>> what i would hope he would say is rightly we have to accept the democratic will o of the people and a properly constituted a referendum vote on it six to one basis in the south but we should do everything we can to reassure people. first of all that hate crime has no place like we discussed today but didn't will conduct a negotiation based on the best available evidence about what we can do to achieve the closest possible relationship with europe on the basis of trade and cooperation and security. that is our goal and help that will provide some reassurance but, of course, in any referendum debate with a decision like this there will be those who are disappointed by the result. myself included. we've got to now make the best weekend of the new situation we are in. >> mr. speaker, they already doggie economic have been fatally undermined did by the decision to withdraw from the european union. can i suggest i it is looking to salvage something of a legacy he pulls the plug on this enormous

falling? >> the logic and the economics behind hinkley point see are that we need to have some base load noncarbon energy in order to have any ability to make a very challenging targets we have to reduce carbon emissions and our country. i am for addressing the massive expansion of renewable energy since i've been prime minister. my favorite statistic is that 98% of britain's solar panels have been installed since i've had this job. but you do need solar power by nature an admin and you do need some base load power and that's why think the case for hinkley continues. >> thank you, mr. speaker. he might want to the presence of for the body my third try, i know it's over. [laughter] part of labour parties concerned there is a light and it never goes out. >> here, here.

>> mr. speaker, in bristol on friday elected mirror convened a meeting of key stakeholder to try to work out what this means. clearly very many worthy people. can he assure us that the voice of the international stage will not be dimmed during this negotiation speak as i certainly would've a thing i can to stand up for bristol. i wa was interested the labour party was interested the labour parties favors long as there is a light that never goes out because it involves a double suicide. i think the lyrics are if a double-decker bus crashes into us, there's a fine the way than by -- i think i think i'm right in saying. i'm not sure that's wholly reassuring to the front bench. i think the next verse is if a 10-ton truck crashes into us. [laughter] you try one after the other. you got inspiration elsewhere. spent i did not the prime minister has quite such compendious knowledge of popular music. [laughter] extraordinarily impressive.

>> i'm not going to ask the prime minister remember anymore lyrics today, but he will have heard honorary members and white on the members from both sides of the house talk about imports of manufacturing to the midlands. and people have also have heard in prime minister us questions refer to the comments of saudi can't about london having a deep voice both in the preparation for negotiation and the negotiation themselves. i absolutely agree with that but can he say something about the mechanisms he envisions to allow our reasons outside of london to have a say in preparation for negotiation and in negotiations itself? >> what i can say apparat unless in more detail for the house litigation is we need to find mechanisms. we have some already are listening to the constituent policy of united kingdom.

tonight i'm in ..

to make it more transparent and a marquart lake system. this is something that could work globally that would replace all of this. in our agreements with them, it has been developed with the parliament. again, there'd be very few cases that the u.s. because we have robust ecosystems. but it could have the talent for other countries. the u.s. perfectly agreed. they should be covered. they have gone through different reforms. it is a debate entered a certain extent congress diameters and it we haven't concluded that chapter yet.

so we see where we get here there so many acronyms. in ttp, there is something similar. of course if the european that the european union would enter into trade agreement with the u.s., where peruvian, malaysian companies have a better protected, that's a very difficult thing to discern. >> it is sort of a circular argument to say they are there sufficient day care. if they are unfair here, that is that the system is. if you say very few cases and i thought the reason not to have a special court system for foreign investors a box of the general public. let the courts handle that. it has done well for years and years and years since we left england in 1776. it could've been a wonderful

ex-mary ann for us. >> kevin enright to investor protections for the u.s. and the e.u. the system has been working quite well. this is hopefully an open platform agreement that is going to result in the adoption of these kinds of high standards by other countries. i think about the bilateral investment treaty negotiations underway right now with china. we don't have strong investor protections right now in china and i don't have as much confidence in the chinese court system as they do in european or american court and therefore i see great value in terms of setting the standard in bringing the chinese along. i can say that from a very perse molex. >> i would probably want the same system but we are not doing with china. these are two market segments out with each other for hundreds of years, have highly developed

court system that do not need a special court system for foreign investors. >> i would argue there's strong transatlantic trade and we make objects and services together that weekend than to the rest of the world. it is in our interest to have european standards be the ones by which the rest of the world then tries to reach up to and that anything protects u.s. and european companies. >> that's another circular argument if we are told we need a systems in place so we can make their court system come up to speed. you are using it the opposite to say because we are up to see if we still made them so they don't come up to speed. you have to make a decision. if there helps them develop a court system or a dozen. >> i'm not now, i have to cut everybody out. our friends here have a chance at a few questions. microphones on both sides.

we will take to questions at a time. back there. >> hi, terry donahue from bbc news. commissioner, can i ask you what kind of access you think the u.k. can get to the single market if it doesn't agree to freedom of movement? >> well, and the freedom of market with the council of freedom of movement. therefore freedoms in the european union and their things together. -- they are linked together. >> hi. thank you. jim burger from washington trade.

i heard a lot of talk about tt ip. i heard a lot about local will in which he mentioned we need it. does political will include a willingness for both sides to make serious compromises? i haven't heard the word compromise matching shoe years. >> i think i said confession. i'm not a native english speaker. i didn't use that word. but if we were not ready to compromise, why would we engage in negotiations? we all need to compromise. we need to see with on the table, what are your priorities? are they enough to compromise and that makes it complicated. that is why we engage on this. we need to compromise. the whole european union without compromising. >> appear and then all the way in the back.

>> hi, adam segal. i'm curious out on poorly during articles to me, if it gets used by the u.k., with that change the priorities for your office in negotiating the tt ip comment is that after formerly the think on the during the process? when does that begin to alter how the commission sees its priorities? >> first of all, the reddish government have to trick or article l. that obviously will not happen before set camera these are the president of the european

council called for an extraordinary meeting in september to discuss and to take stock of where we are. so this is the sort of formal exit discussions that will take place. how do you beat that? what members of the european parliament, the budget committee access to the different times. all these technical things that need negotiated with the u.k. that is what article l is about it then comes what kind of relationship shall we have with the u.k.? do they want a total independence relationship seeking a free-trade agreement? do they want in our region's solution? we don't know. that is up to them to decide our object is and then it has to be discussed with member states. it very much depend on that. once they exit the european union, of course they need to exit our trade agreements as well and they need to negotiate if they think around 35 bed plus

wto and the other ongoing trade agreements would have to seek case-by-case what to do with the u.k. part of it. so that would be quite tight heavy exercise. it cannot start before we know what kind of relationship they want to have. they do not -- i think whatever solution the u.k. chooses, they cannot automatically be in the trade agreement still. they have to go up. norway is not part of our trade agreement, even if they are part of the internal market. that is an exercise we have to start once we have more clarity. >> thank you goodwill molded with "the wall street journal." how will you set the priorities for trade negotiations in other

negotiations? how do you explain the european union perhaps peer the u.k. doesn't have its own trade negotiators. i might recall something the e.u. then you also need to working on the tt ip deal with the u.s. if i'd negotiating teams. some of the u.k. voters do care that this civil servants in brussels that you have to make priorities and to be interesting to know what that might be. mr. trumka, if you could say whether he would support a no thrills trade talks with the leaders. thanks. >> thank you very much for the concern. they are all very much overstretched because as i said, we are negotiating 20 agreements. we are just finished with the philippines, mexico, tunisia.

we are preparing within tanisha, and i've probably forgotten a few. we're exact than that align with the u.k., i'm not in it is a shame to tell you today. but we will of course reflect upon that. >> i don't put a no-frills trade agreement as. if somebody might define that for me it may be better off. england, whether they are in the e.u. are not in the e.u. are great friend and great allies and we are going to remain closed and continue to do trade and do business with them. and so, i don't have anything to say beyond that.

they are friends, allies and we'll treat them them as friends and allies. >> a few questions over here. >> hi, bred for temperament five u.s. trade. first, specific to one that cip negotiations, i know you mentioned you were still on track and 72016 and turned to when the endgame phase would start, the stock taking. >> you have to speak closer. >> you mentioned you were to on track to conclude 2016. if a stock taking our trade ministers in september that could determine whether or not you venture into the endgame. you've mentioned your priorities there. do you expect those to move forward at this round in july? is the u.s. living on their position on things such as public or cure maintenance

services. could you also clarify one aspect of article l for me. you mentioned the trade relationship with the u.k. being negotiated to let that happen after the article l negotiations there is part of that? >> the article has never been used. there are lots of question marks exactly. i think there are different views on mess, but that's why we need some time to reflect. the referendum is only known of writing. today when they appeared we need some time to think and to reflect and that parliamentary decision to have states of the other 27. can they go in parallel search of a have to do it few things before. i don't know if the honest answer. for the rest, yes absolutely. we will have the trade ministers regularly, so it's one of the armor one in the new presidency

of slovakia where we will take stock and i will tell them the evolution of the july round end of the tax rate had over the summer on all the issues i mentioned. these are priorities for us. we will expect that there is a sufficient way forward already agreed and a path towards the end as well. this is what we will discuss. that's in the end of september and we still have work to do before that. >> one must question appeared. >> thank you enough in cutting him. also a board member of the atlantic council. you mentioned that the tt ip talks could be considered an open platform for others to add. today, president obama is in ottawa meeting with the prime minister and the mexican president for the north american summit. there was some talk of whether

the nafta countries might trade with the u.s. in talks. what would be your view looking in the future to have canada and mexico joined the discussion and mr. trump, what would your position be on that? >> anything that gives us a chance to redo nafta would be a great opportunity from my point of view. >> i don't comment on that particular aspect. we have said over time that it is a good idea to make it an open platform. first of course we have to conclude. and after that, we think it's a good idea if others could join. we haven't started negotiations, but we talked about imagining maybe mexico and canada and from our site has been some interest to rip these some discussions in countries like norway or turkey then maybe the u.k. as well. it's a good idea to have an open

path arm and we would welcome this countries and possibly others as well. >> with that, we have to wrap things up. thank you, everyone. we also have to pay it all here. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> thomas pain went to robert go, wanted to have this printed and he wanted to proceed by the soldiers didn't. well, after went through reprinting, they had a falling out, so thomas paine allowed anybody to print it. he lowered the price and that is one reason the book is so well known and printed. the mac it seems to fit awkwardly and not. not only are they a religious minority, but over time have figured in disproportionately

visible ways in the debates about religion. >> when you can hide the arm chair and the steel supports, the animal to more alive in the sense that you get the feeling that these are bugs, but it brings life to these bones.

>> unites his trade representative michael from an will make the case for the transpacific partnership this morning. the trade agreement reached last year between the u.s. and 11 other pacific rim nations aside from the cato is to do -- and to do

[applause] >> thank you, catherine. welcome, everybody. it's a privilege to be here and to introduce our first panel. i will introduce folks as they come on the stage. mo elleithee is the founding executive director of georgetown is to toot public policy and service. the former communications director of the democratic national committee is for presidential campaigns including serving as senior spokesman for the hillary clinton campaign in

2008. olivia inox -- olivier knox covered the white house politics and foreign policy since 2012 and before that he was set to press for 15 years. see your visor for external affairs, kevin sullivan lays kevin sullivan this communication is the marketing effort across all areas of the bush center. he was appointed by president george w. bush as assistant to the president for communications in 2006 and oversaw message development and communications planning. since 2002, kathleen carroll has been executive director and senior vice president of "the associated press," the world's largest independent news agency. ap journalists have won numerous awards during her tenure, including this year's pulitzer prize for public service and overall for pulitzer prizes and six torch polk awards. a texas native we always like to point that out when we are here.

our moderator for the discussion is marty baron, executive director -- executive editor of 2013. marty has been part of 10 pulitzer prizes during his time at the post or "the boston globe", "new york times," los angeles times and the "miami herald," but he may be best known for his uncanny nation of the actress leah schreiber. hope you enjoy the panel. [applause] >> thank you, mike. i'll try to continue without impersonation here. thank you all for coming. thank you to the panel for participating. the title of this panel of this panel is a presidency coverage in the digital age. i want to just start with the question about what fundamentally different about covering the president in the digital age. why don't we start with that. maybe olivia can take it off. >> when i started covering the white house in december of 2000,

everything was on paper. we would get statements on paper and announcements on paper. the wire services had to move quickly, but everyone else had a more leisurely pace and overtime is the white house embraced e-mail and especially under this president, embraced social media. announcements have come for him a variety of sources. everyone is a wire service reporter now. we are all constantly on deadline. that is one of the biggest changes of the last 15 years or so. one of the changes as we are now trying to reach audiences that are consuming the information are made variety of platforms. we are all competing for these guys in a way that we weren't

when i started the job. for wire services, this hasn't changed all that much because barakat and deadline. but now everyone is. one of the things we've learned in the digital age is people's expectations of the news product are different. the example i would give in an old school video, you could build suspense and introduced her recent arrest of a. now that the digital age, at the headline of your video is bear false out of tree onto a trampoline, you show that they're falling out of the tree within the first 16 seconds of the video or the people will turn it out. that's a difference in how we package the news. everyone is looking for the magic wand that will turn every story into gold. we experiment with shorter stories and longer stories. i don't know that we've settled

that on a solution on a formula. >> at the news organizations are becoming more like wire services, so if nothing changed for wire services themselves? >> have changed a little bit in the way of libya described. everything is faster. more for presidential candidates but also they need to get talents and contacts in some other way to tank of his story at the same time you report what is happening is greater than ever. i really taxed as an organization that lets you make a group effort. they have to have backup. the story is going to be more complete within a few minutes of the event occurred instead of having hours to do it, even a couple of hours. the biggest change is the one with all talk about and that is

this white house covers itself. we have a competitor in the white house if they use social media quite affect the late to release pictures shot by the white house or topper for them to talk about things they are doing and they completely skip over the price which sounds whiny and i don't mean for it to. >> why whiny? maybe it is. why should we be concerned? >> more and more this president withdraws the acts of his public office behind closed doors. i don't think any of us are whining that we are not in the residence watching them put a sock found in the morning but we want to ask them questions on the behalf of the period we are being shut off from that and instead what you get is a very, shiny published adapt view of

the net demonstration filtered only by the people whose jobs it is to promote the administration and that is dangerous for the republic. >> you've seen this from the other red. does that sound like whining? does that concern you at all for a stop at a president does? >> i would say empowerment is the biggest change that everybody, whether teenage kids can be like an international journalists because that the power of what is in your hand vendors are found. when you work in communications in the white house, your job is to get the president's message out in the most persuasive and memorable way you can to extend their reach as far as you can. our attitude with the team at the white house working for president bush was sort of like going to the restaurant. there'd be an event, and maybe a meeting with local business leaders for community leaders.

we would ask the president to allow one reporter to sit in that meeting. if it was that energy and "the wall street journal" was writing about energy, we might say that the kids have been. we did not twitter yet, we had a major web operation even then. he gets the right audience. he didn't get the whole picture if you did it yourself. still today even as technology has advanced. speech, interview, maybe it is a sit down, maybe letting the reporters in the room and the photographers said. a few years ago when the white house was a sharing so many of its own images and keeping reporters out. it's all of the above. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. also worked with the news media with the media that covers the

president right down the hall. you have to call it a symbiotic relationship. there is a bit of a transaction there. you needed me, i needed you. that relationship is important even in the face of all of this new technology that empowers us to put shatner and contacts. >> i think technology has fundamentally changed. i was like to take a step back and remember what this is all about. the relationship in the role of the press is so important it was in the first amendment to the united states constitution. that's important in the very first amendment. having said that, there is no more sacred relationship between elected official and voter. that is what it's really about. for generations, you wall with a

conduit. you are not needed as much and not relationship these days. i'm not saying you are not needed, but because that technology, both sides of that relationship can circumvent you to some extent. so when you see white house or political campaign on either side of the iit password being, right now we are still trying to experiment and figure out the appropriate use. i do not think this is appropriate. there is a way to directly engage them directly take a message. i understand why people pursue that. having said that, i will say there are challenges on the other side of this equation. the reporter who says in the few that i've heard say the that notion you have to go to the white house to cover the white

house is no longer true and necessary. the notion that because of the internet and because people's views -- the digital age is creates a whole new does, a whole new reality for so many people because anybody's a journalist. anybody with an opinion can set up their own corner and gravitate to people who have like minds. so they are now conservative media outlets where conservative voters can go and that frames the reference. they are not progressive digital media outlets that do the same. the true object to are struggling because people are retreating in this digital universe and what do you do?

>> i take your point on all of this. this is the discussion of messaging. the president of the united states, whatever the party is answerable to the public to elect the dead. what is missing is the opportunity for anybody to ask a question. journalists and has not been replaced by tom hall's they are screened and it then and still part of the one-way communication. it is not good for any administration to not be questioned by people who were shouting on the internet, but to answer questions. that is the door that is slamming. >> i don't know that i would agree that it was slamming. people try to figure out the

equilibrium. i hear the criticisms of this particular white house and this is said in the press out, but it's not entirely shut out. his staff still does the daily briefing. they are trying other tools as well. you are right, i do not think it is okay. i don't know if anyone has figured it out. >> when you say trying out other tools, what we are talking about is a white house that excludes photographers from a newsworthy event splits us. this was the media from that event and then releases it down propaganda. the job of the photographer being released is to make the president look good. i'm not particularly a paramedic person but i can't vouch for the accuracy in the sense i don't know if it was posed. i don't know if the handshake.

just go back to that, what was fascinating was the right has editorialized the caption. it was something like neither man wanted to be there but they felt they needed to be. it was an amazing moment in the captions. they went back and elated that. they have this incredible control over the images and words and no one is saying they can't use twitter or facebook or whatever. our objection is chiefly its bad that they exclude us and it was a private meeting a nice 10 minute shot at the white house videographer that goes up on the web. we are not saying they can't use new tools. that would be crazy. they are increasingly not a skeptical reporter.

it is a press release, whether video or format. >> we saw a reasonably good video had a whole question excise. i was a video released at the state department and this question was somehow missing from the video and we don't know who had deliberately removed and put back in again. >> people have a sense. consumers know the difference between something that they can trust. even the media popularity has declined. >> we are hanging on by our nails. i don't like being compared to congress. >> last week a report said 60% of u.s. adults get news from

social media. we are predominately talking about facebook. a couple weeks ago a fascinating story for a tv show would have been 27 and now we viewership numbers. youtube i think was 49. mr. graham was 156. this is what i mean by all of the above. you've got to reach people. you have to hit them in multiple places. the 80% people of faith though, the number was 12% have high confidence in the news. if they don't have confidence in the material that is they are, are you really getting breaking through with the message for your client or the president or whoever. that is why i like all of the above. >> i'm not saying the mainstream media is not needed. you didn't say it was needed.

right now we have, for example, political candidates of course and people who aspire to be president or appealing to their own media outlet that very much favor them. for donald trump, bright art.com, for bernie sanders, they say look, the media is giving you his own reality. conservatives say they are promoting a liberal agenda and people on the far left will share their preboarding agenda. we are actually getting the real reality from the south that in the media is part of the conspiracy. >> i think that is right. if you look in the media out to like fox news, the slogan is fair and balanced. we talked your average viewer, we are saying we don't think the coverage has to be fair and balanced. t we think fox news is the balance. it is the balance to a progressive media culture out

there. so they recognize they were going there because they provide the differing and more conservative perspective. i think that is amplified 100 times in the digitals based. people are going to the quarters, have reinforced their good. it is designed to perpetuate. i've read three stories. every single one of those algorithms both said shove stories that are just like at in front of me because that is how it knows i will click. it is hard -- it's easy to understand how people's perspectives of the same event suddenly become warped and segmented into different days.

"wall street journal" that go to facebook feeds side-by-side at a progressive viewer and conservative viewer and how they were consuming the news. it is remarkable. but at the same event and the headline, you think we are living on two different planets. that is what worries me about the digital age is bad journalism is becoming more commentary. it is not in how it's presented, but in least in how it's consumed. >> if you look back at history, the age of the money where newspapers are generally trained to be middle-of-the-road and not artists and isn't unusual. a newspaper. newspapers -- there were lots of them because they appeal to different herbs. they had specific audiences. the fact that people like to be associating with people who

think like them is not new in the country. what is new in the country is the president in the 19th century didn't have their outlay to give directly to the voters. i keep harping on the same thing. again, it is about whether the media is segmented or not. the problem we are trying to deal with is elected officials closing themselves off from the people they were elected to serve. using the mechanisms that their administration, not just at the white house, but throughout the government that they run to close off access to people. >> they are closing themselves off from the people they were elected to serve, but not necessarily closing themselves off from the people who support them. what about that? what are the implications of that? >> the obvious question to ask about that is are they serving only the people who support them

or if they serving the letter is signed ability than most of us believe they have too saved the entire country. >> is the president is to serve everybody who participated in the process. you represent all people and try to do that. the key though is you've got to put out, to the extent you control your own channel there has to be a good concept to revoke a shared. here at the lloyd center couple years ago, president shared the mackenzie come, blizzard prizewinner to be the editorial director because he was credible. we launched the catalyst in january. the digital quarterly publications are free. we had joe lieberman, mark cuban who is the fact that the way of

the shared and there is a reference for the cubans story that was said -- the issue of the catalyst that can ago because it was compelling and little bit of a surprise. when kirk was in that issue. surprise people with the content. make it good. make it compelling. people forget president bush did have the first digital presidency. every photograph was digital. the first live streaming, virtually all events in 2001 were live streamed. all digital. the first blog on the trip to the middle east and air force one. the first presidential list for yahoo!. we did a lot of digital, but the thing that focused the most attention is after 9/11, white house suicide had cut off. the public couldn't come in. the way to show the public

declaration that the sad holiday season was through the land that the president's beloved scotch terrier, jimmy horton was a digital media director for president bush came up with this idea in bernie sits said through the white house, showing declarations. it was a massive hit. mrs. bush did a premiere at a children's hospital every year. the prime minister tony blair and dolly parton ended up over the years. but it was good content. it is interesting and not be. you have to have credible voices. infinitely more important than the administration. >> it is an absolute pivot point and presidential communications. what happens to the video? every single morning show.

so for me it was the first time that the more traditional news media to the extent we can call morning shows news media, the traditional media show to content produced by the white house and used it without really modifying it. for me, that was the moment in which the white house realized they sure, you mentioned this people over the phone can be journalists can report the news. but the entry was to me about more important for a powerful institution that has built-in constituencies. the news media is taking that video and showing it entirely. that is much more important than the blogs in the rest of it because that is what is fed into this presidency where they are producing their own. kathleen said it precisely right. they love to cover themselves

and they expect on some level an unfortunate reward them if they release a particularly good video were photographed that we are going to take their content and that it is going to displace the would have been ours. >> well, that is partly true. the bigger calculation internally, not speaking for the white house. the bigger calculation is not that you are going to take it and use it as he vowed that they can go around. they can hear their own channels. look at how many followers barack obama house on twitter or that they can just post trade to the people, that the filter is less necessary. that is the calculation one of white house or political campaign has sent him like that. >> to be sure they weren't takes wittiness from the event. >> again, i'm not defending the exclusion of the press. the calculation is now there other avenues had >> me ask you a question about an academic is history.

the museum has a famous picture and there were many of them of president bush's expression in his face as he leaned over and whispered in his ear, that's a piece of history that's important and they want to share it here. i doubt that a picture like that would be taken in this particular administration and independent news photographer and probably not recorded possibly by a white house photographer, but that event -- a something was to happen it would be taken off site. i'm almost certain. when events like that occur offstage. >> your point is a good one. the first draft of history is increasingly being raised in by the campaign or by the and i

think that is true across the board. i think everyone is trying to control that a little bit more. >> the mainstream press is being pushed out of the picture to some degree the question will be how much will he push out of the picture. the public care. >> no. >> they are getting better information. i don't know that they know when they should trust a video like that. i was struck when the president went to andy lectured us on one of the things he lectured about was producing quality content and shaking the audience, which was interesting because that's a perfect distillation of his communications strategy. the president sits down with a woman who was chiefly known because she ate froot loops and a milk filled bathtub.

he is not looking for good questions about the islamic state. i guarantee you. he is looking for that audience. >> he was in a good messenger. the white house called and interviewed. that is like saying dana carvey gave george h.w. bush press conference. complete nonsense. they said to and take between two for and then it became the number one driver of one driver of involvement in obamacare. people love it. people read it, watch it and consume it and they are not necessarily aware of how they are being steered. you talk about the algorithms. at the george h.w. library i did a panel like this one. you yahoo!, yahoo!, why should i

trust you. i go to yahoo! to get my new senegal kim kardashian in. sit down, go away. you're not a business person. i want to answer that. you are going and seeing a lot of kim kardashian. yes i do. that page is cheaply algorithm driven. if you see a lot of kim kardashian is, serve, it is because that is all you click on. [laughter] >> you know, marty, one thing about the youtube interviews. after the state of the union last year, 2015, president obama did three youtube interviews, three very -- to others that have a big following on youtube. he did them one after the other. i think it has been viewed no

more than 40 million times if i'm not mistaken. now if you were a superpower, but which are superpower of peace? there were a couple legitimate questions in there. i applaud them for doing that. they should mix with the media. they should do both again. it reminded me of the state of the union experience that we have the president pushed in 2007 i guess, the day after the country to do events in do events and interviews of things about the policies that were in the state of the union. this particular year we went to kansas city to talk about health care. we did the event of the interview and then got back on air force one. the president comes into the conference room and says how is to play out there? the cable news on the tv on the conference room. i said fair, out there for dna

and anna nicole baby came back. you mean we could have stayed at home? i'm pretty sure he knew who anna nicole wes, by the way. there were a couple points they are. first of all, the people in kansas city and wichita and the regional media matter, too. we always talk about getting outside of the beltway. of course there is value going there. you can never control what will happen in the news. in that instance, had we had the ability, the national security of the secret service apparatus would let us upload in those days, so we didn't have that channel available to us. we would have done the same thing had we had that mechanism in addition. >> gone are the days when the nightly news with a national convening. people don't sit around and watch the nightly news anymore.

the relatives that they used to have in driving debate for the coming week is all but disappearing. people are just experimenting to find something like between two firms was one of the single greatest communications bonus of the white house. put aside that amount for journalists and. it was a president communicate with an audience he desperately needed to communicate with and it was important. it has national significance. it should not be done at the exclusion. >> olivia mentioned the speech that president obama made in march, the journalist uncovering politics. the me read you what he said. he said let's face it, in today's unprecedented change in your industry, the job has gotten tougher as the appetite flowing through the internet is voracious, we have seen

mr. close. the news cycle has as well and too often there is enormous pressure on journalists to fill the void in these abusive instant commentary and twitter verma said celebrity gossip and that would fail to understand our world. our world could understand 11 another as well as we should. that has consequences for our lives and the lives of our country. he added media countries have an obligation to maintain certain standards and to not down the news. i want to get your reaction to all of that. whether your department or news organizations are down the news and weather all we are doing is chasing clicks. >> no. >> no? >> the whole trope assumes that the organization, mine, yours, although once here are the same as the ones producing cafés. there's a lot of room between

cat videos in serious or in stories. most news organizations are -- there's a lot of room in the middle for making important information compelling and things that people should read and consume. that's what a lot of news organizations are trying to do is make information interesting so people will read it because we are competing with cat videos. >> peter baker of "the new york times" last time had an interesting people asking about media bias and people being biased is most sensationalistic. we are also biased because we know they get the majority of their traffic. if you don't get it in the first paragraph i don't think the

media daum said down. the media has tried to make things more acceptable, recognizing that we are a nation. we are skimming. >> skimming pieces of information is a lot more effective than seeing some big, long pc and thank you here we are trying to get to them. >> a couple of ideas it to be unpacked. one is a 24 sevenths cycle that has this effect. i disagree that speed is the problem here. if speed were the problem, the newswires, which have been speediest forever with the dead or down or what have you and they are not. they are thriving. you're never a former wire hack. i don't think it's that. it is the volume that bothers me.

how we fill the air relatively inexpensively. we will speculate about where the plane is. for days on end. not to knock that particular outfit. it's the volume, not the speed. when i was at asp, at the time that i got on board there, by god, 20 years ago, was writing about the united states for the rest of the world. that is changed now because we have a few friends on yahoo!, for example. when i started out, you're not allowed to say house speaker nuking rage. you had to say president bill clinton's top critic were tough opponent in the united states congress. you had to address your audience, knowing that your audience is not necessarily conversant with certain ideas, individuals and things like that. i would argue that wasn't it down. it was knowing the audience. right now, when i write stuff that yahoo!, some of the stuff that does the best his staff on

syria policy. part of that is partisanship. people want to hammer this president for what has happened in the middle east. some of it is a headline grabbing story with visuals and drama. we don't really .. down. your point about skimming and mobile devices, it is true. one of the very best times to put out a feature story is friday morning. on friday, americans go to work. they are in front of their computers and they are not working. one of my most successful in terms of click, most successful stories online is what happens when the president goes and stays in a hotel and all the dynamics about how it is arranged, how does he handle room service, other issues like that within about four days with 5.5 million readers for that. it was a long story. what i said at the outset about how we have it figured the

magical formula is really true. stories you think would do great but don't catch on fire. we get our traffic from two places really. one is search. i have heard something happened in serious and social media. and then we do have a lot of people who come back to yahoo! who have this bookmark our homepage or whatever. >> that story got 5 million years guess people had seen that before. it was new. i heard a scientist once the braves cannot exist some name that is new. the skimming, you've got them. except us all in with the school story haven't seen before. >> i think there is a lot of remarkable, truman is political journalism out there. it plays an incredibly important role in not just providing the fact, but the context for the

consumer. there's also a lot of journalism out there. there's a lot of people who call themselves journalists because they now have a platform to do so. i don't think the problem is speed and i'm not sure the problem is volume. i think it is the combination of the two. it is the fact that everyone is a wire reporter right now and they live on twitter and too often retreating is replacing reporting and people are putting it out there. you will see reporters we tweaked something with a disclaimer. the disclaimer well, it's true. and i'm sorry. that will go on the cover. let me check if this is true. and if it is, it is a doozy. that does not work. but by the time you do figure it out, the narrative authority site and the story has been already told and it's hard to walk out of that.

everyone is now a wire reporter. everyone is now in the breaking news. it news. god i hate that term. the breaking news business. and we are doing it at this lightning speed that everyone has access to. that concerns me. .. i think about what we used to do in the early part of my career in covering a lot of