whether they permanently accept. but in addition, this extra inspection of the supply chain, as you point out kind frof miof mine to mill to reactor, the whole supply chain of fissile material is incredibly important and what i would love to see, i would hope at the end of that 25-year agreement that this might have been incorporated as a best practice into the additional protocol so that it wouldn't just be a 25-year commitment iran would make but if iran agrees to the additional protocol over time this supply chain monitoring could be added to the additional protocol for iran and all nations. i think the -- this is a new best practice in the agreement in terms of verification. right now it is only applicable to iran and only for the 25-year period. but i would hope -- and i would like to ask, since i don't know about this, kindover has the additional protocol been modified over time?

does it get modified to include new best practice elements and that would be a realistic hope that i would have that by the end of 25 years that this would become the norm? >> well, thank you, sir. it's always important that the safeguards processes of the iaea improve over time and, in fact, they have done so. the jcpoa is explicit, however, that these specific innovations are unique to this agreement and do not form a precedent. that was important to gain agreement to this document and that is the intent of those who associated with it. that having been said, as you said, there are best practices that are developed in the implementation of these activities, there are lessons learned, there are new technologies that are identified. there are ways to accomplish the same goal with fewer people or fewer resources and so the iaea and, indeed, the whole international community will be learning a loath during this 25-year period and and in our

constant effort to improve and enhance iaea safeguards, we may find those techniques can be applicable to the broader safeguards activities of the agency. >> great. great. thank you so much for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your willingness to serve. as you heard what the last witness, there will be questions that will be coming in until the close of business monday. obviously we understand the importance of responding to those fairly quickly. we thank your family for being here and their willingness to participate in this and with that, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

.

>> other than the traditional media. >> i love this topic. >> he does not like peas in guacamole. >> thank god. >> how does that impact the relationship between the press and the white house? >> that really hits us where we live. great question. >> how much time do you have? >> do we have another hour on this one? i was there for the very beginning of presidential

campaign. immediately what set him apart was ability to go around the media, established media because there were these blossoming opportunities to take message directly to his target audiences. you know, to give a particular message to a particular audience . his opportunity has grown since president. they have their own tv show and it's pretty good. it's well produced and has good information on it. we watch it because it's only stuff we learn there. the white house photographer is my former colleague, a wonderful photographer with unlimited access to the president.

those pictures come out on his -- >> twitter account. >> instagram account. that's probably around the corner. >> not only is barack obama the first african american but the first social media president. >> he is, he really is. >> when that he brought youtube in for interviews -- she sat in a bathtub of fruit loops and called michelle obama the first wife instead of the first lady. [laughter] >> it is one of the problems that we have to overcome. they can go around us now and find these new alternatives

places to get the message across. wait a minute. what about cnn. we have twitter and things like that too. they would so much rather play in those sand boxes than to play with us. >> we ask the tough questions. >> that's right. >> i was just going to get to that point. sometimes the president does choose to go around media that's going to ask him tough questions or questions not completely prepped for. that's usual our complaint. when you do -- when you talk x, y, z blogger, the following questions, we would ask, they don't seem like the toughest questions. sometimes, let's be honest, they're just not. >> there's the president going around in getting people where they live, you know, going to people magazine so that people who wouldn't read a story in the

ap, cnn would find something out. that's probably happened for a long time and frankly might be be smart and have to accept it. the other thing the white house does that's really also new and remarkable is the way they generate more of their own content and feed it out in a ways that isn't always identifiable as not to journalism. it looks like -- >> right. >> that they are able to create their own television shows, their own tweets, their own photographs that looks like journalism, feels like journalism. >> it's often to get a policy position across or they did a lot of the social media to talk about obama care and they did it in a way that they got all the air time they wanted to talk about what they wanted to talk about without having to go through us. what about if you like your plane, you can keep it.

when they do it on their own time with their own outlets, they don't have to answer those questions quite as much. >> that was a good question. >> i'm from the university of new hampshire. you mentioned a couple of times that you guys are the first people that draft history every day, with that, do you think that the obama administration foreign policy will be remembered positively or negatively? >> that's a good one. when you're the president that called the order to take osama bin laden, if you don't like barack obama that legacy will be disaster, he will be remembered who made the call. i am going to whine down the

wars in afghanistan. those wars are going to go on and the next president if it's hillary clinton or jeb bush or if donald trump -- [laughter] >> these are people that are more hawkish than barack obama. i think the iran nuclear deal is another x factor that may also have an impact on legacy. i think the killing of as i'm bin laden -- >> huge. >> big one from a historical standpoint in my view. >> as donald trump would say, it's huge. >> huge. [laughter] >> i rate to say this, you guys laugh but we've talked amongst ourselves, donald trump, with all jokes aside, there are some people who are running for president that could be president, you're laughing but -- >> that's how it works. >> i'm not trying to be funny.

>> i think you're completely right. >> he's still high in the polls. he's not walked away. you're laughing but this is really serious. [laughter] >> okay. back to the original question. some of the factor, we don't know hawaii the iran nuclear deal has worked out, we don't know if the relationship with cuba is going to achieve the things that the obama administration wanted to achieve. but to a large degree, are you a person that think that the u.s. should move to a multilateral approach to the rest of the world or do you think it's weak that the president build coalition everywhere he wants to go, the president hasn't actually fully withdrawn troops

but dramatic reduced the american involvement in ground war and absolutely refuses to enter into another one. do you think it's a good idea or do you think the u.s. has a weaker position as a leader and as a military force around the world? i mean, to analyze your question i need to know, there are strong things -- a lot of data to be analyzed on both sides but i don't think it's a slam dunk question. so wait, now it's your turn. yeah. >> good morning, there are millions of interaction of police in the community every single day, it seems personally that there's a lot more coverage and a lot more in-depth stories about the negative interactions of police in the community and they seem to be getting more

media attention than positive interactions with the police in the community specially lately which is a good thing but at the same time do you think that that makes an impact on the community's perception of the police, of all police, not -- specifically speaking the quote unquote good cops that don't have these negative interactions -- >> that's a really good question. [applause] >> yes. i think -- i actually think, again, because we are so that -- narrowly focused on the white house. it was an interesting speech and he was really struggling, i think, to try to both acknowledge everything that he said about police brutality and support of black lives matter

movement, actually he needs concern about gun control and concerns he care about, he is walking that line. i noticed, i don't know if you guys did yesterday or this week a viral video of a dc police officer dancing the whip and the naynay -- >> with who? >> a young woman? some sort of mild confrontation. she was trying to get the young girl to leave the corner and basically got into a danceoff. >> didn't obama tweet about that? >> something about -- [laughter] go right ahead. >> i don't know how to do it. >> you do it. it's obviously that you do it. >> the power of the whip and the naynay. >> there will be a dance-off at

the white house. >> one thing, and i know how i report things and how i go about it and my network treats things, news is about something that's extraordinary or sensational and what happens is we have a fact, we have law enforcement in this nation for the most part it's great, okay, for the most part it's great. we have some issues in this nation that have been videotaped them. that's gone to the leader of the free world, to his desk. media is covering it and people take it the wrong way instead of trying to make positive change, you also have people out here who are making opinion. there is a fact that we have some great policing out here. i'm from baltimore, i grew up with officer coming to the

community and community policing, there's a problem that needs to be fixed. it doesn't mean that everyone is bad. i don't know who is reporting it. i know there are people who have opinions and say things but it doesn't make it right and you have to find a way to support and fix the problem. any good journalists would put that out instead of saying the police departments are being cashiced. there's problems with the white community as well. that's the simple answer. >> i think we probably have time for two more questions, so let's go to a question over here. >> hello, panel, my question is working in the white house, what do you think is the major issue that needs attention or needs

policy change that you've experienced or needs more attention to it? >> good question. >> i said guns earlier. i think that has got to be solved solved in this country. it's one of those, the nra has so frightened politicians in this town to touch anything related to guns that it's not -- i don't think that's going to get soled unless there's some sort of -- we thought the the sandy hook tragedy would be that catalyst. that wasn't even enough to get things done. even when universal background checks are supported by the vast majority of the americans. that's one of the stories that we cover fairly extense --

extensively. >> i don't think education gets coverage as it should. there's lots of reasons why that's true. having to do how widespread and decentralized, but that's a major problem in the country. everything that we talked about up here relates to it and it's probably the least, if you were to list the top 20 people that people wrote about in the past 20 weeks, i bet that would be at the bottom. >> i actually have to agree with you on that. when duncan announced he was resigning, it was sort of a moment, we all had to remember what was the last time he wrote about education. i mean, it's just not a daily topic, but a federal policy does -- people have strong opinions about it too. it's actually coming up in the presidential race here and there with jeb bush. it's just a matter of the

organization to have resources that's an expert in that topic generally. >> let's take the last question from this gentleman. >> does it bother you or offend you as professional journalists when the president goes on weekday shows like the view or hang out with whoopi goldberg instead of talking to professional journalists and professional media, superstars such as yourself? >> wow. >> i embrace that. >> i like his sarcasm. [laughter] >> you know, it does not bother me. presidents have been going on late night tv shows. this was way before your time.

that was a good one. >> it was. >> you know, that i don't mind as much, but, you know, the thing that concerns me and it's something that you guys should be concerned about, and i feel like this is a case in covering campaigns as well, maybe i'm getting old and too gray and grumpy, i think that this barrier that exists between the people that we conever and the press is getting bigger and bigger and they're getting -- it's getting easier and easier to coral us getting us to the side. hillary clinton's campaign they used a rope to pull back the press to make sure that they kept moving as if we are cattle. no. no. we are human beings. come up with a different way rather than using an actual rope to move us around. hillary clinton's campaign has

its own pool. there's a story in the new "thek times" that there's campaign and had a pool and there's a story in "the new york times" about one of the reporters was actually had to be accompanied to the bathroom by somebody with a campaign, and if there's something to end with, i don't want to end on a gloomy note, is that you guys have to fight against this effort to put a barrier because i think that's one of the greatest dangers to democracy. ewe guys are liberals, too conservative, too corporate. we still need us. what separates us from a lot of countries on this earth is that there's a strong robust

independent. >> i think i can put a more positive spin on that on great ending point. many of you will go onto work in politics and media, i think one theme that we've explored here is the importance of an authentic dialogue, an authentic relationship between news may newsmakers and the press. when people talk about smart things the white house has done because they understood that we were expressing questions and concerns of readers, viewers and listeners, that makes the white house smarter, it makes you smarter, it makes us all of smarter when we engage and having real interactions with each others and not building false barriers and the people who make and carry out our

policy. i think that's probably, if you were to ask each person up here what is the thing we care about most, what drives us, why do we go to the white house, the only person that i know who calls me up to tell me great job on c-span is my mom. hi, mom. [laughter] >> but like we -- the people who cover the white house, the people on this pabl get up -- panel get up and do this job every day, a lot could make more money doing something else but they choose to do this because they really believe in the cause, the cause is asking questions, getting answers and making people more informed. so i thank you for the question and i thank you for having this great panel and i hope you'll join me in thanking them. [applause]

>> thank you for being here this morning. ms. ryan has a book. you want to say a few words about the book? you'll be able to purchase a copy later this morning for 17 bucks. >> wow. >> ms. ryan is going to stick around and sign those. >> the president in black and white. on the record in this book, bill clinton, current president barack obama, former first lady laura bush, i mean, the list goes on. talking about issues of race in this country and what they thought for these kinds of people to to go on the record on race and you don't hear people of that magnitude going on record on certain issues. that's the issue in this country right now. we are a nation that is browning so i encourage you to pick it up and let me know what you think. thank you.

>> and then just a little piece of housekeeping, go ahead and remain seated. we are going to take a moment to speakers to get up and leave the room and we will continue that conversation in one moment just one more time. , how about a round of applause for this great panel. [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> last week the house and senate pasdz the two-year

80 billion-dollar budget deal that raises the debt ceiling. president signed bill. >> came up with responsible budget process. what we now see is a budget that reflects our values, that grows our economy and creates jobs and keeps america safe. it's been a strengthening of the middle class, basic research, it keeps us safe by investing in national security and making sure that our troops get what they need in order to keep us safe and perform all the outstanding duties as they do around the world, it protects our seniors by avoiding harmful cuts to medicare and social

security and responsible balanced way. in part, for example, by making sure that large hedge funds and equity pay like everybody else. by locking two years of funding it should free us from the cycle of shutdown threats and last- minute fixes and allows for plan for the future. i appreciate the work that the democratic and republican leaders did to get this to my desk. i think it is a signal of how washington should work and my hope now they build on this agreement with a spending bill that also invests in america's priorities without getting sidetracked by a whole bunch of ideological issue that is -- issues that have nothing to do

with budget. they are going to have to come up with spending bills but this provides them guide posts and baselines for which to do that. i'm confident that they can get it done on time. there's no better christmas present for the american people because this will allow accountability and economy to grow at a time when you've got a grace weakness in economies around the world. this puts us on a responsible path and make sure that the american people are the beneficiaries, i appreciate the work. let's keep it going. with that, i'm going to sign it. there you go. and i want to thank in particular the staffs of both democratic and republican leaders in both the house and the senate because they worked overtime to get this done. i want to thank my own staff in

particular, catty fallon and bryan who are standing in the back, they gave up a bunch of lost weekends to make this happened but they did an outstanding job. okay, thank you, everybody. >> i thought, well, there is only one person of whom i would write. i remembered and of course, i did write that book. i thought, i'm going to be standing next to the president speaking to 3,500 of the most important people in the world in this room here in dc. who knows how i will feel in the moment. i don't know. i had the idea that i might do that. i thought maybe i'll give him the books later. if i feel as a new yorker, if i feel in the moment to be able to pull off goofiness i'll do it.

>> author and radio host on the writing career, best selling biography and crossover between religion and politics. >> it's important for people to take policies seriously but never to make what we christians would call and an idol of polit. there's people that have done that. they are worshiping that idol rather than the god that would cause them to care for the poor and injustices. it's a fine line. it's something i talk about fairly often. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> today national journal columnist and political report charlie cook provides a 2016 presidential election preview here on c-span2.

today the house rules committee considers amendments to the surfaced transportation reauthorization bill. the bill is a six-year authorization of highway transit programs and covers three years of shortfalls. see it live on c-span3. ♪ >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to our landmark cases series, which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions include -- >> miranda versus arizona and roe versus wade. landmark cases, impact of each case written by veteran supreme court journalists and published by c-span in cooperation with cq

press. landmark cases is available for 8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org slash landmarkcases. ♪ >> next the effect of social media on politics, campaigns and the upcoming 2016 elections. the harvard institute hosts the hour and ten minute event. >> here tonight is our panel social media ruling politics. the lead for the panel is shira center, we are delighted to have you back. she -- in 2014 she led a study group on gender, and she will be able to revisit that topic in general elections very soon. she is a political editor at the

boston globe where he coordinates the new hampshire primary and the 2016 presidential race. she also works on the globe's weekly section on politics, capital, which publishes friday and print throughout the week online. presbyterianly shira served and you can see her on many capable stations on the weekends and otherwise. she uses social media to enhance and promote work across all the platforms. she has a bias in this particular section. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, i believe -- it's a little loud. thank you so much for having us here today. i think this is going to be a great panel and obviously hubweek has been fantastic so

far. why don't we go and give two minutes of a background. nick, would you like to go first? >> i'm nick carr. ..

ultimately a job at what is whether first staffers leading partnerships are politics and ethics is a. social media than a big part of my life in politics even before it was considered social media, when it was blogs and other platforms. since many of you were in middle school, today i'm a consultant. i do some political consulting and what a group called empower women to inspire, educate and give voice to a new generation of american women, to bring them together and strengthen the impact -- strengthened the impact on civic culture speak with my name is john della volpe. i'm the director at institute of politics. for the past 15 years, 27 or 20

different semesters i've led a study group of undergraduates here studying the world's largest generation of millennial generation. you can't study that without engaging in things will their to social media. that's a major focus of what we are about, we conducted surveys a year, 5000 total and over the course of the last of years dozens and dozens of focus groups of young people across the country. in addition i often talk about how i am embedded with millennials on campus, at home and that a company called socialsphere which is headquartered down the street, the objective is to use social media to identify, empower and ask for more from our clients most passionate constituents, oftentimes using social media. things for having me. >> let's give a warm welcome to our panelists. [applause] >> i'm going to take it up with i think the most burning question on all of our minds in terms of social media.

donald trump, good, bad or as you may see huge with social media? which one? >> i think he's a good case study in what works on social media and politics, as elsewhere. in the tv age, politicians, candidates wanted to present themselves as these stable images. they wanted to have a coherent image out there, so they didn't repeat the same thing over and over again. i have to say that the image they've been completely artificial a partial artificial but that was your goal. that doesn't seem to be the gulf with social media. because what you want to do is grab people's attention when they are faced with a swirl of information coming for social media at it turns out trump is very good at doing that, blasting out these messages, love him or hate them. suddenly make a stop at the i

can't believe you said that, it seems to work and keep the focus on him through social media. and then that kind of escalates up to the rest of the media. so we is often setting the agenda to these messages. he's shooting up on twitter or whatever and then the rest of the media covers it and it's a very different dynamic than we've seen before. >> would he be the front runner today if it were not for twitter? >> i think huge. social media demands a certain authenticity. that's the best way to use the platform, and that's one of his greatest strengths. and he's playing into it perfectly. when i go back to 2011 when it first started at twitter and a lot of my job was actually helping to train candidates just across the board of what our best practices for twitter, how can you best use the platform, it was authenticity, show behind

the scenes, make them feel like they are the most important stakeholders in the campaign. you know, you're twitter audience. also instant response. what we see even today when kevin mccarthy dropped out of the race for speaker, trump is there with the response within minutes. you can tell it's not, it might be carefully scripted tha but hs able to do that quite quickly. i think huge, whether you be the front runner without twitter, quite possibly because he was already a tv celebrity. and tv knows he gets great ratings of they've been really quick to want to feature him. in fact, i think what's contribute to this decline in the polls, there's a few things but when he was hyper cover for so many weeks and there's only so long that a sustainable and media has really pulled back on it. >> john, what you think it's lasting effect in terms of his use of social media on this election cycle will be?

>> i think it's all of the above based on kind of from where you sit. i think good because he is innovative. and pamela i have an example of something that the first time i've ever seen a candidate create a short 15-second many ads on instagram. so good because he is shown the power of what somebody can do and engage people. whether he is engaging people in terms of moving the country forward, making america great again as compared to insult, certainly to be determined. he can be far more positive in terms of the stone, to engage voters in a civil discussion. i think that's a bad. but certainly it issues because i'm not sure he would be, would we be discussing today if it were not for twitter and instagram. >> this is an example john bolton instagram. can we let it roll? >> too much energy? need low energy?

i think the norm ought to be job, for all your sleeping needs. >> it's good because i never would have thought of a 152nd spot. that because if i were advising a campaign i would use that time to see give me your ideas in terms of what we need to move the country forward rather than just going negative. >> it is a political tactic. it is every ordering at a shift of how you run a campaign because typically when i've been on campaigns the discussion is when to go negative. what is the right moment? there hasn't been that calibration. they recognize you don't wait and some criticisms of mitt romney in 2012 and other candidates, quite often when you lose as they waited too long. he's not waiting at all. >> anything want to add? >> i think that's right. if you look at jeb bush and

hillary clinton they are still going by the old rules are nervous about going negative, very nervous that will blow up into a tv controversy, be accused of having, made a gaffe. trump lives on making castor things that would've been defined as gas in any election because, just for him seems to put more fuel in his tank. >> as reporters when the covert campaigns we monitor the role of television quite a bit, how much money a candidate spending usually shows how stronger campaign is, how much money they're bringing in. for decades we have thought of television as the dominant force immediate and campaigns. is still the case and for how long and when will social media or digital media completely overtake that? >> i think this year, the 2016 campaign is the first when we are seeing social media at a

mature level begin to shape the campaign. 2008 i think was called the facebook campaign because obama organize people on facebook, younger people, and they've got a lot of contributions but it didn't shap shake the political discourse in the dynamics of the campaign. this is the first year we are seeing how campaign to change with social media does often drive the discussion. that doesn't mean tv is going way or the press is going way. it does mean that often all those other media are following what's going on on social media. even if a person is upon the campaign through twitter, what they are seeing through tv and other media may be very heavily influenced by what's going on in social media. >> there's a mistake in me by campaigns and then also by many of us who cover the campaigns that were the most money goes needs that's most important

aspect. most of the money goes to tv because it's the most expensive. digital advertising has increased, not only i in the chr of the budget but increasing in cost as demand rises. but tv is still incredibly expensive. there is reports, dig into it, about the money super pacs are spending on television because there's so much competition. because of that, i think it will still tend to dominate the narrative. i don't think, maybe by next year when we're a few months out there will be more coverage of online advertising in the same whether it's television but tv is a more regulated market. gary samore disclosure of where people are buying. the internet landscape is jelling and there are more demand-side buying and getting into the wonky terms were people going through one platform, but it's still the wild, wild west a bit in terms of tracking who is

buying where. because of that it's easier for reporters to write a tv star than to write about social media story. >> true. >> i think the one thing to add to that is that video and television is still a primary way to tell a story, a compelling story. but i think it's been 10 years since we saw the dramatic change from television to other kinds of advertising in massachusetts. deval patrick who got elected in 2006 went from third place to first place without a single tv ad. he held onto the lead with tv but what he did was he had his two consultants create a beautiful 30-second spot that went out to his list before twitter existed, e-mail addresses that said i don't have enough money to put this on tv, can you send it to friends and family?

the tools are there. it's for the campaigns, the candidates to empower them to engage them on their own terms. >> naked, you mention 2008 as the facebook election, at least my perspective total was the twitter election. 2016, what's that going to be? >> well, a lot of folks think it could be the snapchat election. what the snapchat at the entrance of further democratizing the role of media, in terms of not having to wait for the 24 hour news cycle on cable but to see comes from the perspective of their friends. we see that a third or so from our surveys here at harvard, a third or so of voters are active engaging with the snapchat. when you look at the demographics of step jet versus twitter versus instagram, they are quite different. it will be interesting to see how each of these campaigns kind

of identifies which channel they want folks to get interested in spent on thrilled to say -- we want the story out election to be this is the twitter election. so that success but i'm sure snapchat is sitting there, sitting back saying we would love to be the star for 2016. it very would -- it very well could be but i think it sounds sexier but the more accurate it is it is finally the mobile election, people engaging with the campaigns via mobile. >> i think that's right. i think it's all of social media now. i do think that calling it the snapchat election makes sense at least metaphorically because what we see with trump and others is that a good strategy is kind of to model your personnel at on the way snapchat works and to kind of burst into people's consciousness at

regular intervals but not say anything so deep or complicated that it requires people to actually pay attention. if you modeled yourself on snapchat, that might be a pretty good media strategy this year. >> that's good news for rand paul i guess. i'm just kind of curious from raise of hands, how many people in the audience have their own twitter accounts? facebook account? snapchat account? don't be shy. interesting. nick, who specialized in how the internet changes our behavior. on facebook i think we all reference to pick and choose what they post based on the own political beliefs. we all have that although. by only reading what we choose in having that option is a possible many people are hardwired their brains to only read certain things but what are the long-term effects of this? >> unfortunately, i do think, in this isn't something new the internet or social media, but i think what we're seeing is a

continuation of the story of the polarization of politics in the country where people, the hope for the internet what you put all this information out there, they could easily available and people will go out and sample all sorts of different opinions and look for thoughts that contradicted their own. what we are seeing what really happens is people go out and gather information that confirms their existing biases, their existing political beliefs. what we know from the psychological studies is the more information you can gather that support your pre-existing beliefs, the more extreme those beliefs tend to get. so i think, as i said h to start with the internet or social media but i think it's probably going to end up being more of a polarizing force than what we originally believed or hope, which is that it would encourage people to expose themselves to a wide range of viewpoints.

>> this strikes me as probably not necessarily the most productive thing for a constructive political discourse, right? would you agree or disagree with that? >> it's generally agreed but i think the answer of whether it's forcing polarization in a way we didn't see before is that it's complex and it really depends because it's quite true that people can much more easily only collect information that reinforce their own bias here but on the other hand, we, where in the past you were limited, people who influenced you in your geographic region. that those people are connected to our cross geography and time and space. so you are more likely to be exposed, and people are often moving, so they're more mobile and are not necessary state with a group so you're more likely to be exposed to a diversity of views and opinions. that's what's driving unpredictably of the electorate.

we have better tools for measuring and understanding of where he is if you ran a political campaign you could picture strategy around geographic targeting, people geographic areas are more likely to behave similarly. social media has disrupted. in certain platforms especially twitter has allowed people to post anonymously and it does really help foster this knee-jerk reaction, instant bites so not necessarily looking at the content. in the instant reaction in people being very quick to respond emotionally without being thoughtful, i don't think that is constructive for our discourse. >> i will add a couple of points. there's a different psychology to why an individual gets on twitter versus facebook versus some of these other channels. part one. but the thing i most focus on in terms of the multiple generation, i'm not sure their opinions are so polarized when

they become of voting age for the first time. in other words, those who are on twitter or trying to understand the way in which the world operates. they are choosing to share things about themselves that they care about. oftentimes it's related to their life as a student or their dreams are what they should. in other words, they are laying siege every single day, millions of them, saying things they care about the not right wing or left wing the things they care about we just opportunity for candidates and elected officials and members of the government will from sides about to engage with them to dig a little deeper into say, tell me about your perspective, kind of on this issue, and they don't. i think the challenge isn't necessarnecessarily from the cis point of view. the challenge is some kind of those who hold the power to not engage. there are a handful of samples. cory booker from new jersey does it as well as anybody in any industry around the world.

but, unfortunately, you know better than i do examples are probably few and far between. >> as part of your research you work with students plot obviously and you pull millennials frequently. can you show us images of slides to show some positive and negative examples of social media engagement with this demographic and others speak with the very first thing, but they give you the wonderful bit of background. the reason this started back in 2000 was a couple of young folks who are part of the iop were concerned about this disconnect between surface and voting. they saw that all their friends on this campus and campus of the high schools run the country seemed interested in giving back in service but they didn't see the connection to voting. they thought would it be easier and faster if they serve as well as voting? the ideas what we've learned is young people are not apathetic. they are trying to engage and whether good and bad example of

that. one of which was from senator booker from new jersey as a midget engaging with a citizen about their point of view related to gun control legislation. it's behind me. >> is up front, also. >> a constituent of new jersey said, what is commonsense gun legislation? so senator booker actually went through four or five tweets talking about his perspective on what his definition of good gun-control legislation is a. and then you can see 82 tweets, thousands of people engage on a positive policy, remark that wouldn't have happened otherwise. and begin it's just a moment but now there's a connection there, okay? there's a connection between the senator and karl at august the

more information you can find as well. that's one example. is another example of doing the opposite with of which the top campaign tends to be the they engage with folks that run on positive remarks they intend to engage on negative things. you concede your point. he is tweeting somebody who 42 followers or so buddies tweeting something negative. but that interview as usual. companies engaging but not in the dialogue, more kind of -- >> they got a lot more we twee tweets. >> all caps, i think that's what did it. >> speaking of examples, i wonder if you do wouldn't mind sharing really is effective ways you seem to campaign you social media to reach voters and also an ineffective what if you have one on your mind.

>> i think what of the less ineffective, and a less effective, i don't get it going in but there was a moment a few months back at november the exact issue, but jeb bush and hillary clinton campaign started a bit of a spat. i don't think come it seems like the reasoning, we are embracing an immediate and where political discourse happens and this is where political engagement happens. by jeb rising up and debating hillary, they were kind of maybe, she was the presumptive nominee and he's a step into the role. again this is several months back before donald trump's rise to think about ended up looking childish. that was one of the four examples i've seen an election cycle. >> i think the comments he made that people needed to work harder, and she jumped on him. something like that. interesting.

>> i think bernie sanders has been pretty effective in reaching his audience and expanding his audience through his posts on facebook, for instance, where he builds them around actual statements that seem to a certain degree of path, that seem to allow him to rise above the fray. the problem with talk about what's effective and that is we can go with john's definition which is what helps political discourse, but that may not be what is politically efficacious. so i think what trump does post, posts kind of offensive or rob a rousing tweets. it's been effective for them. you can certain argue that it's not raising a little discourse in any way, but that seems to be what works on social media where we have to remember that the

political stream of information is just one string among all sorts of the strings, social strings and stuff, that people are looking at. you only have to do something to stand out and to grab people's attention intimate insight i better stop and look at this. and so in some ways it might be the worst strategy to try to elevate discourse if you're getting rewarded for just kind of grabbing people's attention by saying striking or even outrageous things. >> a sunni, maybe this is due to far an assumption, that everyone on the stage believe in getting more people engaged in politics, it myself. we have talked about how these mediums and social media can be effective for candidates but what is the most effective for productive political discourse right now? can even pick a single medium? >> no, i don't think, i don't think you can pick a single media. what's so fascinating is that

campaigns are playing in so many different fields that were talking of social media but you also many candidates who are turning to media to state their case. a publishing platform where they can have kind of more longer form conversations. at the arena campaign has done that quite well for example, which is maybe going to get sent out a the second debate. they turn to that platform. i think the jury is out about which is most effective. i think what many other candidates are choosing to do which i would endorse it is you don't to be spread too thin because he made the ineffective everywhere but understanding that there's a fractured media landscape. if you want to get as many people engaged as possible and persuade and get a message out to all of the constituencies you need to win, you will not be able to depend on a single platform. you will need to put a miniature platforms. they will do earn the media and

paged media as well. >> john, have you seen one medium more than other where it appears that more or millennials have more productive political conversations? >> i think we recently held a town meeting of 57 or so students across a couple dozen colleges and asking these questions. into them it's whatever the candidate chooses to engage, i'll find it. it's not like you need to find only on facebook or twitter. a lesson, what they were telling us was about just find something you're comfortable with and use it. but they wanted the candidates to use it, right? that's like what trump, we know, that's trump, right? we know when bernie sanders tweets something that is usually bernie sanders but that's what student looking for, and young people. they just wanted to candidate to use it in the way they do not

just another version of a failed press release. >> this is a question i personally find very interesting terms of social media usage. two different genders use of social media differently? >> the data shows that both on twitter and facebook there's often a slight tilt to women using those. they are survey different demographic groups that heavily skew or over index on twitter for example. then there's platforms like interest which is used necessarily come isn't seen as much of a powerful political tool although other candidates do, heavily used female. so that's quite interesting. lincoln, for example, some campaigns they would use it. it's not so much a different. it over index is for the above

29 years old. >> we ask those questions are dismissed and our information is that of online. you're right, pinterest is like for extra women and also for southerners on pinterest. we uses a fairly good divide on twitter but now looks more represent of america. so the or some differences based on kind of what platform. but again everybody can be found if they want to be found. i still believe people are raising their hands wanted to be engaged. i will say th that some of the k we're doing with facebook, you can see that some people tend to like comments more. of the people tended to post more. so can facebook has to open up their data feeds we can learn more about what folks are doing but there will be a lot more information around political intensity and from that data set in the coming months.

>> it depends on subject. i think you will see we are looking at current events so i think we should stay tuned for that. >> nicholas, you've done a lot of work in terms of historical context, a new technology changes our perception. i was with a lesson from a great school history class, about the nixon-kennedy debate what people thought it was on the radio that nixon wanted to watch don kennedy, john kennedy is so handsome, not to say that because we are in the building, that he won the debate. it was the symbol of the movement of politics towards maybe a more superficial way. i'm again going to one of those transitions? would you say it's a transition to becoming more superficial politics? businesses historical progression? >> i think is part of a historical progression. i think you can trace it out after the last 100 years but i would argue what we are seeing

this year as i mentioned i think this is the first year social media is popular enough and mature enough to influence the campaign, is probably the third big media shift in elections in campaigning. first came radio which it is part of a journey in the 1924 race i think for calvin coolidge won the reelection. radio was interesting because i believe candidates didn't have the bodies. they just spoke with her voice and they were not speaking at big fairgrounds but they came into people's houses through these radios and suddenly you have had this kind of intimate conversation with the voters. ..