massachusetts. new hampshire's law is less clear though. so in 2006, a republican majority legislature including bob clegg passed a bill that would clearly establish a castle doctrine in this state. ayotte and members of law enforcement opposed the bill and democratic governor john lynch vetoed it thus preventing it from becoming law. the second claim from clegg involves a series of arrests five years ago. >> she even stopped our local police from arresting illegals when they broke the law. >> so is it true or false? this one is false. in 2005, a new ip sich police chief made national headlines when he arrested illegal immigrants and charged them with trespassing in the country. a district court judge threw out the charge and rule the that it was unconstitutional for local police to enforce federal law. ayotte didn't appeal the ruling and issued a statement saying

law officials should not make future arrests for criminal trespassing based solely on the defendant's immigration status. if we're getting into semantics in a highly produced 30-second ad, every word counts, ayotte didn't actually stop anyone from making arrests if they wanted to continue making arrests. it should be noted that that new ip sich police chief is now supporting ayotte and issued a statement saying he disagreed with the ad. checking out the truth for wmur, i'm james bindle. >> so maybe that will line on your bio is right. maybe most of it is false. thank you all for doing that. gosh, a whole bunch of follow-up questions. and one of the things i'd like greg, you might want to address, is what about the viewership? what about the impact on the

viewer? are -- is your audience receptive to these? >> do they get a reaction out of it. >> what does it do to your ratings? >> i'll get to the ratings in a second. a lot of what we do, people don't react to. i mean, i do stories every single day and i don't get a single e-mail about it. a couple of stories a week, i'll do something and then i'll get people you know logging on to welsh.com to go to my e-mail address or because they communicated with me before, they'll send me an e-mail and say i agreed with that or i didn't whatever the story is. when we do truth tests we get three dozen is a good round number as a typical response. if it's a democrat leaning organization or a democrat attacking a republican and we find most of the claims to be false, then obviously, you know, i get e-mails from half of those people that say oh, you must be a democrat. and then consequently, if conservative groups and

republican candidates attack falsely, democrat opponents and we find those claims to be false then somebody calls up and says you must be a republican. so of course, all these people very to do is go to the supervisor of elections and find out which party affiliation i am. but the fact of the matter is it gets reaction. people are very well tuned into of what is being thrown into their tv sets in their living rooms. they want to see how we treat it. and they usual will i react to it. now, usually we do not do any overnight promotion for a truth test although it does typically take us a day as pat was saying, it typically takes us a day to do the writing. we don't do a lot of overnight promotion of a truth test. we have done that a couple times. from the noon program on, we promote at 6:15, which is our time slot for a truth test, we

have a truth test coming up. when we looked at in the months of september and october of 2010, on the nights that we aired a dozen truth tests in our 6:00 news, on those nights, our rating was up 6% and our share was up 5%. on one particular night in which we aired a -- an ad by then congressional -- he was a congressman allan grayson did an ad called stairway to nowhere in which he accused the guy who beat him dan webster of authorizing a spiral staircase in the house speaker's office. it was a stairway to nowhere. we found -- we obtained a photo from the guy who's in charge of photos in the house in tallahassee of the staircase that's actually in a closet. we promoted that overnight and it got a plug in the "orlando

sentinal." in that particular night, we did a 7.0 rating, about a 30% jump in our newscast. >> there is reaction. pat, we were talking about this earlier. you guys do such a good job and a thorough job in vetting these things out. clearly, as not that it surprises any of us, so much of it is false. does what you do, does it ever have an impact on the sales side in terms of the station saying, we're not going to do it, we're not going to run it? >> two answers to that. number one, i'm discouraged to say that i don't know it has an impact at all on the politicians although our -- the reaction from the public is very similar to orlando and i imagine in new hampshire, as well. there is a fiery reaction generally when we dotings and

ra -- do this and the ratings go up. i have never known us to pull an ad nor to my knowledge has a candidate changed an ad based on what we do. there will has been a change in behavior over the last 20 years, and that is that the candidates now in advance provide us with all of the source material for their advertisement. and that's the biggest change that i see. and we can go and fact check all of those now. but that's the biggest change. the short answer is no. >> james, we talked before about the challenges to do this, even large stations certainly smaller stations with smaller staffs maybe single staffs doing this can be even more challenging. walk us through that. i mean, what -- how do you deal with the pressure to get this kind of thing done and get the workload accomplished?

>> when it's discussed we should be doing a fact check, we basically try to get it as quickly as possible from when it begins to air. then it's how quickly can we get it done. there are hard deadlines eventually but while i'm doing my other duties, you know, a day or two to actually make this happen. then obviously as part of the team which is very helpful. the lag time is when you are talking to campaigns. all right? or talking to the third parties to try to figure out where they're coming from. actually, when you have the material, they use, you can then evaluate it and make your other phone calls. the biggest lag time for me is frankly getting campaigns or getting the sponsors of those ads to give me their source material. in terms of resources, it's something that the station really wants to put in. i should say this because we're

here, but you know, i know my station and i know myself we stand on the shoulders of what brooks jackson have done and upenn and i thank them so much because it's legitimized it and makes it easier to do and you folks it makes it easier to do in terms of to see the importance to the station. so in terms of resources, it's just a matter of going through your checklist and trying to find a couple one or two facts that could easily be fact checked like that. >> pat, you were referring to some of what you do as quick strike material. three or four-hour productions. >> it's difficult for us to gather everybody for two days. that's the cost factor again. we used to when we began doing this, we had a graphic artist dedicated to this. we don't have that anymore. we used to have a producer on the days we did realty check dedicated to helping research so there would be two of us and then i wouldn't have to be on the air that day.

that has gone away. so this is generally, i'm the one who does the research and we have one manor does final cut editing on this. that makes a big difference. slight something that's slightly different that we do is that when it is a commercial, we have found it's sometimes helpful to let it run for i an few days so that people know what we're talking about, and then we do it three, four five days later and get a bigger reaction. we tried it both ways.similarly i'll be covering a tax committee hearing in the afternoon and i might be at a political event at night. and then i do radio during the day, political radio and so there's so many different things that we have to do that we have to actually dedicate the time which is what my management again thankfully is doing during this coming election. >> let me -- if i can add to that, we do that also at welsh. we want the ad to run for a few

days. when we first started doing truth tests we were like wow, as soon as that ad gets on the air, we're going to have the truth test done by 6:00. it started airing at 11:00 a.m. and after awhile, we were thinking people are not getting a chance to digest what the content of the ad is. she is ads are typically hard to follow anyway. if we don't give it a chance to like a good bottle wine, they're not going to be able to soak in what we're telling them is true or not true about it. so typically we like to try to let it run for a few days and then we go after it and start researching it. >> questions from the audience? harry, we'll start with you. >> let me get this straight. so you find that the ad is false but the station continues to air it after you find out it's false? >> go ahead. >> i would love to answer that because that is the most difficult question that i have.

and we heard from a questioner the center for responsive politics over here. that was a great question because that is the number one question i get. we don't find an entire ad false. we find one thing might be. there might be something that's half false, half true and you've got to the decide what that is. yeah, that is for me ethically what i wonder about all the time. now, my news director and the people who run our station might feel differently that there is a reasonable, this is within the realm of political debate within the boundaries of reasonableness and truthiness that it goes ahead and it runs. and yet, this is something that i think about every time i do one of these. and they're not all false. but parts of them are. >> i'll ask quickly either of you two guys ever see one taken off the air after what you do?

>> after what we've done? we actually, i want to say i think this was in the 2006 cycle, we actually found a couple of ads that had some material in them that caused the -- because these were from the candidate, they weren't from a third party group and the candidate agreed with our assessment and they made a slight change and reissued the ad within a couple of days. that hasn't happened since that time. so you're talking about ancient history now, six years ago. have we removed an ad since the 2010 cycle that's come from a third party? i can't remember one. >> we actually spend a lot of time, something i'm not involved in, but they spend a lot of time before they even go on the air. i know there are a few examples where it did not appear the air the first time so they were pulled back. >> interesting. other questions? yes, sir. >> just to follow up on that, i mean, i guess my reading of the social science research is that

your best chance to actually change somebody's mind who is affected by these ads is when they've immediately heard it, and if you do leave it going for a few days, the chance -- the cognitive -- the chance of you having any effect on the viewers is relatively low. so i guess i'm just in terms of what you're trying to do in terms of educating people, it seems like a challenging strategy. >> what pat and i were saying, a lot of these buys have an ad or similar ads. don't forget, we get one version of an ad in week one of may. we may get the second which is in the third week of may which is just a slightly twisted version of add number one. add number one.a, b. so we want people to be able to see it for a few days so they can get an idea of what it is attempting to say or they will have no understanding what we're trying to tell them, even in those twos truth tests i showed

you, they were three minutes long, about three times as i an normal story i typically put on the air. so we're trying to give them a lot of explanation but it doesn't do any good if they don't understand wa they've been looking at. >> also, tell me if i'm right or if i'm wrong but it's my understanding that our viewers, voters, must see something many times before they do grok it, but they doe understand it. is of it 16 times that a commercial runs before someone actually believes it or does not believe it? that's not a reason that we do it, but we just feel intuitively and journalistically to do it without having people seen it and we have hundreds of thousands of vushs who may not have seen it, that it doesn't make sense in context with what we're doing, but i take your point which is a good one. >> those viewers are watching in different day parts.

you've got to give them an opportunity to see it, maybe run it midday but somebody that watches it the in evening may not have had a chance to see it. >> sometimes it will run after i do my reality check. >> that's the one thing we try to be careful of, make sure it doesn't run the commercial break before weep do the truth test. >> yes, sir if the back. >> matt behindman. i want to follow up on that point. partly because i think that the social science research on this is in fact i think even more discurrentlying. i think that much of the research over the past four or five years suggests for precisely the reasons you're suggesting that repeating false claims tends to reinforce them. they're very difficult to actually to debunk. so one of the things that concerns me with some of these -- with some of these fact check segments and i understand this is a really tough catch 22, is it strikes me that many of

these segments are likely to reinforce the claims that many ostensibly you're trying to debunk. so for example, if i was a campaign manager running against bill nelson, i would be thrilled with that fact checking segment. partly because of the images, because it presents nelson as weak. and partly because it simply repeats the claim over and over again. so what we see again and again with field experiments is when you repeat a false claim about a candidate and then say, this claim isn't true, you go back to people later and ask them, well, what do you know about bill nelson and they'll repeat the false statement even if they've seen the debunking segment. so this is -- and so there are specific tactics we can do to somewhat lessen that, but and, of course, we do want to provide accountability, but at the same time, i think this is -- i think

in some of these specific segments, what you're really doing is doing additional damage to candidates that have been unfairly attacked. >> i'll answer that simply by explaining to you that if you want, afterwards, i can get your e-mail address and i can forward you this e-mail response from the campaign manager for bill nelson who took and a web link to our video of that truth test and he forwarded to all major media around the country. so they -- now, i will tell you if we came out and said, every claim in that ad was true, i wouldn't have gotten a contact from that guy. but as the previous panel and i believe the panel before that pointed out if i was listening correctly, the candidates when they are slammed and we pick out distortions, they're quick to embrace us. you know, if their opponent gets four pinocchios from the

"washington post," you know, they're quick to stand up and say see, they've been lying about me all along. when you find four pin yokeios against the candidate they say i think we have to check our research on that. >> danny young, the university of delaware and flak jack.org. i actually, i agree with what you're saying, matt, but i do think that the instances that you showed, greg, where it shows a very small clip and then goes right in to the fact check and it's set behind him. it's clear little creating like an emotional distance from it. i do think it really has to do with the production values. i was going to say that i think that that perhaps adapted the best of what we saw to use a format that the created that psychological distance for the viewer. i agree with what you're saying but i think those examples are actually pretty good examples. >> there's the reality here which is we can do our fact check at 6:15 or we can do it at 5:05 and you know, most people

don't watch that newscast because they always watch the 11:00 and they didn't catch it then and we didn't replay it. that ad's going to be run a heck of a lot more times than we do that segment. we're already swimming upstream. that is a reality. >> and what is our goal? is it to make the politicians stop what they're doing? is that our goal? is it to have them pull their ads down, or is it to tell people what happened and in my view, this is what's true and this is what's false? what is our ethical responsibility? to me, it's to inform our viewers and therefore, inform the voters. and i don't have the broad goal of changing michele bachmann's behavior. i just don't. >> for ratings. >> for ratings, yeah. >> that was a joke. >> and a good one. and a very good one, yeah. >> you know, as we get deeper and deeper into nel campaign season and this one will

certainly not be any exception, and the newscasts are just filled wall to wall with political ads, the station is filled with political ads for that matter. viewers just get to the point, because having done this for a lot of i've heard all the complaints. they say i just tune it all out. it don't pay any attention to any of it. and because you don't know what to believe and what not. how do you keep viewers engaged on the editorial side with an interest in, in these kinds of things? especially as we get deep into the season? >> first of all, i don't believe it. i don't believe that voters tune out, that's not my experience over the years. i think they get more engaged. i think in more cases they get more angry, more animated, more agitated on either side. so i go into this without that expectation, that they're burned out. however, my mantra is simplify

and foes can. simplify and focus, i grab what i think is the most salient fact that may be true, not true and i focus on that. and try to make it more visually interesting. >> the last thing i would say is, you know, just since last week, we had a great example of where we were teasing the audience a bit with mitt romney came to the state for the third time in a month. you may have saw last friday, he came to new hampshire. making fun of another bridge to nowhere. a little stone bridge they preserved as a park in a small town in new hampshire. he was going to make a mockery out of it. stimulus funds, being used. the reality of it was the state's ten-year highway transportation plan. so people who had voted for mitt romney had voted for the same project they were ridiculing. as a tease, our audience was

very engaged with that. >> final moments? >> i would like to say in giving my opinion on this last question, i mean we, for people who may be disengaged with the process right now, you know, we save a lot of the material on our website and people can go to it. if they're not tuning into the campaign until a week before the august 14th primary in florida, they can go back and look at some things we said about the chamber of commerce and 60-plus and restore our future and winning our future and somebody else's future and whatever the other super pacs were, and children and puppets, exactly. so whether they can get a flavor for what they are seeing in august, even if we don't do something in particular about that group or an ad they may put on in august. >> i think this is an extremely

valuable tool for journalists. i hope this goes more local. i strongly believe that most of our viewers get a much, if not most of their information locally. there is the national campaign, but it's played out in different states in different ways. so for television stations, all around the country, i think this is the future. this is what people should be doing. >> it's a huge responsibility. i mean again, i'm newer to tv, but my, my news director before i go on the air always reminds me, walmart shoppers, your audience is walmart shoppers. it's real people and you hear your words repeated back to yourself. there was the pew study done earlier in the year. that showed that when they asked americans where do you get your news from elections, 36% said they get it from local television news and 12% from newspapers and it went down from there very significant and something that more and more stations should be doing.

>> gentlemen, thank you very much. a great hour, a great three hours today. hope you enjoyed it, thank you so much. >> let me close by summarizing our reasons for concern. we know that this year we're gf an unprecedented level of third-party advertising. we know it will dwarf candidate advertising and expenditure. and we mow that historically third-party advertising has been more deceptive. stations have a right to reject third-party ads and we know that local television stations are at the front lines of determining whether or not the material that is aired on their broadcast stations is context you'llized by news. we've tried to show you exemplary stations and exemplary ownership groups doing a really good job dealing with this very difficult issue. the challenges that they've confronted in the ways that they've overcome it. we documented in a study that we released after the primaries

that the four highest-spending third-party groups through wisconsin had spent more than half of their dollars airing ads that had at least one clear-cut deception in them. we're going to update that study. and release it at a panel at the national press club that the center for responsive politics will be doing and that's going to be focused on the 501 c groups that are affectionately called nonprofits, i like the title of their session. it's shadow money, stealth wealth and political nonprofits. we are trying to urge journalists to adopt the concept of misleading money or deceptive dollars to talk about the ways in which third party money moves deception through advertising to affect the electorate. that's the reason for this concept. i urge you to go to our website and take a look at the video that illustrates the study. i'd also like to make a series of appeals. those who would like to email your stations to encourage them

to check the accuracy of third-party ads before they air them and ad watch online and on air, come to factcheck.org, you can email the station, it takes about a minute. please use the same structure when the stations are doing a great job to tell them, thaw. and to in particular, express your appreciation for the hard work and the money that is involved in doing this very difficult work. i think when station managers receive thanks, that's far more powerful than receiving our urging. i hope they're going to receive both. and as a result, we're creating a positive structure for them that says viewers appreciate this kind of work. and i think that ratings are expressing part of that appreciation. we also would like to encourage you to go to the factchekt website to take a look at patterns of deception. we think this is a way to determine if you're a viewer, whether you need to go to the ad-watching sites, if you're not already there, in order to see whether or not the fangts involved in the issues that you care about, might be distorted

in this ad. finally i would like to thank the panelists and thank the moderators and i'd like to thank our funders, the annenberg foundation and i'd like to invite all of you to lunch. [ applause ] the senate homeland security committee today heard testimony about the investigation into the secret service incident involving prostitutes in clom beia the director of the secret service was among those testifying, watch it tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and coming up friday night, a debate between the candidates running in wisconsin's recall

election. republican incumbent governor, scott walker is being challenged by democrat tom barrett, former mayor of milwaukee. that's live friday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span. this is c-span 3, with politic and public affairs programming throughout the week. and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling american story, on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> next the house financial services and subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit looks at institutions deemed too big to fail. two of the eligibility requirements are that it must be a nonbank financial company and that 85% of its assets or revenue must be financial in nature. representative shelly moore capito chairs the subcommittee and this three-hour hearing.

>> this hearing is called to order. it want to welcome everyone. this morning, the financial institutions and consumer credit subcommittee will examine the impact of being designated as systemically important financial institutions, specifically for nonbank financial entities. but i couldn't begin the hearing without talking about the most topical subject of the day or of the week. there's no doubt that this week's news of jpmorgan's trading losses has raised significant questions about the supervision of risk within an institution. the story is still unfolding. and although it appears that the, and seems to be that the firm had sufficient capital to absorb the significant loss, one of the questions that i would ask is would a less-capitalized institution survive a similar loss? are other financial