ike that. we had previous explanations. for example, his father beat him enhe was a child which traumatized him and therefore, he went on as an adult to murder tens of millions of people. i found this an implausible explanation because my father beat me to a pulp when i was a kid and i have yet to accomplish any type of murder on that scale. in fact, i've never murdered anybody. except in print. so i tried to get away from the psychologizing, which is unsatisfying to me, and instead to try to document those around him and when they began to perceive that he was either a little bit strange, a lot strange, dangerous, or sociopathic, because after all, how are people subsequently many decades after his death going to

figure him out? we're going to do it through his very close comrades, those who lived and worked with him and kind of see what they had to say about him. this is not an easy task because around stalin there are many lies. there are lies that stalin told about himself, there are lies they regime told about him in official propaganda. there are lies his enemies who survived somehow and fled abroad into immigration told about him. and then there are the fantastic stories made up about him and what he call the biographies of stalin. so there is a lot of junk surrounding him, and so you kind of have to work through. it's sort of like the ship that has been in port too long and you get out the scraper and begin to scrape the barnacles off the man, stalin to try to see if you can get back to this process of his evolution as a

person. so let me give you one example of something like this. in the spring and summer of 1923, spring and summer of 1923, right? the stalin is 45 years old. he has been general secretary of the communist party for a little over a year. april 1922. in april 1922 lenin appoints stalin general secretary of the party. this is well documented that it was done on purpose that lenin knew what he was doing that he picked stalin because he thought stalin would do the job and it was a very big job not a small technical job. extremely well documented this episode in april 1922. well in may 1922 the next month, lenin had a massive stroke. so, within seven weeks of stalin becoming the head of the communist party, the most

powerful institution of the country, his boss, his mentor, his superior has an incapacitating stroke. so stalin has inherited a dictatorship be lenin's appointment of him and by lenin's stroke. so on the one hand it's the action of lenin, on the other hand it's the accident of lenin's health. but here we are year later. spring and summer 1923. and something called -- subsequently called, much later called -- not called at the time -- something called lenin's -- at the time it's just called dictation. and a piece of paper, a type piece of paper i handed to somebody named gregorio be lenin's widow, and she hands him the piece of paper and it says, negative things about stalin

about trotsky, about -- who received the paper, from about three other people. this happens right after a party congress and stalin has triumphed at the party congress, lenin is sick. and out comes this piece of paper. but lo and bee hold few weeks later a second piece of paper comes out. a different piece of paper which is also attributed to lenin, supposed dictation to lenin. there's a problem because we have notation patrols lynnin's doctors about how he couldn't speak. but anyway, theirs dictation attributed to lenin who which says remove stalin. it's called the letter about the secretary because extol -- stalin is general secretary of the party. it's given by lenin's wife to this guy, and he is on vacation down south with other members of the inner regime and they

meet in a cave. they meet in a cave, the famous cave meetings. long been known about. what should they do about this letter? and so they decide to draft a letter to stalin about this letter that allegedly lenin has dictated. which says remove stalin. it's a very consequential dictation if it's true because the head -- the founder of the revolution is saying remove his principle protege. so they send the letter up to stalin in moscow about this and stalin is quite surprised. he evidently did not know about the existence of this alleged dictation. and he kind of doesn't know what to do. and there's an exchange of letters back and forth, a few more, and one of the guys who is involved in the inner circle is

still in moscow alongside stalin not on vacation in the cave. and his name is kominev, and he has also tremendous ambition. he himself wouldn't mind being number one or being co-number one and here's a letter allegedly from lynnin saying remove stalin. if he thought that stalin was a sociopath, if he thought in the summer of 1923 that stalin's rule could murder tens of millions of people, including kominev himself, if he noticed anything extremely threatening about stalin this was his opportunity to engage in this conspiracy and remove stalin from this powerful position. certainly if i were ambitious, and moreover if i were afraid

that stalin was socialow pathic i would not have hesitated to act upon his alleged dictation by lenin and sought to remove stalin. let's be honest. people have sought to remove their rivals with less than a command from lenin to remove stalin. but minev writes back and says, you're exaggerating. in other words, the person who is close toast stalin on a day-to-day work basis, coominev who knows stalin as well as anybody, he has met stalin 20 years earlier. ...

so i said to myself this is not definitive the summer of 1923. it doesn't forever decide the question but it's a very interesting episode. evidently stalin's closest comrade did not perceive the sociopathic behavior that we will see later as of summer 1923. so whatever beatings his father gave him, and there are very few sources that corroborate any of

these beatings beatings, and in fact i have my doubts that his father thrashed him frequently but nonetheless let's suppose he did. this is a man who is now in its 45th year in a position of tremendous power and his rivals and in fact zanoviev and the other in a case on vacation don't actually try to remove stalin. they tried to put others next to him in a power-sharing operation. lenin said remove stalin which is the most convenient thing for them that they could say that zenobia -- zanoviev dismasted fulfill munden swish. they pick up a scheme of sharing power together. that game is rebuffed like kamenev in moscow so nobody on the inside in this tremendous

opportunity acts upon the alleged dictation to remove stalin in the summer of 1926. once again not definitive but very important episode and then i moved later to 1928. this is a book that goes from 1878 to 1928. 1928 as i show was the year that stalin decided to collectivize agriculture. he decided to enslave the peasantry across 16 of the year. it was a bloody horrific episode. it led to famine. five to 7 million people dying and the loss of tens of millions of livestock the wealth of the country could in some ways the soviet union never really recovered from this episode and in some ways it's the central crime of stalin's rule of collectivization.

sometimes you watch a movie and there is a murder in the movie but it's offscreen it's off camera. maybe you hear a gunshot, maybe you don't. maybe there are shadows and maybe there is blood splattering on a window or something like this. this was the effect that i tried for in the book. the actual episode of collectivization is not there but the decision to go forward into a despair. along with that decision in 1928 where the book culminates there is stalin's malevolently torturing psychologically torturing some of his closest associates including those who he is treated like a brother like the younger brother he never had. so you begin to say a malevolence of gratuitous malevolence of making people

suffer psychologically certainly by 1928 which as i said doesn't seem to be visible in the summer of 1923 and he's one of the participants in the cane meeting. so between 1923 in 1928 there evidently is some type of transformation of behavior. now it could be the roots of this go back deeper but it was not seen him certainly earlier. there are very few documented episodes of people subsequently not in hindsight not remembering something 50 years later but at the time talking about sociopathic behavior. so we have i think away to date it a little bit, to date when stalin as it were become stalin.

so there's a lot in the book along these lines where we talk about how he became the person he became and very closely queuing to the documentary record to see where he is emerging. in conclusion before it goes to q&a let me say something about the russian power site. there's obviously much more to say about stalin's personality his willpower, the ideas he held held, his view of the outside world his view about how dictatorship works and one of the reasons the book is 739 pages of tax. i just used this episode to the give you a taste of what you might encounter encounter in the book but let's talk about a russian power in the world. russian power in the world is not easy to manage. you see because when they were given their geography they didn't get the atlantic ocean on

one side, the pacific ocean on the other side mexico to the south and canada to the north. instead they got powerful germany on one side, powerful aggressive japan on the other side and underneath him the british empire and the islamic world. russian power in the world because of its geography is enormous weight challenged. we can go on in this direction. russia is a northern country. many times the size of the population were agriculture is much more difficult obviously been in more tropical climates. russia doesn't have natural borders so it's constantly expanding while claiming defense. because if it takes a territory and incorporates it they can't defend that territory until it takes the one next to it, the one over and so constantly they

feel under siege the need to expand to protect themselves of natural borders to those people that are standing into it looks like aggression but to the russians it looks like they are extensively expanding to protect themselves. this is the dynamic rooted in washing -- russians history and we see that today still wrestling with the problem of expansionism. there's a providential mission that russia is not only a great power but has a special mission in the world. we see this play out one way under the czarist regime and another way under the communist regime. we see a level of paranoia attributing bad things that happen inside the country to mal's malevolent actions by

outsiders. their protest movements in the streets. somebody from the outside is instigating them. somebody is paying for them. somebody is trying to undermine our state diversion from the outside. these are legitimate protest movements against arbitrary rule against corruption and incompetence but perceived in the russian capital which becomes the second city because the soviet capital is perceived as a foreign plot. in stalin's regime we see it. we see the desire to be portrays russia, to be self-sufficient to pull up the bridges and use the mode but fortress russia we see under stalin's regime as stalin himself recognizes does not work.

the western powers have the advanced technology and when you're in a competitive modernization game when you need the latest guns, the latest artillery, the latest tanks, the latest airplanes, when you need to compete against those who have the latest and the best technology if you can't build it all yourself, you are partially dependent on the outside world supplying it for use of fortress russia is a temptation but fortress russia never works. today we see it with oil technology in addition to military technology especially higher-level electronics. the russian regime like to use seek independence of western suppliers that are fortress russia is a temptation that never works. this is the big thing. i could go on.

to drive to build a strong state and russia culminates in personal rule. time and time again they try to build a strong state and instead of building strong institutions is one person. and the network around that person. this is also a paradoxical aspect of stalin's world and you see some of it today on a much lesser scale obviously. so to summarize and it's impossible to summarize obviously but to summarize relating to russian power in the world's problems and relating who stalin is and where he comes from on a very big tableau, won six of the earth that actually with global repercussions of the communist movement. and as time moves on stalin's biography becomes like a world history. thank you for your time. [applause]

perhaps there is a question or two. yes sir? >> you said something about russia's situation but what i have trouble with understanding, what kind of a place would -- and as an american i can't conceive how thomas jefferson from a slave society may have viewed the society was then. [inaudible] this russia sounds like a terrible place. the secret police wrote the protocols of zion. they were expanding to kill

people in to take over other people's countries. maybe they fear other countries but maybe it's because they are nasty people themselves. and nearby countries are being colonized to the japanese and say we are going to be a pushover for people. so what kind of the country is this? what quality does the religion of this country offered? what kind attentions are there? i don't have any trouble telling you why this guy was a -- and if you see what's the dramatization? >> i think i get your question at this point. it's a good question. i'm not sure i would use the same normative language you use to describe them. it's easy of course to see the bad sides of any society and we have some on our own so

independent of value judgment discussion let's talk about the society which is born. this is one of the things the book actually does. many biographies it's stalin get the early years because not much happens. he goes through the age of 40 something and he is only really had one job. he is briefly a weatherman at the observatory. it's one of the few legitimate legal jobs he does in his whole life before he becomes a dictator. so people see it very quickly. they go over all that history, protocols of the elders of zion czarist russian regime, the czarist ministers, the czarist court, the war that they fight against japan. all of that stuff was left out of stalin biographies because he is not a consequential person. the other strategy that more

lately invents the stalin of the earlier years. in other words instead of skipping over this period they say it turns out he was a low faria, and all sorts of other things that they invented for stalin trying to flatter him in the 1930s that were left out of the archives. instead of doing one of those things ignoring it or jumping through it or inventing a very dramatic version of it what i do is go through with the russian state was like, how russia was ruled, what the rulers try to do that for stalin, who had their hand on the russian state before him and how did they succeed or not succeed? as the case might be in our aims and managing russian power of the world. one of the things the book does is to talk about how imperial russia had created a very

impressive fiscal military state. there is a lot of detail on how this fiscal military state of the czarist function and how was able to become a great power. another thing the book does is to show that the underground revolutionary movement that is celebrated in most accounts was in fact a tremendous failure and that there was not a successful fourth revolution that culminated in 1917 and 18. there were protests in some cases growing protest among workers in factories and especially from the countryside. the revolutionary movement, the revolutionary party, the party of lenin were colossal failures and the chief of police he mentioned. the book also goes through how russia almost created fascism before italy and germany and the protocols of the elders of zion

which came as you said from the russian empire and there was a fascist movement, very very large and russia. it's another aspect of the book that is illuminated. the book shows how the russian state did not collapse in world war i. it was only the autocratic part of the state that collapsed. the russian state functions right to the war. it was the revolution that destroyed the russian state. the book also shows how the provisional government in the revolution of 1917 was a coup against the parliament a coup against the duma. the book also shows the bolsheviks who of 1917 was a coup not against the provisional government but against the soviets the grassroots soviets. the book shows there was no state in 1918 a year after lenin had claimed he seizes power because the state was in

collapse as a result of the revolution. i could go on about many things in the book but there's a very substantial analysis based upon primary documentation imperial russia, the russian state, of the russian opposition, of the political parties the russian prime ministers, of the russian nationalities, of the way the empire functions through time and into this chaotic period of war or revolution. do we have any other questions? >> one thing you never mentioned was -- fascism. [inaudible] i wonder in 1914 when he was

about 40 does he think about jeb durfee or does he only think in terms of warfare? >> yes so i mentioned at the outset that stalin was a true believing marxist from an early age and that he held these convictions very deeply. this is documented in the book and we see him speaking in marxist category behind the scenes as well as in public. one of the things we discovered when we were first allowed into the secret archives is they talk the same way in private as they did in public. so the marxist ideology was not a veneer it was not a show. they weren't cynical but this is how they actually thought and this was the basis for many of their actions. and stones case it's very important to acknowledge that he

was a true believer in the marxist canon as he understood it. this doesn't mean that every single time he did something it was some marxist belief. it's how we understood the world and that's how he spoke explained his actions and decisions to others and that's how we thought about them retrospectively. there is no way to understand the soviet union after marxist ideology and no way to understand stalin. the truth however -- the trick is to pride in% and they want sophisticated version of what the ideology was and how it worked in practice. yes sir.

>> did you uncover anything new? >> thank you for both of those questions. he was -- went to seminary but didn't graduate. he missed his final exam and never got his degree. we have known pretty much the story of stalin's time in the seminary from the early biographies that's because many other people want to seminary with him, some before, some after, some of the same time in many those people survived. we also have the records of the seminary to a certain extent. so that picture is not unknown. the trick is how to understand the seminary period. some people have seen the seminary period is formative of his masochistic sociopathic side because the seminary was brutal. the seminary was full of snitches.

the seminary was tyrannical so people think the culture of the seminary was a breeding ground for the culture of stalin's regime. to an extent that's possible. the problem is many decent people came out of that same seminary at the same time as stalin so the seminary is insufficient to really explain it. one of the questions i tried to figure out was that stalin believed in god or not. if having come out of this religious training we know he was a true believer in god in his early years we know that he wanted to be a priest or a monk in his early years. we know that he sang in the seminary choir and that he had an impressive voice that impressed the choirmaster and so we know he had this religious feeling but did any of that remain in him through the rest

of his life and unfortunately this is an aspect of his personality that is not in the documentation. there are accounts of stalin talking about, of stalin going to church for example. none of these are corroborated while he is the dictator. it's plausible that some of us was left over. the way people see it it's mostly through his style of writing which has long been known and well understood that there are similarities between seminary's catechism and about the trotsky stuff. the book treats trotsky and lenin as important personalities and goes through thoroughly to paint them as human beings and to get a sense of what they were like and the stalin trotsky relationship is the very core part of the biggest section of part three and i believe there is well-documented significant

new information about the important role of trotsky and stalin's personality formation and also the limitations of trotsky expressed in the book. >> i'm interested the way you are speaking about resources where was recognized the character of stalin. i was wondering if you talk more about what source of behavior but set off those alarms that could top bolshevik inner circle's? >> that's a great questions ... think about this. there is speculation that stalin snapped. he snapped for example when his wife his second wife committed suicide. his first wife died horrifically of disease. he married again. the second wife committed suicide in late 1932. this is a moment which was the

moment he became sociopathic. now we can see very clearly certainly in 1928 and i show in the book in 1927 and he is exhibiting this behavior. so therefore the suicide of his wife in 1932 which is the subject of volume two, it's not in this volume one might've had a big effect on him. i will do it that in the second volume but did not produce the sociopathic stalin. what we see in 1927 not quite in 1926 but what we see in 1927 ramp or she's 491927 is going to be 50 in 1928 when the first volume ends. he's 49 years old and if you have known him for 25 or 30 years and some of you people

have known them for that long long and others have known him for only 20 years which is still a sufficient amount of time. in 1927 they begin to talk among themselves a little bit about his behavior and they begin to worry a little bit that it's more than just odd. but they seem to come to the conclusion that it's manageable. because he's very talented which they also recognized, talented dictator. he's not a talented democrat. he said not a talented parliamentarian. he's not a talented mother teresa charity worker. he's a talented ruler of tyrannical and authoritarian regime which seems to be under siege and therefore needs somebody to deal with the enemies. so they recognized his powers and they seem to come to the conclusion that managing without him would be more difficult than trying to manage the

increasingly emerging personality traits that are threatening. one of the things i show in the book is he resigns again and again. i go through in detail about where, how the psychology was affected by certain events and one of his expressions of his feelings is to force his colleagues to reaffirm his authority by resigning. by writing or late again and again and again. they have opportunity after opportunity including in december 1927 just before he goes to siberia on the trip that culminates the book and announces that he's going to collectivize the peasantry enslave the peasantry. in december 1927 before the january 1928 trip to siberia to

announce collective that -- collectivization he resigns again. there they are in a room and they have begun to see this aspect of his personality more clearly. but instead of getting up and saying okay we accept your resignation, you have done a great job up until now but we will have somebody else be in charge. instead of saying that the second most powerful person gets up and says of course not we will never except your resignation and gets the rest of the room to come and vote and to reject the resignation. there's only one vote in favor of the resignation. so they are making a calculation about his ability and the benefits of visibility because he has a colossal job and is able to hold the whole revolution, that whole regime on his back.

i go through in detail about where this came from and how it expressed itself in the kind of manipulations he manage. they were very impressed by his abilities. a result of which they concluded that they could maybe manage him even though they were beginning to see a side of him. think maybe we have time for one more. >> during the 20s when you were saying between 22 onward to 26 and 27, wouldn't you imagine, i mean you know better than i having a job such as his job had to be extremely taxing on anyone. i mean working in a very imperfect and messy system.

it's a huge country and the best you can accomplish is not going to really show great improvement. so as much as you know about him as a person is it possible to imagine just the burnout alone, i mean even though he has learned her was good at assumption and the way the job requires him to function he might still have been burned out out. to me could possibly be enough. my other question is how much did he know it about the outside world such as this one could have had him alone in a room and asked him how much did he know

about the american revolution have these people came together and try to create -- >> did he know and did he have an appreciation for the differences? >> on the issue of the difficulty of the job wanted the original point i made was dictatorship had to be built and had to be sustained. he did that work. he inherited the basis of the dictatorship in iraq willfully built that dictatorship up and sustained it and it was an enormous task. it was very taxing just like you say. he did experience moments when he felt he would break and couldn't take it anymore and we have some documentation of them expressing that desire for a holiday or a break from work. at the same time he was a deeply

political animal. he loved politics. he lived for politics. he lived to be the dictator and he lived to be the ruler. even on a burned out, even when they went on holiday which was much later than he anticipated he brought his work with him and he continued to be a dictator while on holiday. there's almost no downtime for stalin no downtime. and the pressure gets heavier and heavier and the regime gets narrower and narrower and he gets more and more responsibility as time goes by. this has an effect on him. now let's take the issue of the outside world. he was extremely well read. he wasn't autodidact. he read tremendous amounts when he was young and he never ceased reading. one of the things he read was

about the outside world about foreign policy, about theories of rule georgian history imperial russian history ancient roman history the classics and of course lenin. stalin was able to find specific quotations in london's work. sometimes he had little pieces of white paper to help them find the quotes. often he knew the quotes from memory. he knows a lot about the outside world but to return to an earlier point he was sophisticated and blinkered at the same time. so talk about fascism as finance capital. he has a very unsophisticated analysis of fascism. it filtered through his marxist worldview that is related to class and class struggle.

this is not a sophisticated analysis. at the same time he had a very sophisticated analysis of behavior and what we would call -- and how other states use any means necessary. but you know there's a seriousness and a comical quality to the dictatorship at the same time. here they are a poor country wracked by war revolution and civil war undergoing famine barely able to recover telling the outside world that they are the future and the outside world is going to do disappear and desperately needing trade agreements by the outside world to supply the things with they can grow themselves. the same time stalin is engaging in conspiracy to overthrow these foreign regimes that is desperate -- desperate to trade with.

this is where i will end. a polish ethnic high official in the soviet regime this is how the soviet regime works. stalin is in control for the communications network. stalin is in control of the paperwork. stalin is the heart of the regime interfacing with the police interfacing with the military. i describe the physical geography of the regimes they can understand stalin's power and an entire chapter. he started out as a secret policeman and became a high military official and in fact essentially is in charge of the armament industry and it organize coups in foreign countries. in germany there leading trading partner they organize a coup and he hires a few hundred people to conduct this coup in germany and sends a tremendous amount of

money to buy weapons on the black market. there's a version of this in bulgaria so here they are in this poorer wracked ruined catastrophic situation trying to affect war through these plotted coup on the basis of the relationship which made stalin and the general secretary of the party. so that reflects a sophisticated understanding of foreign affairs. is that reflects a sophisticated understanding of the capabilities of the soviet union? it's kind of a crazy gopher broke what have we got to lose strategy. so we see him reading through marking up text. then we see them behaving with the crazy small conspiracy and that is stalin in both cases.

thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> hi everyone. can you hear me in the back? thank you for coming out

tonight. before we get started if you could take a minute to turn off or silencer cell phones and secondly it would be great if you could do us a favor, come to her audience microphone over here in that way though c-span and politics and prose will get your question as well as answers to them. lastly if you get is a huge favor. fold up your chairs. it will help us have more room for the book signing and get back to bookselling and all of that good stuff. thank you for being here. welcome to politics and prose. i run or in-store events and this evening we are pleased to have with us rafia zakaria to discuss her new book "the upstairs wife."

it's an experience of the country chic rock the country she grew up in and ends at this pivotal moment in december 2007 when benazir bhutto was assassinated in one of her own golf decided to take a second wife. the book becomes a unique look at culture and politics and shows a lot about the country through her own story. her work has appeared and you're probably seen it in al-jazeera america and other publications and she's almost -- also a human rights activist ends served on the board of amnesty international usa. tonight she is joined in conversation by bilal qureshi a producer and writer for npr's all things considered. please join me in welcoming them to politics and prose. [applause] >> i think you need to hold that. sorry about that. i will get my microphone on.

this is actually rafia's verse booktalk affords a great privilege to have her in d.c. on the dispersed discussion she's doing him a book that i want to start with in addition to the introduction was made in pakistan average's week she writes for a leading english newspaper and her work is on human rights and women rights and discrimination all kinds of issues and i'm curious but when you have written a something as personal as this book is which is part memoir and part history of pakistan what was the origin of taking the writing you do every weekend saying something in the way that you have done your? >> first of all thank you everybody for being here. i'm sure you hear authors say this all the time. writing it -- writing is a lonely job. there's nothing better than sitting in front of people who read your work and have an

interest in it. it is rare that i write mostly for pakistani audience. i am a columnist for the largest newspaper and a lot of the genesis of this book was in my interactions with women in pakistan who write to me every week sometimes in response to the columns. it is difficult in the united states to get people interested in a book on pakistan trade i was talking earlier to my friend who was staying in now if you have a title that says the nukes are safe or there are more terrorists than anyone else then you can sell a book in pakistan but a book about pakistani women particularly about karachi which is the city i am from as seen through the eyes of women is a

harder sell. so it's so encouraging to see everybody here. i envision this book as a way to introduce people to really what it feels like to be pakistani more than anything else. so in this book is an effort to present the emotional side of pakistan. it is i think a dimension of the country that is lost in the narrative that is dominated by security issues especially here in d.c. by terror and violence. there is very little exploration of the internet life that goes on behind closed doors but that is really the narrative of the country. >> you said that you would initially thought about doing something that would bring you

to the landscape. there are a lot of pakistani fiction writers and then they have been able to do stories on families and individual struggles but ultimately to not only write a more literary piece but also something that is deeply personal for you take your family story and put it on the pages. all the women and your family from your grandmother to your mother to your answer to yourself so that decision was a typical one to put something like a private life in pakistan which is very private in the public in a way that you have. >> yes. it is difficult and it continues to be a struggle. i think that the way i look at it was that i had to be true to my commitment as a writer and that i wanted to present as honest as possible a story that was true to my heart in and that

captured the experiences of people i loved. but sometimes that comes up against the expectations people have of you as well as the relationships you have with people. so it's a balancing act but i guess my strongest motivating factor was that i strongly believe that a lot of suffering results from silence and because some of these private boundaries are not traversed to there are a lot of men who might on some dimension go through similar situations that feel alienated or a loan or that field their struggle as a singular one. and to have the story told hopefully as a way for other women to share their stories and to realize that there are universal strains of human

emotion that unite us that our pakistani or american. the central theme of the book is being in love with someone who doesn't really love you the same way you love him. that's something i think that everybody goes through or has gone through or will go through at some point. >> and you talk a little bit about the central character of the book which is your aunt which is also the title of the book "the upstairs wife" and what you mean by that and what happened to her? tell us a little bit about her in if you want to read a little bit about the observation. >> the central character is my aunt and obviously the story revolves around her husband taking a second wife and her first -- first coming home to what was her father's house and what that was like to as a child

get steps of what was going on but not really knowing why everyone was so upset her why she was so upset. that's a central character into that i tried to explore this whole idea of public and private and how people how there's a connection between the violence outside in pakistan and the violence in intimate relationships and how it can also tear you apart. so the question that i'm reading right now is the view from the outside in this neighborhood where everybody knows everyone else and they know that this man might uncle has taken a second wife. >> and he has divided his home into multiple levels. your aunt lives on one level and

his new wife lives on another level. >> i can hold your mic for you. >> all right, thank you. with the arrival of the second wife the eyes of neighbors focused with rejuvenated fervor on her newly enlarged house. in the evening to women watched the lights turning on upstairs or downstairs. the men watch the comings and goings of my uncle whether he ascended or descended the stairs between the two women. beatitudes household the only one who shared one man provided a safe conversation topic at their own dinner tables. a reprieve from nagging concerns about jobs and money and traffic in schools. is she upstairs or downstairs tonight? always managing to draw a laugh

from the most overworked of husbands. thus the newly-created neighborhood of stragglers reunited on one short lane of houses in karachi had found a juicy drama that was reliable fodder. >> what is interesting is you take those observations about what is happening in your family's life and interlaced throughout the book with a history of pakistan so that readers getting both this sad and juicy as you described in your words story of the family alongside the narrative of pakistan's political leaders and the one woman you write about in the book which is benazir bhutto who i think many americans know as one of the only female politicians in the world of her time. she was a larger-than-life figure and she looms over your book is the freest woman ankeny talk about the choice to juxtapose your family's

experience and with benazir bhutto a daughter of karachi known around the world? >> yeah, i mean as a pakistani woman living in america that is probably one of the most frequent questions that i'm asked. benazir bhutto is a prime minister. in many ways pakistan as a public face a familiar face for pakistani women. but i wanted to present her how i saw her as a kid when she was getting married herself and but that was like and how i interpreted that as a girl growing up in karachi. more than anything and here you have an environment where choices are very circumscribed. i was definitely being raised to be married and have children and

i wanted very much for her not to do that. i wanted at least one example of a woman who was is not doing what every other woman i knew was doing and their lives centered around marriage and childbirth. so i remember watching it on tv and being sort of sad because it's like okay here's the freest and is true she is the freest woman and she has to marry this man. he wasn't a particularly good looking man to a child rafia and no political subtext whatsoever but as a kid you are thinking why she doing this? i wanted one person to say not everybody has to do this. not everybody has to make these compromises and fit into these constricted roles.

and that's the shadow because it is through the lives of other women and the marriages that you see that you interpret what your life is going to be like and the choices you are going to make. that is why she is a significant influence in the book. also because this book, you asked earlier about the origins a pakistani woman you cannot help but look at what's happening and be sad and the despondent about the way things are and be upset about the fact that you are not seeing a reflection or that women are being erased from pakistan. whether it's a public spaces or the history or any of the important dimensions of life.

i just got to this point where i felt this was the only way to reclaim pakistan is to present the story of pakistan through the eyes of women and that in itself a lease for me was the ultimate thing that i could do. here i have story after story of women who i love to try to claim the country for themselves and that includes benazir bhutto. and they are not able to do so. so i wanted to tell the story of the struggles of those women because i mean i guess they say history is defined or written by the victors. i am hoping that there will be victors next and they will overcome because they will see in a narrative like this how powerful and resilient they have

been and that they can be and they continue to push the system and continue to push the boundaries of what are often very constricted choices. >> you said a lot of the ideas in the book came out of the e-mails you have had with women readers in pakistan that write to every week from your columns and that has to do with some of the ways you present the political history of pakistan and the anecdotes are you share. can you talk about the e-mails with your readers have gone into this book and are part of this book? >> definitely. before you can say that i will say pakistan and the newspaper that i write for our different lines of the society that is transforming and that is extremely violent. i am tremendously grateful for

my editors who week after week allow me to push the boundaries and write articles about women and about issues like polygamy about issues like laws against adultery and all the other things that activists are working on. but i am touched by the fact that pakistani women, i get letters from university students, from women who work and women even within their own families fighting for their daughters to have choices. i wanted to sort of reflect that plurality in a book you know because as they say i didn't want to present my story. i wanted you to be able to see as many stories as possible so that you understand that there is a mixture of pushing and

pulling. there are women as we seen the book to come out on the streets college students who fight and then there are women who retreat. all of that is a part of pakistan. more essentially though i think at this point in pakistan's history issues like polygamy are very alive mostly because polygamy within the pakistani contacts is being presented as the solution to destitute women and the more authentic islamic way to live and arranged a marital relationship and i think in most discussions of polygamy there's a lot of discussion about what is allowed and what is not allowed discussions like that but there's no discussion of the emotional ruin that arrangements like that can cause to women.

so exploring marriages in exploring those intimate relationships was the way to begin that conversation and within the american context it's also important. in a very different way the u.s. is also engaged in looking at questions of what our intimate relationships what is marriage and what are the boundaries of what you want as a society in different ways. think that's a way to sort of relate people who might not have any background in pakistan to understand our central impulse of wanting to be with someone for wanting to be the only person in someone's life is universal. it's the same whether it's for my aunt or my friends here or myself or for many of you. >> i wanted to ask about what you just said which is you

wanted to be more universal by looking at these questions of love ultimately. you are on the board of directors of amnesty international and these questions are central to what you do and your other work but i also think you put together a book that is very literary and has quite a personal touch to it. one of the things i was going to ask if you would read is a section which rafia describes a man who is credited as the central figure in its history. you actually decide to tell his story, the story of the wife who died before he came to what became pakistan in 1947 and i wondered if he could read about how he was someone who had to lose love and marriage in his life to be a politician. >> to set this up a little bit more another theme in this book is migration and this whole idea

that we can never really go back back. obviously this is about migration in place but i think it's true for all of our lives where you can never go back to a time that existed before. and i think that is sort of woven through this book and that i'm constantly growing up seeing people who longed for another place and were trying to rebuild it in this new country and it was supposed to be home but to them it didn't feel like home. this is the founder of pakistan telling his story to the woman who went away he left behind is because of that. he was not just the founder but had a personal life. in some ways the creation of pakistan involved a great

personal loss for him. so she died on every 20th 1929. she was buried in one of bombay's muslim cemeteries. it was here that she visited her in august 1947 in the days before he left for karachi. the last days he would ever spend in bombay. here the grave of the woman he had is lost to the sake of the country he had to create mohammed -- the one year later he too would lie dying far away in newborn pakistan. in september 1948 almost 20 years after the death he too would be gone. mohammad had gained a country that lost his love. he was buried in the center of karachi and over his grave a pristine mausoleum of marble was built.

its it's unblemished on bbc's far and wide. mohammed came to pakistan to die. in death we belong to pakistan. the children of pakistan learned a lot about him come about is education, his political acumen, his strategic prowess but we never learned about his non-muslim wife the woman he had loved. >> that's beautiful. thank you. and i'm curious too you write the title of the book is an intimate history of pakistan we have had many books about the nukes in the political history and all of that. what you meant by wanting to have this be a historical record for people of this country that was founded 60 years ago the idea that you felt going intimate history was key to understanding the country. >> yeah. before an american audience and i have taught at american

colleges and i generally when i write for an american audience decline echinus as the pakistani and i imagine most immigrants feel this way wants everyone to know the larger context of what you are talking about instead of having the isolated nuggets of pakistan's drone attacks and pakistan is al qaeda and pakistan to a tapestry of what the societies like that i wanted to weave together. that could stand today didn't become pakistan today. and i wanted to see that in this cinematic escape of just human beings of ordinary pakistanis. the other challenge often for me is the pakistani writer is here i am telling you the story of a very ordinary middle-class

family. that is not a narrative in general. it's not just i think pakistan but in general people from my background don't become writers they become computer programmers and i guess i did become a lawyer. ..

in that sense human rights are, where they should be, how and why women do and don't organize. this other woman was a career woman. those are choices women face about the good or the bad

and how that is constructive and society and how you have more or less freedom based upon those choices and how there going to affect you. the crucial thing was that i saw in many ways women being the instruments of cruelty and subjugation the other women. that's something that is difficult to talk about and any society. one of the most insidious ways that women perhaps contribute to each other's oppression is by not being mindful, mindful, by themselves sort of buying into a male mindset where the other woman is the enemy and not the man who is at the center of this arrangement. that's a

question, i think, for think, for the people who read to decide. where the blame lies in whether a different perspective and those limited choices can give you a different, you no a different breed of the situation or a different set of choices. >> thank you. i'm sure many of you have questions. about the book and how it's written. this is a good time to perhaps open up for those wanting to ask. >> be sure to come to the microphone. >> this is a question that my wife asks me many times. and she says so they're is this woman. the son the son loves the woman. his mother, she takes care of them. when he goes to become an adult she looks at his mother like somewhat

inferior in society and is willing to treat the wife the same way. how can a man coming from the belly of a woman whom he loves, that's his mother, sure they love him the him, the pakistani men love there mothers. how can he then see his mother as the person inferior? and then when he marries even to his sisters to me doesn't treat his wife the way is an equal to himself. how can that happen? that is beyond my comprehension and my wife's comprehension. [laughter] >> well. okay. i wish i had an answer to this question.

you know i think my best guess would be an perhaps i guess i no this not from being a son but from being a daughter children are people. you want to identify with whoever is helpful. they see their mothers not having power. they identify with whoever, with the father who has power because everybody, you no, sees. to be you know, the the person that is calling the shots in deciding what happens. in this book you get quite a bit. a lot of the perspective is determined by the fact that i'm a twin and had a twin brother.

and and so everything that i saw i saw double in that i could see how it will be different if i was a boy. how i saw the world around me and i think that that underscores how we determine our relationship. it it makes know sense, yes. misogyny makes know sense at all but it exists. >> i. i'm looking forward to reading the book. it is clear she was an inspirational figure growing up. i'm wondering if today, local figures are civil society groups it is the

women. they use public transport in my might be wearing burqas but they're they're. and they are going to work. it's in the students who fight against -- a big issue about the quota for girls in medical school, for example the girls fighting against that the pakistani women all the time time every year, year after year in terms of there grades so there is definitely a lot of promise and hope because we have a young pakistan

60% under 2020 and half of that is women. so that portion, and in a lot of ways you see the conflict because they're is transformation, because women are out they're. they have to earn. they are out in the malls, malls in the shops selling things, in the offices, in the airport so they are their and they are pushing. it is perhaps conflict driven because the war in pakistan is over public space. you know women's disability is a huge political issue. in the book the reason why i emphasize the inside outside dynamic is because women are

coming outside. that is what inspires in many ways the backlash against them push them back in, to push them into a different life. but i would say you no, the fact that my editors are running the newspapers writing things about what is happening, bringing it out into the forefront that you know they are not willing to back down. politically is a lot of conflict and they don't have representation. but that but that doesn't mean that individually they are giving up the guidance for education. >> thank you very much for talking about women and their progress in pakistan.

i wanted to share a little something in answer to the question that that gentle imposed about how the sun treated his mother and wife as an inferior because pakistan is not the only country that has polygamy. in ancient times china also had a. in my own great-grandfather has 18 concubines. but his wife did not get treated with less respect and that think that's the difference because he gave her the power of the purse string. he had two houses just like

your uncle. he had asked for the concubines. he concubines. he had asked for his primary wife. and in that house she had the money. she decides how to spend that money and believe me, because he respected her the children, the soldiers better than other people, other men respect to. and i hope for the sake of pakistan that with the women working in becoming financially independent that someday this we will also happen that the women we will be better respected. >> i would say i'm not sure she lost so much respect as she felt unloved. for me that is perhaps the most pernicious thing about

polygamy, polygamy, the fact that she couldn't leave and he could have the wife that he made to please his family and the life you made for love but she can only have them. you. you know that's kind of a difficult question. does someone have the right to be loved and is that the same thing as gratitude and duty of respect. thank you for your comment. >> writing this book was incredibly brave on your part. for someone with your background to knows what it's like to even talk about certain stories within the family your not allowed to say certain things. i mean

i'm very impressed. i'm amazed that you have the ability to write this. it's fantastic. my question now that my phone is turned off what challenges do you continue to encounter as a result of writing this book? >> well, this is the 1st. i'm not sure. the 1st is that i love all women in my family very very dearly. and. and it has been difficult for me to see them believe that there lives didn't mean anything. and so for me writing this book was a way to sort of deal with our you no paid

my omar's to them and say that your life has meant something. i couldn't write this book if there hadn't gone through what they did and done it with a sort of grace that they did. and so i think that is sort of what i i believe. but, i mean your absolutely right. you present harmony by not taking a position. this is -- i i have taken a position on everything and everyone. so i don't know. when i was writing it at thomas of no one is going to read this. that was the only way for me to get through it day by day. but now it's a a book and you can buy it and read it and no everything about a and so hopefully it is definitely it comes from the desire that people we will realize that all

families have these issues and that we cannot as a cultural worlds really become more empathetic unless we tried to stand in someone else's shoes. so that is really what the goal is with this, to this, to try to get even an american audience to stand in her shoes and see how the world looks to them. thank you. >> high. >> i. >> my question is twofold. part of it is as a pakistani american we grew up hearing things often quoted how they talk about women -- well, we will say pakistan. a foreign ambassador said something along those lines firmly rooted in believing that women are going to bring pakistan back into the

golde8fzsz era or whatever you want to call it. my question is i guess in what ways do you see women reclaiming or fulfilling that sort of motion that you often here men or other people's worth mentioning? the 2nd part of the question is the book deals with polygamy. what is -- how is it seen in pakistan these days? the notion of polygamy or taking more than one wife. divisive, is this something going on? >> it's very divisive, and it is a way to my an issue that has suddenly gained a lot of attention. i get more letters if i write an article about polygamy. i i get more letters generally than any other topic. and that is because, like i said, you have a you have a transforming society. suddenly women are out they're earning and there is a lot you know a lot of

confusion about what the knew pakistan we will look like. you know a pakistan where a largely urban pakistan, 20 years ago pakistan used to be a a rural country. now in 2030 it's estimated to become an urban country. the city that centers on is the largest muslim city in the world. that's the conundrum. the moral conservative elements.

very traditional and want to keep an old system. system. another system, people that are feminists in the thinking. my choice. deciding to do this and who has the right to tell me. nearly every feature in pakistan features the polygamy issue. then again that's the center our women constantly going to work at there role in society as conducted to men. men. that is essentially what polygamy in that context is. the imperfections how much you have respect and control over money and freedom to do this or that. and so that is being perpetuated instead of saying no destitute women.

if you are a devout woman you should not have an objection to your husband taking another wife because you need to be that selfless. and those sorts of things like i said the whole.of describing his life one week in another week is to reveal the absurdity of certain rules when they are translated to people's lives you know you cannot divide your affection equally. it is an impossibility. you no that if you're a parent and definitely in this situation. i think that that is a question that is being debated. i'll say that even if everything is directly

coming out of have a big feminist movement the coming like i said they passed a law saying you can't divorce woman like that. that's wrong. men have that right and you can't abridge it. people live in the cities

it's happening. so there is definitely change is coming whether people like it or not. and women are part of that change. they're having to fight a very tough battle. my generation has grown up on the stories. a lot of things these generations are doing. >> thank you. he covered events that took place back in 1922. i thought they were beautifully written.

i want to know what prompted you, and for those of you who have not read the book the marriage to a much younger lady fell apart. and i want to know what prompted you to tie that story in with this book. >> they're are a lot of reasons. the biggest is because they're is this question of plurality and can muslims and hindus be married or live together. i found in the story to give the background to this, the founder of pakistan married a farsi woman in the 1920s who 1920s it was just a very beautiful, much younger than him.

very much motivated by this anti- imperialist sentiment that was going through united india. it didn't matter if you are farsi and muslim and had that difference. you're all against the british and agitating against the british and getting them out of their. and that's what that marriage was based on. and so in some ways to see the sort of demise of that marriage that took place you know for me when i was i was looking through the record and researching for this book was the demise of that dream. until the british were there a lot of people will farsi hindu, muslims could be

united against them but once the british were gone you know, that unity crumbled. and. and that is definitely a theme of the book. you know do you always need someone to hate? justifier of life. whether whether it's before that are afterward politically, pakistan's obsession with india the other life. do we consciously do that? do we have to have that sort of to justify what we're doing? if i wanted to say that my choices are correct to i have to say all your choices are wrong because they are not the same as mine? thank you so much. thank you.

>> high. two questions. did you get to me? no. >> and never matter. the other question was in your opinion what is the worst offense of polygamy especially the effects of the children. >> and in this case of course i don't want to give too much away, but my aunt could not have children and that was the justification. since and that was the justification. since then of course i've written often in terms of articles. obviously they don't have two parents. sisters in islam. the marriages and children to see the emotional effects of living in this arrangement. and also then than kind of the threat, the things that happen a number.

the for children move go from being i definitely recommend. >> i was interested when you said you are one of twins. >> the 1st thing he said you can read the book.

>> that's what i was curious about. what he thought of what you had done. it was seen that he would love you being attached to you and that he had feelings about you and that you always share feelings between the two of you. so what does he think of what your doing and the role that your playing in the society. >> a great last question because that you know he is extremely him to find extremely supportive, very proud of me and has been through everything have been through myself. but the book also tries to bring this out. ..

like i said, #this is not a monday chrome of massage knee in any way. i have tried so hard to bring it out in my book. that men have and do have and continue to have a very important role in being right there with the men and trying to change the structures. sometimes they are not successful. um but that effort and that drive is definitely there. and you know men and women's lives are intertwined. you cannot always separate the two, and they are living life together. so hopefully friends. i want to why you if you could contrast the experience of polygamy or what you have seen men being married to multiple with him at the same time in pakistan. would that in arab countries? and my sense of the pakistani for instance you

do see machine getting married to a second wife with age and not very common. compared to what i have heard, and totally. what happens in the arab countries is it's relative to that. i mean relative to this. it used to be. i mean obviously the book talks about the fact that the time that it happened this is unheard of. nobody had sort of -- there of no precedent for people to see that but i would say that it is changing very fast. to right now it is quite common i mean. you know i know many many people that are in polygamist marriages. and socially this is becoming you know acceptable. you can argue that it is perhaps because pakistan has again to arabization.

with islamization and we have a lot of people that have gone to the gulf. and they have seen a different culture and come back and tried to replicate that , because the method of what is arab is more muslim you know. than what is asian. so there is many. there is many digitses to it but it is you know the more time than not, it is not. it is going to be floated. right. so if there is a poor girl from a poor family she can go and be a third wife to someone who is older wives are like. i have seen situations in they are sick or ailing. and i need someone to take care of the kids and do the housework so i will go and to the poor family to marry. you knee. young girl from there that will do those things. so all of that will need to

be unraveled and exploitation there is a marital sort of gloss over it. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you all so much for coming bring them back here and get the books signed.

were white this would go down the same way? >> no. >> you can tell from my interviews what do you say to russians that america is an unfriendly adversary? he called secretary of state clinton and enemy of iran? we have learned abc abc news has

learned that osama bin laden has been killed. >> george is fully in control. >> three gunmen on the loose. >> he is calm and collected. >> such a sad morning in newtown, connecticut. that announcement from jason collins. did you always know you were gay? several senators wrote a letter encouraging hillary clinton to run. >> george is the best interviewer on television. >> would you recommend putting american boots on the ground?

who is the most consistent conservative candidate and the best able to defeat president obama? when you said you loved him and think he is awesome -- ♪ >> let's check in with george on traffic. bumper to bumper. >> george is exactly the same person off-camera as he is on camera. >> he is brilliant every morning. [indiscernible] >> he is a dear, loyal friend.

i love that man, and a good family man, too. every morning during a he is a dear, loyalcommercial break he calls his daughters at home before they head out the school. >> george, no one deserves this award more than you. from all of us, many congratulations. >> standby -- >> george -- commercial>> please welcome mr. george stephanopoulos. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, dennis rodman. that was just a second before the interview again and i would like to say there are times in the course of my career i have interviewed people who were drunk. i think in the course of my

career i have interviewed people who were high, i think, and also people who were hung over. never all three at the exact same time. [laughter] i want to thank all my colleagues, robin roberts, the leadership of our team, our team in washington, jonathan greenberger, although he is now the bureau chief in washington and executive producer of "this week." i hate being the age when your former interns are now your bosses. it is an honor to work with them every day, and a lot of fun as well. it is a real honor to be before you tonight to receive this award. it is impossible for anyone in my position went something like this is happening not to think of the journalists who every day are risking for more than those of us who cover the news in

washington and new york. at least 61 killed over the last year, including james foley. more than 100 kidnapped. journalists all over the world many trained by the national press foundation, who are putting their lives on the line, their reputations, their families at risk to hold people to hold institutions accountable, and that is amazing work. i am grateful for the chance to be doing this work. i started on the other side, i spent the first half of my career on politics, and when i think of my beginnings in abc 1997 close to 20 years ago, a lot of people were not sure that i could do this, including me. charlie gibson gave me some pretty pointed questions. peter jennings also used to criticize whymy tie five seconds before i would go on life. i remember ted koppel coming to

me when i first started. he pulled me into my office and he said, are you sure you can do this? are you sure you can be fair and it rocks me back on my heels. when we finished talking he aid me something which -- he gave me something which i have kept every day since. it was a card given to him by fred friendly, and this card was given to him by a broadcasting pioneer, at abc back in the 1 930's. he was the first broadcast news president of radio news at the time, and he gave all his journalists this card where they laid out the responsibilities, and it said the job of an analyst is to point out facts on both sides, to show contradictions with a known record. they should bear in mind into democracy it is important people not only should know, but understand and it is the

analyst's function without the listener understand, judge, and not do the judging for them. that is a standard set at the beginning of the broadcast age. it rings as true today as it rang then. it is as clear a statement of our mission as i could possibly imagine. and thank you all for this honor tonight. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen -- ms. -- baker. >> good evening. i want to congratulate sandy our new president of the national press foundation, your very first dinner appear, and a fantastic one at that. my grandfather said that the mind will retain what the seat

will and doeendure. you put together a great dinner and the program you have put together i think the retention span will endure for the night. so every year i play a clip from "my grandfathered derksen so we do not remember -- dirksen so we do not remember him as a marble building. you have to hear him to understand what he is about. this year i picked a clip -- there so much chaos and unrest today abroad with the crisis in syria and iraq and ukraine and terrorist threats in egypt and libya and africa. so i have chosen a clip tonight i'm 1960 where my grandfather

describes the unrest and overthrow of governments in africa today tantrum and unruliness of the soviet premiered nikki ditch chris jeff to the -- nikita khrushchev to castro eating chickens live in his hotel room, and all this in a minute 30. >> you pick up the paper and on the front page you notice that a -- and fires -- and mobutu fires both of them and -- comes along and wonders who he can fire. and you wonder what goes on in congo land, and you get concerned. and then nikita comes to the u.n. takes off his shoes, and beats on the table, to express his frustration because he went home empty-handed, and nikita,

believe me, knows how strong this country really is. and then for good measure fidel comes -- that means fidelity -- fidel castro comes and he moves from one hotel to the other and brings his own live chickens along to make sure that somebody would not slip something into his food, and cooks them on a hotplate. when the proprietor saw it, he fainted and they took him to a hospital [laughter] then there was a four-hour 28-minute speech. wonderful business. [applause] >> and that was everett dirksen. appropriately, the dirksen award

goes to does recognize for best reporting of congress, hovering congress the actions of elected officials, and the workings of congressional policies and policy makers. tonight the first award goes to greg johnson and his colleagues at buzzfeed. this was a riveting piece of journalism looking at the power that congress gave president bush after 9/11. it was called the most dangerous sentence in history, and is still in use today, describing the president's power of force then that the power of force he uses today. greg johnson at buzzfeed for the dirksen award congratulations. [applause] >> thanks. every award is special and this

one is particularly so for me because it recognizes the piece that i wrote the first piece i wrote for buzzfeed, as a michael hastings national security fella. michael was a tenacious reporter. one of the things that i loved about michael was just how skeptical he was. he did not turust those in power because they spoke silently and wore the suits in that those in power where and it is something in reminder to me and hopefully to all of us that we watch congress and the president authorizing a new debate authorization of presidential force. and another did such fascinating

follow-up reporting. [applause] and also in the audience is my first and my favorite reader, my wife. you can clap. [applause] and finally, the triumvirate of three of the best editors i think in the business, then . it is not often you find editors the to give you such freedom and have such great patience and also allow you to write a 10,000-word piece. thank you all very much. [applause] >> all right. the second award goes to cnn's d rew griffin. in his series -- you can clap.

[applause] it is above gotcha journalism. drew physically shows and explains how members of congress can use their individual pac money to enjoy luxury trips and while at the same time raising enormous amounts of money. the video of members and lobbyists at a ski lodge and playing golf makes the saying a picture is worth a thousand words true. here's a video. [video clip] >> drew griffin hates awards. both true and i consider the dirksen award the very top of the top because it is pretty good to be included. drew and his producer have spent a lot of time working on a

series that we commissioned to open the door and little bit into the world of money and politics. here's a quick look at one of those pieces. >> for a washington lobbyist this is the world of unlimited access. political fundraising junkets leave d.c. every weekend. they meet at luxury resorts where lobbyists schmooze, drink booze, and get what one lobbyist tells cnn is a most valuable asset you could have. critics say it is the epitome of paid to play politics. >> why are they so important? >> i didn't consent to an interview right now. >> a few questions about why you have these weekends. >> politicians raise funds and this is what we do. >> you spoke so eloquently about the disc and they did -- about the disconnect

representatives. >> i enjoy skiing. >> few people ever want to talk to drew. >> here is the question. $64 million raised over three years and none of the money has gone to veterans. >> you have any other questions, please send them to her e-mail. >> when our camera found james reynolds junior, he major we got the message with a single finger salute. >> thank you very much. >> i got to ask you about the money. that does not answer any of the questions about the money that -- that is it? >> do you notice a pattern? one official tried running into the ladies room to escape drew. what happened? >> do you know it convicted felon who apparently runs one of these clinics and has been

billing the state of california or several years despite the fact that there have been complaints registered with the department about him? >> we note drew broke -- we know true broke the v.a. scandal wide open. >> that is the rector of the phoenix medical facility. --on monday she sped from our cameras. >> well you talk to us, director? >> this is a pattern, one we are proud to have, and it is good to know that drew is welcome someplace in washington, d.d. -- d.c. congratulations on winning the dirksen award, drew. >> drew griffin. [applause] >> thank you very much.

what an honor, and it is rare to come to this town and not only be welcome but be applauded. it is quite odd. to be honest with you i want to read you a quote from a senior staff person who did not agree with the judges about our work and sent this note to cnn -- i will not say if it is a her or him -- that the pressure on the cathedral of chattering sk ull. this piece from drew griffin last night is this the shocking thing i have seen in use. is a complete piece of trash. idiotic would be a description of this piece of filth. i would like to thank anderson and charlie moore the executive producer of that stroke who never grow tired of getting our filth on their air. it is a pleasure to work with them. i want to thank sam in our

audience who morning after morning has to answer that phone call from a p.o.'d member. i appreciate your help keeping the employed, keeping cnn in good standing in this town. nothing that goes on the air goes on the air without a team high and it appeared there is no one person who put stuff on the air, so i want to thank our stall but mighty investigative team with us tonight our executive director, all of our producers, and especially david fitzpatrick, who was the lead producer on this series where we continue to call congress for seo. >> our award winners, from a variety of backgrounds broadcasting print, online cartoons, but it is the evolution of -- that binds our work together as journalists. tonight we take a few moments to consider the influence advancing

technology has had as we try to navigate our journeys into this new area. joining us to share his thoughts is gabriel snyder, editor of "the new republic." welcome. snyder: hello. i want to thank the national press foundation for inviting me to speak, ankara gradually to all the winners -- and congratulations to all the winners for being presented. my name is gabriel snyder, and i am an optimist in the future of journalism. we live in a golden age of communications. many of you no doubt are reaching for your phones right now. maybe you already have an instant review of this speech to tweet. go ahead. it is a brave new world. maybe you are texting for a clever --

you may be sitting out there closing a piece with an editor stuck back home while working on your second drink. in some ways, journalism never changes. yes, we know this magical device in your hands can ask people in ways that were better science fiction two decades ago, but we seem unsure as to whether that is a good thing for this craft and public service we celebrate tonight. there is doubt whether the journalists can survive in this digital age, that of course we can because we must. a vibrant influential and independent craft is vital to democracy. we also know that these tiny devices have rocked havoc -- brought havoc. the revenue stream that pays for that service, predicated on limited distribution and monopolies, have been totally

undone by the supercomputers in our pockets and purses. there have been changes for organizations. we know the pain caused by the last take it on restructurings. why am i an optimist? because it is clear that the same technologica purses. l disruptions have uncovered massive new opportunities and audiences for the journalism we cherish. far from being a dying art, we discover that journalism is just getting started. people like nate silver come as her klein -- silver, ezra klein -- the great mr. carr was instrumental in leading the place where he worked from being the definition of the old ways into it and innovative organization it is today. there are great challenges, because the printing presses giving way to apixels is not

mean our values change. the publication i edit has lately been going through some changes of its own. we may be a little more vertical, more integrated. actually, the fantastic team of writers, editors and developers in the new york and d.c. offices are making magazines, websites and social media that advance the mission that our founder outlined 100 years ago. he summed up the new publication is radically progressive. a journal of opinion which seeks to meet the challenge of the new time. herbert, i could not agree more. if our founders that down today to settle on the best ways to achieve this mission, he would not have picked a printed magazine as their best hope to achieve it. they were smart people. they would not ignore an array

of publishing possibilities, and like any publication with hopes of success in 2015, they would want the new republic to be better at welcoming into our fold readers, writers, and editors reflect the american experience as it exists today. the new republic's the funny ability has been that of reinvention. in the endless pursuit of america's promise, it has known it also needed to improve itself. today the question we must ask is, what should the new republic be in its next 100 years? the new republic will be a home for ambitious journalism and provocative ideas. what will changes how we will go about delivering them. our biggest opportunity to reach new readers and advanced ideas will be digital. an effective digital storytelling is essentially collaborative.

it does not make sense to organize our editorial staff by a format. instead, our staff will work together in teams made up of editors, writers, designers, and developers who will decide the best ways to tell each storedi es. the very first words in our very first issue were " the new republic frankly is an experiment." and that is how we are working right now. in new york and d.c., it feels like an experiment. it is fun, it is tough, it is racing, scary, and sometimes we will screw up, but we are conducting this for a reason. we believe in great journalism. journalism is the pursuit of insight of new knowledge of truth, and the truth is this recent revolution and the ways

of human direction are not conversing. the pace of change will likely increase in five years' time. references in this speech may be as quaint as a pneumatic tube. if we stick to our values to discover inform, the light, i am sure we can commit pretty great acts of journalism, and that is why i am an optimist. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, gabriel. i appreciate your support of npf. there is another person that i would like to recognize tonight, bob myers. after 21 years -- [applause] of leading the national press foundation after training journalists around the world after developing hundreds of programs under critical issues that reporters cover, bob is

leaving the foundation for greener fields or should i say turf because wentz -- when i heard about his plan to retire i cannot fathom what he might want to do other than going to the office every day. this does not compute. and then i learned his leaving us is simply a's team to attend more baseball games. i know that is hard to believe. and so i have come to recognize this, and it is tonight that we recognize the distinguished conference of bob myers, because he has given so much to our profession. he has dedicated his career to making to make thousands of journalists that are including many of us in this room. so, bob, on behalf of all of us, thank you. take you for your leadership and form building the national press

foundation into the strong organization that we all know today, and celebrate tonight. and so to get you started on this new adventure, we have some pretty awesome seats for you at a nationals game this year. thank you so much, bob. >> thank you. the seats are in their? -- in there? and spring training starts this week. [applause] so i think all of you and thank you, heather for this wonderful recognition. it has been a lot of fun for me and my wife and child, and we are very grateful. just briefly, i joined npf after years of a reporter, editor,

book writer, and fellowship director. in those years i gained two essential insights. journalists learn by asking questions and often people do not like being asked questions. reporters in any medium can be pushy, insistent, and at least in my case, badly dressed. [laughter] so this is what we did at npf. in our one-hour segment we would stop segment and go to q&a. we instituted breaks between sessions of journalists and speakers could chat. for our international programs, we added multiple sessions on journalism practice, american journalism practice, and set up editor reporter sessions where ways of covering a topic were discussed. we always make a point of selecting journalists who clearly show in their

applications that they want to learn and whose editors and producers we do constant evaluations for the staff can tell how we are accomplishing our goals. we seek to stay on top of the news that also get ahead of the news. our topics can be anything from politics to welfare to children to retirement and measles and vaccinations and the idea is to provide information that the public needs to understand the issues and help make journalists better. for me, these last two decades have been a really great ride. one of which i am grateful to the npf board and all of you here for supporting our efforts. i also want to extend a note of

appreciation to the wonderful staff for their creative help through the years and thank sandy johnson for helping make this transition so smooth and to express the excitement i feel in seeing the changes she is bringing about. a show of recognition and appreciation of this evening means so much to me, my wife, rosemarie, and our son sam. thank you very much. [applause] i have been given in the picture -- honor of introducing -- the winner of the benjamin c bradley editor of the year award. -- benjamin c. bradlee award for his coverage in ferguson missouri. bradlee the oldest and most for

an editor in the country. ben joined us for the first night we gave the award and on a number of locations as well. his passing this past year saddens and diminishes us all. here's a brief video about gilbert bailon's work. [video clip] >> ferguson, missouri was unknown to most people previous to last august. when our staff responded to the shooting, we found the story was going to be huge for the country but also very important for us here. >> the protests have been like a band-aid being ripped off. tensions that have always been here and now they are out in the open. ♪

>> you had the daily uncertainty of how big they live news events will be, whether a rally would turn into a violent encounter with police late at night. >> our staff in the coming months and weeks were working in difficult circumstances and surviving teargas and of all from looters. and people were criticizing our reporting. we did outstanding journalism. -- assault from looters. >> now that it be teargas canisters are not been launched and buildings are not being burned anymore, the issues of distrust and disparity that really launched everything are still with us today not only in st. louis. >> problems like poverty, lack a representation, and other issues

that we will continue to delve into. >> gilbert was everything you would want in a newsroom leader at a time like of this. he was a cheerleader, helped keep people popped up about what was going on and the kinds of work we were doing. he was a good voice when we had issues that came up and needed to talk with someone not write down the front line. >> he's done pretty much every job in the newsroom and has risen up through the ranks and that gives some great credibility with the staff. and has the deepest journalistic integrity. >> throughout the protests, gilbert would ask how photographers are doing and if they have the right equipment. the type of questions from someone who is trusted you. >> it is important role for a regional newspaper to step forward on a story that's national and international significance with great journalism. [applause]

>> congratulations. >> thank you very much. before i make a few remarks about ferguson, i would like to acknowledge my family. my wife and my daughter, breanna , and family and friends. [applause] i would also like to knowledge our company for giving us the resources and latitude and equipment and patience for us to do our jobs and doing journalism under a great deal of stress. i have a few remarks i would like to read. our coverage in ferguson they came a local story of a police shooting. a quickly transformed into a national event depicted by street protest which gave rise

to looting, burning, violent unrest that shocked the nation and our midwestern hometown. a central suburb of 21,000 people, the came -- it became #ferguson. the images of violence pain, police presence, a powerful national wake-up call. other police killings and brutality on long festering societal problems. issues involving criminal justice system, policing tactics, concentrated poverty, race relations disenfranchisement, and equities and educational opportunities. ferguson is no outlier. it has been elevated as a symbol and called to action. the reward is recognition for every journalist and every support staff from in the post dispatcher newsroom. i have never been involved in

such a volatile local news story whose impact will project for generations. the post dispatcher journalists are forever changed as well. their professionalism and demonstration. they were crazily day and night. -- as they worked daily and night. they donned gas masks and some were attacked. some were pepper spread by police. one photographer was chased out of a home owner -- out of the backyard of a home owner. ferguson reestablished how newspapers are real time. our community relied on journalists for the last six months. our journalists are the heroes tonight. the violent unrest has subsided but the depolymerization and intensity of emotion continues in the st. louis area.

the goals are huge. in letters and phone calls and e-mails a social media, web best subject to races and via language. at the height, police were al qaeda one reporter's house -- were stationed outside of one reporter's house. others say they would counsel subscriptions if we continue to print ferguson news on the front paper. both for the post dispatcher journalists that stayed focused and continued despite an emotional public, that outgrowth of issues have validated a vigorous news media. it defies the message that we have become obsolete. human stores to seek facts and investigate and speak with a strong editorial voice and hold

institutions accountable. that's a workable in door for years in the newsroom. -- that work will endure four years and the newsroom. on their behalf, i except this award. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. this year it is my honor to present the chairman citation to brian krebs, founder of krebs on security.com and author of the bestseller. he has demonstrated that one journalist can build a digital news organization from the ground up. he has shown one journalist can have an impact across an entire industry by upholding the

highest standards of reporting. he is a pioneer in covering crime and conflict cyberspace while facing frightening physical threats and relentless digital assault as result of his on the ground coverage of ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce you to mr. brian krebs. [applause] >> well, thank you very much heather. my name is brian krebs and i am a recovering journalist. i want to thank the national press foundation for this prestigious award. it is a great honor and hugely rewarding particularly since