile priests. they went to the seminary your book and they selected the photograph father o'flaherty and next to him was father o'flynn and it was him that had a problem and not father o'flaherty. they called the television station and said you have the wrong guy. they said we know what you are doing. we went with the story at six

and 11 and was a mistake that we had to correct and make a contribution to the archdiocese. it was a horrible mistake to read and i think that when people come to the station in these kind of circumstances you can't have such a high sense of certitude that i cannot be wrong. this is what i do for a living. and i fear the servitude wherever i see it. it is never creative. it is never thoughtful. and when people have that sense of certitude, the ware. it is a mistake, thank goodness we haven't repeated and in our universe, but it is illustrative of a problem that occurred in a pretty good station. >> no one disputes the importance of investigative journalism. but in this area of limited

resources, it is hard to commit to the investigative journalism during what is your feeling about the investigative team set your station and their importance to the brand? >> i think it is terribly important. i think it is important that the newspapers diminished the investigative reporting that they are doing as they pull back the resources. i don't think that we do enough of it. and we are in the last couple of years we have had workshops with the reporters about how to do investigative reporting in any better way. there is so much competition out there. there is so much notion about the cost management. that you cannot starve good business is in our case could television stations or good news organizations. and i am one who believes that there will be a darwinian outcome here. in many markets there will not be as many stations doing the kind of news that we do and we have a responsibility to our

viewers and to our shareholders to do everything we can to make these business is competitive and to grow and do things that the audience wants from us. the country, the society benefits from great investigative journalism. and god help us if we are not allocating the resources to do that. we are a company that believes in it and has the resources to do it. i think back to an investigative piece that we have that we did in maryland at wbal tv that resulted in the changes from the environmental law with respect to chesapeake bay and as a product of the kind of investigative work that we did at wbal tv. and i worry about newspapers not staying the course and doing the job they do. a friend of mine from detroit had a conversation the would observe that the corruption in

the mayor's office which is somewhat legendary wouldn't have been uncovered without the enterprise work of the newspaper and i'm not sure that the tv stations would have devoted over a long period of time and resources to identify that kind of correction. i think that we as a society need to be sure that happened in the field of journalism. >> go back to your mentioning of baltimore because i think especially for an audience of a lot of students and people thinking about careers in the media. you do not arrive where you are without sort of taking some risks and having some wins. do you care to tell us some stories about your moments of taking big risks and how those turned out? and when you learned from them? >> ben is referring