i know most young people will go with the internet, but will that go with the older age group. >> good job, ariel. >> i think that's particularly true for audiences watching news on television sets, it has gone down and down and down. but the audience for the content that emerges from tv companies that sometimes come through the tv set sometimes comes through a big screen that you've got wired in front of you and sometimes comes through a small screen that you carry around in your hand. that audience is start to go grow again after many years of decline. so tv content is showing up in different plays places now, and tv companies, as well as newspaper companies, are trying to get their stuff on as many platforms and in as many circumstances as they possibly can, and giving people lots of ways to pull it into their lives. they're giving it in snippets, they're giving it in alerts, special content from the anchor people or things like that, and one of the most interesting

struggles that's taking place in the news industry now is exemplified by the broadcast networks and their newscasts because they're so different now. they've got a much different character. nbc is different from abc is different from cbs this a way we haven't seen that level of variance in the newscasts since the history of broadcast news. but they're trying to figure out who their audience is, what their special value proposition or what their brand ought to look like and what the character of their anchorperson, what kind of news and what kind of sort of format and tone does that anchor person care about. and it's a really interesting phenomenon to watch how tv is trying to adjust to vet big disruptive pressures that you were talking about. >> i want to go back to bob lichter at george mason university. another student had a question, to please go ahead. >> jim griffith. >> is horse race coverage a vital or superficial aspect of american political discourse,

and does a focus on horse race coverage on media outlet prov e provide. >> i believe since the polls are are a measuring stick of how the horse race is going, i think it's pretty clear that a lot of the coverage goes to candidates that are perceived to be ahead or perceived to be within striking distance of the lead. so there is a definite way that an emphasis on horse race determines who gets covered and how they get covered, but i think now there are plenty of ways that the web offers up ample opportunities for people to move beyond horse race coverage, to hear about what issues are, to hear a lot about the biographies and stories of the candidates so if you add up all the information that's available in this environment on politics and how people use it to assess candidates, there's

more stuff coming from more directions with more different story lines and more different sort of frameworks than was the case probably a generation or two generations ago, so it's probably a more diverse information environment than it has been in the past. and horse race answers a very fundamental human question. what's going on and who is ahead? i don't think it's necessarily diminishing to say it's speaking to something that people are curious about. >> and admittedly drives cable television programs day in and day out and also relatively easy to cover. >> if bob has a question, we'll get his question lined up in a moment or two, but i want to go to christopher conway who has a question from the washington center. chris? >> i think mr. skelly has done a great job of walking us through some of the communication tools that have played a big role in election and politics. we've seen radio addresses, tv debates, campaign web sites, social media like twitter, and

on-line video chat. being someone who takes a long time studying these medias and others, i was wondering if you could give us a prediction what the next big thing might be or what it might look like. >> my sense right now is that this will be one of those campaigns where smaller things seem new and interesting rather than we're having a come-out party for something really big. for instance, 2010 didn't have a sort of new, dramatic technology associated with it. bob was right in referring to the rise of mobile activity as being important, and i think mobile will be even more important in 2012. the important thing we're looking at and i know they're looking at the on their mobile devices. plus we're seeing candidates use location services to help people figure out where other local supporters are, to figure out where campaign events are, to

figure out howto people in thei, but those aren't things. they're not like the arrival of social network in the youtube i really important mechanism for you for candidates to gather information, for opponents to gather information about candidates, so i think we're going to see an election of sort of incremental, smaller scale innovati innovation. one of the things people are interested in is big data. there's a lot of things being shared in format, that's being gathered as they spend their credit card, as they go through toll booths with idiot passes and things like that. there is so much information that campaigns and political consultants are really anxious to do the deep digging into that information to see what drives people and what will get them to the polls to vote for my guy or

my issue or something like that. the area of an lit -- analytics. it will become a lot more important in 2016 and 2020 as this becomes the era of big data. >> chris, you might have had our next piece of video in mind, because i want to share what barack obama's campaign manager shared about a month ago. what's interesting about this is you have the campaign manager basically spelling out, here are the states we're going to focus on as we try to get to 270 electoral votes for the president's reelection. we'll watch about a minute of jim cena from the barack obama web site. >> hi, everyone. i'm jim cena, barack obama's campaign manager. i wanted to give you a behind the scenes look at our map and how we think we'll get 270-plus

electoral votes. how we start this is a carry map. the 206 votes john kerry carried, we believe those states are all states we can carry. we add to that the different pathways. the first is the west. something i care deeply about since i'm from out there. it's one of the areas we believe we can win. there are difficult states. colorado, new mexico, nv nv and iowa, we have really good teams. this is why we do what we do. we believe if we register more voters, talk to people with are more voters, we believe barack obama wins again. >> as we watch this, this used to be proprietary information, and now he is going out telling the world, this is our path way. obviously the candidates can look at the states and realize where they need to compete, but this is pretty unique.

>> it feels like it's a pathway directly between them and the candidate. there is no mediation by news reporters of any kind. they can hear the straight stuff, and this plays into a lot of people's yearning to be an insider. they see traditional media exploring maps like this. all of a sudden you've got an audience with the campaign manager who is giving you the inside skinny. now, it's available to everybody, and you say it's proprietary. but in a way, that's compelling to people because it makes me feel bonded to the campaign, it will probably help people understand where the campaign is going, maybe talk it up to their friends, and it sticks on the web all the time. so people who don't necessarily care about it today can access it later on when they go to the web site and sort of have the question about how is it going to go and who is this guy mecina

who i am already hearing some stuff about. so i think there is a way this is a much more intimate environment which is what the web sites are all about. >> let's go back to george mason university. a question from bob. >> this will be voice bid his interpreter, i believe. >> translator: will winning the election depend on how tech savvy your staff is? and what percentage of your campaign budget are you willing to put into that? >> that's a great question, and yeah, it's one of the factors now. one of the striking things we've seen as we've watched politicians evolve. in 2007, the internet was a sideline. the campaign, the ninsiders, thy

talked about messaging in different for mats. what really changed in 2008 was that the internet became a central part of the traditional campaign strategy that pretty much every candidate at the national level were thinking about. so it wasn't just a novelty, it wasn't just a sideline, it was an intricate part that the campaigns were putting together. i think everybody would now say that you have to be. you have to be a tool in order to run a campaign now. it's a very strange ad mixture and a chemistry between the tools and the message. you can do the coolest tools, you can be the most cutting edge with the tools, but with a message that doesn't resonate with the people who use those tools, then it's for not. if you have a great message but you're not necessarily using the

tools to make sure the right people get access to it, that's not going to help you much, either. what's special about the obama campaign in 2008, and we'll see whether 2012 produces the same results, it was the particulars of the message and the special story of this candidate using these new tools that were sort of effective in a new set of ways, and you can't separate those two things. we've asked people about the impact of the internet on their voting decisions and how they get information. >> i want to follow up with what you said about the tools and the message and how the new media is, i guess, more prepared for a certain kind of candidate as opposed to candidates running on policies and experience, they have to focus more on charisma

and popularity and, i guess, the hip kind of tools to get out their message. >> that's really sharp, though that's not particular to the internet age. the charisma and warmth and sort of non-verbal elements of john kennedy were the things that mattered to a lot of voters when they were watching those debates. so it's something that's always been a part of politics and politicians, successful politicians' charms that that's part of the source. which is really interesting now and very different that distinguishes candidates who use this stuff well from candidates who don't is the degree of comfort that they have with losing control of the message. the obama campaign was willing its supporters and the people who were going to go out and do the organizing for him to just sort of use whatever message worked. and if it meant that they weren't necessarily fully representing the obama

positions' on x, y and z, that was okay, where during the hillary clinton campaign, they weren't necessarily comfortable with people commenting on their blog. because they thought there were people who didn't like hillary clinton and they may not say nice things about her, and we don't want them to say that on the web site. you go to the obama web site and there was every possible kind of comment and reaction and tone of voice related to it, and they felt that that was an element of the candidate that they wanted to project out there. we feel comfortable using these tools, we understand that it's not necessarily going to be always in our favor, it's certainly not always going to be in the tone of voice or the actual message that we want, but if we give it to enough people in enough ways, and they kind of like us enough that they will do our work for us,t dependent on us having the message on them, it's about us running around in our own way.

>> let me underscore that point with a reminder that politics is about as much about emotion as any other feeling or psyche in american politics. i want to just show this to you, because it goes back to one of the core elements, the attention or the connection you may have with one voter or one party versus another. and this just is illustrative of that. >> if i told you that the republican leadership sent me down here in order to do this focus group, what piece of advice do you want me to take back to them, chuck? >> don't compromise your values or you'll lose your base. >> okay. and ben agrees with that. how many say i agree with chuck? so how are you going to get some kind of consensus between republicans and democrats, or don't you worry about it?

>> i think the republican party needs to work it out themselves before they try to reach out to the democratic party. >> is it important to get consensus or not that important? >> we're becoming polarized. >> is that good or bad? >> that's bad. >> that's bad. but you want them to stick to their point of view. >> absolutely. >> so how do you do anything but end up in polarization? >> the other choice is we're going to go off the cliff into socialism if we don't stick to our guns. we already entered that slippery spot. >> i agree with chuck, i really do. you have to stand for something. and a lot of them give in. i'm not in politics, so i don't know what the answer is, but i do agree with you. >> probably the answer is get rid of the career politicians

because they will never the decisions they need to make to make this country great again as long as they're trying to protect their next reelection. >> okay. i got a proposal for the table. ready? okay, here's my proposal. whether they are republican or democrat if they've been in for over 15 years, i will vote them out in 2012. how many will agree to my proposal? in other words, i don't know who your representatives are, et cetera, but every representative over 15 years and you have a chance to vote them out, how many would say, i buy into that proposal? one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. >> 15 years is a long time. >> so a little more than half the group, okay. >> not a scientific poll but a snapshot, the emotion of a certain group of republican voters, in this case in december

in virginia, which is a battleground state, a state that the students of george mason are at. and it does give you a sense of how they feel about the parties and the candidates, and you then translate that to what you get on the web and social media. take it from there. >> well, and this is the do it yourself age. there are more independents now than people who are comfortable saying, i'm a democrat or republican. there are more people who are unaffiliated in their religious practices than people -- than we've ever seen in the history of the united states. there are more people now who are sort of do it yourself free agents and managing their own pensions and their health care and even their jobs. there are a lot of people who are sole proprietors now than ever before. it's an age of networked individuals, people forced to act on their own or people empowered to act on their own, and i think what we've seen in the political manifestation of that is when they're upset with the existing institutions, rather than trying to make them work, their thing is to sort of

say, let's go out on our own and fix it with a new way. clearly some of the animating sentiments behind the tea party, it's clearly some of the animating sentiments behind the occupy movements in this country, and there are ways now that the new media give people tools to organize themselves. they don't necessarily connect to a formal group where they aren't necessarily buying into a particular platform, but they're finding other people who feel kind of the same way they do, or at least have the same sort of emotional reaction to the climate we're in. these tools give them new ways now to find each other and to organize and to make a stink about the things they don't like about the current system. it's an age where people don't especially like it in the military.

they're plummeting in every institution, the bank, the church, the only thing that has survived this crash in the culture has been the military, so people are turning to their networks because they aren't necessarily finding what they want with the institutions that have been around for a while. >> so we're all insiders, we can all become experts. >> if you don't like what you see, you can build it on your own. >> one thing in terms of strategy and then i'm wrapping it up with bob lichter. but in terms of the 2008 campaign, the obama campaign realized that delegates in states like idaho and utah, traditional republican states where they had caucuses just as important as delegates in new hampshire and iowa. seen if barack obama were to lose new hampshire, he realized he was going to get delegates in states that hillary clinton wasn't even competing, and the obama campaign very effectively using social media to collect those democrats in effective states.

>> without spend ag ling a lot money, without big ad buys, they were adept at finding local influenc influencers, local people who would make calls and talk to their friends about them. thls the essence of social distributing networking. they found that was a way to sort of live under the radar of the media coverage the big showcase primaries and caucuses and things like that, and it's the wave of the future. >> bob lichter, george mason, it's all yours. >> i'm struck listening to lee. the degree to which this is a really exciting time to be studying campaign communication. i think the communication environment coe coalesced around television. it was 40 years before barack obama came along, and he came along partly because he knew how to use a media tool other than

television, more than his opponent. we also knew the internet would be its own device. people would go off on their own things and not be connected with each other. since the rise of social media, you haven't seen that much anymore. i think it's an exciting time and a very positive time. one more question for lee, which was offered to me by one of my students who couldn't be here, and that is based on what you've done at puh, and something you've learned being in the middle of all this stuff, how has it affected the way you use the internet for political information and the way you look at political information on the internet? >> i'm afraid i'm a bad lab rat when it comes to this. i was a former journalist, so i was an information omnivore before omnivorism was cool. i wanted to talk to people as much as i could about this stuff, so my own personal changes mean i can talk to more people and i can solicit more views and i can avail myself of

more information, and i can be an insider even though i'm no longer in the business and have the wonderful in-box that i used to have when i was an editor of the u.s. news. i'm just scanning the horizon more and probably reading more horizontally now than vertically. i'm scanning more headlines and more bits of information and trying to make sense of it in my tiny little mind. but i'm excited by the idea that i can avail myself now of a lot more pundit and i can find out what the common sentiment is just by watching the sort of sentiment readings that are pretty common to get now off of facebook and social medias. there are wonderful companies pulling that together. i feel like i'm more in touch with things, i feel like i'm ing more things, and this is all good for me. >> lee rainie, who is heading up the project over there.

thank you on behalf of the students at george mason university and at the washington center. appreciate your time tonight. >> thanks, steve. [ applause ] bobby gindall is scheduled to release his budget, a budget that is $9 million in the red. you're listening to shreveport's news and weather station "newsradio." this weekend, book tv and americ american. and blun der from beginning to end. the red river campaign. a look at the over 2,000 books tells that the lsu shreveport

archi archive. a walking tour of shreveport and mosier city. american history on cspan tv from barks dale air force base, a look at how the bases roll on 911 and also a look at the b-52 bomber. from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatments and medicine during the civil war. shreveport, louisiana next weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> who all we vetted. romney, chris pawlenty. >> who can we win with? >> nobody. >> look inside the best-selling movie and book that told the inside story of just what happened inside the 2008 campaign. >> i love those hockey moms. you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?

lipstick. >> with john heilman. >> the expectation coming out of that speech was that she was an ally in that campaign, and for a week or stten days after that, e was of the there was a lot of concern when the republican campaign came ahead of barack obama. people on the democratic side were sort of freaking out. >> we'll talk about game change on cspan.org at any time. he recently gave an update on the agency's implementation of dodd frank. she says following the 2008 financial crisis and the passage of dodd frank, the sec continues to make changes of carrying out its mission of protecting investors and ensuring integrity of the market. this is 40 minutes.

>> the next few days our principal january is one of timekeeping. the conference covers two days, today and tomorrow, and we'll be present ag numbing a number of from various offices to discuss trends, regulations, and the sec's work over the past year. we've invited commentators from the industry and from acedemia to give their views on each panel. each of our commentators have previously served as commissioners and capacities so they can offer perspectives of both inside and outside the secs. over the course of the day, you will also hear from the sec's chairman, mary shapiro, and from four other commissioners. aside from the plenary session, we'll be offering workshops, small breakout sessions at the end of each day.

the workshops will give you an opportunity to hear and ask questions of the sec staff of interest to you. the panelists will not be taking questions during the plenary sessions but we encourage to you ask questions during these workshops. before going on, despite the fact our conference is entitled sec speaks, i must say the views expressed by all the individual speakers of the commission staff during the conference will be their own and not necessarily those of the commission, any other members of the commission and other commissions' various positions and office. to start, it is my distinct honor to introduce the 29th chairman of the sec, mary shapiro. not many people realize this, but when she returned to the sec in january of 2009, it was chairman shapiro's fourth appointment to the commission. it is a testament to her extraordinary talent and her excellent judgment that those appointments are evenly divided. two of her appointments were by

republican presidents and two by democrats. chairman shapiro's talent for understanding and reconciling different sides of complex issues has been vitally important as we work to become more agile and effective during one of the most exciting and demanding moments in the agency's history. under her leadership, the agency has improved performance virtually across the board, increased communications with financial stakeholders of all types and won broad support from elected and political leaders on both ends of pennsylvania avenue. since her return, the agency has brought not only a record number of enforcement cases but a very significant number of actions involving highly complex and sophisticated market practices and products and transactions, including many, many arising out of the financial crisis. she's launched a national program that has brought more

tactics with computer algorithms that identify and rank risk that allow us to effectively target examinations and thus protect investors. embraced the opportunities for vest protection and market stability offered by dodd frank working around the clock to enter an unprecedented rulemaking agenda. address the market structures of the 2006 crash, pull major infrastructure into the 21st century, overseen significant improvements in management and operations, improvements that allowed the sec to vote an ever higher percentage of staff to its core functions and inspired a new energy and enthusiasm for historic and important institution. chairman shapiro treats public service as a calling and accepts responsibilities to markets and to investors not as a burden but