broadband where there was an unsubsidized cable provider in the market. that doesn't make any sense standing alone. it particularly doesn't make any sense that there are some that aren't getting any support. it's an incredible thing that the u.s. has 93% cable penetration. really, the rest of the world looks at this and says, wow, how did you accomplish that, america. that's an amazing thing. particularly for a country of our geographic size. but we have it in the u.s. it's an incredible thing. there's still another 7% of the country. it's about 18 million americans who live in areas without broadband infrastructure. and so what we've been able to do at the fcc, working together, is move this program to strip out inefficient spending, and shift it to operate mally, efficiently supporting broadband in parts of the country that don't have it.

we couldn't have got it done without broad support from stakeholders for change. >> i know the details are mind numbingly complex. but i tell you, the goal is that we're committed to it. which is trying to get all americans on an affordable platform that allow them to be thank you for your role in bringing that dream about. ladies and gentlemen, julius genachowski, chairman of the fcc. >> thank you. >> you're very welcome. a look now at some of our live coverage today on the c-span networks. the u.s. house is in session now on c-span. members are considering a number of bills, including spending next budget year on energy and water projects. 17 months after electing republican scott walker as governor, wisconsin voters are reconsidering that decision today. he's facing milwaukee's democratic mayor, tom barrett, in a recall election. c-span2 will have results tonight, starting at 9:00 eastern.

and here on c-span3, we'll be live tonight at 8:50, with the discussion between warren buffett, the head of berkshire hathaway, and david rubenstine, the 4ed of a major investment company. the discussion on the current state of the economy. tomorrow, the senate banking committee looks into financial industry regulations. members are focusing on the rules being written by the securities and exchange commission and commodities futures trading commission. the hearing will examine the $2 billion trading loss at jpmorgan chase. you can see live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern here on c-span3. and thursday, we'll bring you live coverage as federal reserve chair ben bernanke gives his annual economic outlook report to congress. the joint economic committee hearing begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. over the past four years,

pulitzer prize-winning author has been writing his book, barack obama obama, the story, traveling the globe and speaking with the president's relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he viewed the family homes and sites in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. it comes out in bookstores on june 19th. but book tv will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya as we traveled with the author in january of 2010. so join us, sunday, june 17th, at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. and later, at 7:30, that same night, your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for david maranas on c-span2's book tv. and we continue our coverage of the cable show in boston with a look at cable news and politics. c-span steve scully talked with cnn's john king, chris matthews from msnbc, and maria elen a

salinas about the 2012 presidential campaign. from t this is just under 30 minutes. >> thank you all for being with us. let me get right to it. in 2008, maria elena salinas, game change was one of the definitive books of that campaign. has there been a game changing moment in 2012, and if not, what potentially could be a game changing moment? >> i think there has been a game changing moment, particularly for the latino community, the latino voters. that came before mitt romney even became officially, or unofficially, but before he became the front-runner. and that is when he said that the response, or the answer to the immigration issue would be the self-deportation of undocumented immigrants, and when he vowed to veto a dream act if it ever came to his desk. because the hispanic voter, even

though most polls show it's jobs, the economy, that it's health and education, the issues that they most care about, of course, jobs, there's 10.3% unemployment among the latinos. the issue that drives their vote is definitely the immigration issue. so you can see right off the bat, the latest polls, president obama has 64% to 67% of support from the latino voters. and romney has 20% to 25% from latino voters. for there to be a change in that, i don't know what would have to happen. either he would flip-flop on his positions and then he would be accused of flip-flopping. right now it will be an uphill battle for the republicans to get the latino vote. >> john king, a game changing moment, has it happened or potentially what could it be? >> we call that evolution. we call that evolving now. we don't call it flip-flopping anymore. we've had a very interesting campaign so far. i don't think we've had a game

changing general election dynamic yet. what could it be? it could be the showdown with iran. and if there is some uncertainty in the middle east, at least a military conflict, and the domino effect of that, which would be energy prices spiking again. if you're an incumbent president, people in the $4 gas, the controversy now. if that went up in the august, september period, that could be devastating for an incumbent president. if it's domestic, it's not a dramatic game changing surprise, but i think when people around labor day see what the unemployment report is, around september, that's when the psychology, any good pollster will tell the psychology of the electorate settles in right about then. if people start to feel better about the economy, that could change things. >> chris matthews? >> iran. i think if there's an attack on iran and obama has to react to that, i think that would be

interesting. i think that would change everything. >> you brought the smart board to cnn. part of the changing technology that we've seen in our industry. if you look back to the scope of history with radio and roosevelt and the debates in 1960 and the social media in 2008, where are we in 2012 with technology, and with social media specifically? >> i'm an old a.p. wire guy. i remember when i had a pencil, and a note book. that's all i needed. i didn't have to wear a tie and makeup. things are changing. you can embrace technology. it's scary sometimes, but if you run from it, you will be obsolete. so i think the technology, it's a challenge to our business. you know, it's a challenge, you can't tell people anymore you must watch john king at this time or you must watch chris matthews at this time. anybody under 40 says i'll watch it when i want to. in terms of our politics, it's changing phenomenally how the campaign is reaching out and contacting people. if you want to report on a campaign, you just don't go to

the events anymore. you don't see as many yard signs as you used to see anymore. they're in touch with people over their devices, through text messages. that's how they raise money, that's how they do voter contact. if you're an old school guy like me, i still love to go to events and stop by headquarters, but phone banking is done now by people on cell phones. you walk into some headquarters and see 1,000 people there. but technology is changing everything. and you have to study it and learn it or else you'll be covering the last campaign, not this campaign. >> i think a more important thing, technology allows us as citizens, in the way we debate issues, the depth in which we go at an issue. i will spend the rest of my life trying to figure out how we went to war in iraq. why we had the iraq war. the president was able to talk us into a war. the noncritical factor of the media is gone. we are a critical media today. the media today is totally different than it was in the war

to the buildup. there would be questioning on ms, fox, cnn. people would be listening to the neocon drum beats. and they would say, wait a minute, this is a class of people here pushing this war. that group of idealogs would want this war. we wouldn't allow people to say let's get even with the thoughts on war. they would be challenged, and i would like to think there would be a reckoning that we didn't have then because of modern media. it's not only breadth, but depth. and critical argument on the air. no more of this, the president said this, let's get embedded with his thinking. wait a minute, let's question his thinking. the united states has never been the aggressor in this way before. aggressors were a bad guy. how do we change that position overnight with limited ability,

changing the definition of when we go go to war. the media was intellectually embedded with the thinking of the administration. i'm reading a book, morley safer said we're not winning this war. cronkite was slow to accept that. andy rooney, always with the embedded thinking. we have to be with the military. that debate was three years in the running. today it would take about an hour. that's why it's different. we would move quicker. we wouldn't take three years to realize a war is unwinnable. that's what's great about what's happening today. depth of argument and diversity of opinion. and not this sort of lemming-like acceptance of authority. that's gone. thank god for cable. because that's what's going on today. without cable, it's just network thinking. i'm telling you, embedded thinking, which is dangerous in a democracy. >> let me take the other side of the argument. there's a new book out called "the cable chatter" where the

left is talking to the left, the right is talking to the right and maria elena salinas, they're calling this corrosive to our democracy. the rising of the opinion of journalism that we're seeing in our industry. >> that's one opinion. >> i do think it's very dangerous, and chris is right, because people nowadays have designer news. they watch news depending on what they want to hear, and they want to listen to people that they agree with, and agree with them. but that's very dangerous, because now there's a very fine line between news and commentary. and to the average viewer, to the average voter, they don't know the difference between a news person who is actually giving the news, and a commentator. visually they look the same. they're sitting behind a desk. they don't know the difference. and unless you sell yourself as a commentator -- i remember a while back with lou dobbs, where he was very critical of the latino community. and john, i'm sure when you remember he was constantly

attacking immigrants, i remember sending him an e-mail and saying, what you're doing is not right. you're giving your opinion. you're supposed to be a news person. he wrote back saying, you notice in the beginning of the program it says news and opinion. but it's not clear at what point you're providing the news and at what point you're providing an opinion. >> i totally disagree. people are thinking all the time when they're watching the news. they can hear an argument -- by the way, the argument for the vietnam war, i'm sorry, the argument for the vietnam war and iraq war was commentary. it was opinion. the case for the war was opinion. there wasn't an objective reason to go to war with iraq. that was an opinion of the people around the president, the neocon community. they wanted that war. that was an opinion. it needed to be looked at critically with other opinions. that isn't the objective fact that we have to cover, like, tokyo's the capital of japan. this administration wanted to go to war. i don't believe ronald reagan would have gone to war in iraq the second time.

that's an analysis. i think you can look at history and see that. that's an argument. the idea that we shouldn't be argumentative when cable -- i tell you, we need to be in-depth. this idea of the embedded thinking is scary. it just says the president said today. well, this isn't heily telling us what to do. we're supposed to question. we're supposed to criticize. that's what journalists do. >> it's very clear when people see chris, they know he's giving his opinion, there's no doubt about that. that is very clear. [ laughter ] >> that's right. >> that's true. >> but john -- >> that's what he is, and that's what he says. but i think it's dangerous when people can't tell the difference -- >> who are these people that can't tell the difference? who are these people who are so unaware, that they don't know what they're listening to? when you turn on channel 61 or 63, you know how to find that channel because you're looking for it perhaps. you don't accidently finding msnbc and overwhelmed by the

propaganda. no, you know reverend al sharpton and the way he looks at things. if you respect him, and you pick up on it, you learn things. i learn things from everybody, by the way. especially people i disagree with. >> i think this comes down to your brand, number one. and your brand is very important in the world right now. you know if you're watching fox in primetime or msnbc in primetime, you know what you're watching. i think those of us who want to be in the middle, we have a challenge to make the conversation more provocative. >> but also, it's not just black and white. every people on these networks has a different point of view. there's no -- >> you're right. far left and far right. >> that's not true. that's a funny line. by the way, that is an opinion. >> okay -- >> that's just an opinion. >> how is it not true? >> who's your audience, john king? who's watching cnn? >> fewer people, at the moment, which is part of the challenge. but you can laugh all you want. it's a challenge.

you have to study these things and you have to learn. we've always been this network. there are good things about that and there are some bad things about that. but there are people who want to make this about, it's his fault or fox's fault. i actually disagree. i view this as a sports analogy. if you're a sports fan, or you're in business, you study your opponents. this is a parenting challenge, a teacher challenge, when you reach age of maturity to say -- >> your-offering yourself up as the objective observer of different points of view. i'm just offering an opinion. >> what is your opinion? >> it's fairly obvious. >> yes, it is. >> there's nothing wrong with advocacy journalism that says, here's what i think you should think. there's also nothing wrong with objective journalism saying here's what's happening. >> i think there's three levels to what we try to do on msnbc. report the news. that's what you start with. people don't know what's going on. number two, you try to analyze. i try to figure out who's

winning elections, who's making smart moves. i talked about the corey booker thing all last night. that's analysis. and it's true. that's not advocacy. i was amazed and dismayed at what i saw at the political mishandling of a show by political advocates. that's analysis. that's, oh, i'm rooting for or against the guy. you have to do all three layers if you want to do modern cable. you've got to do news, analysis, and let them know where you're coming from. that's all useful. >> i do think it's very important to have -- >> and everybody's coming from somewhere. >> when people are basing their political decisions on opinion and not fact, that's when it becomes dangerous. chris is right in the sense that you do need analysis, you do need perspective. it just needs to be clear. it needs to be clear to the audience and unfortunately not all of the viewers and/or voters are as sophisticated understand the difference. >> come on, you don't think that the average viewer of fox knows

that the ironic -- the irony is deep in the phrase fair and balanced? they laugh at it. they know it's a joke. they all say, yeah, we're fair and balanced. and everybody who watches fox, right, left and center knows that fair and balanced is ironic and fun loving by roger ayles. they're all in on the joke. they know it's right wing. they love it. that's why they watch it. >> some people don't actually believe what they hear. >> come on. you're underestimating your audience. they get it. >> on abc news, announcing an online partnership this year, english version of latino news. >> exactly. >> what's that going to look like? >> this is a historic moment for abc, we're going to be launching a new network. at the end of the summer, before the election, it will be digital. and in the beginning of the following year, of 2013, then it will become a network. i think what we realize is that there was this void for a specific audience out there.

and it's mostly english dominant latinos, second generation latinos, and also the general audience who was interested in issues that affect latinos. and they should be interested. after all, by the year 2050, latinos will be 30% of the population in this country. so i guess you could say it would be univision news with a latino perspective. there's at least 75% of latinos in this country bilingual. and they have a choice to watch english or spanish. many are watching spanish language news, not just because of the language but because of the content. because they get information that is relevant to them. hopefully our goal in this new network, abc univision, a new network, we will fill that void. and we will be able to report to these people what they want to hear. >> john king, speaking of content, one of the debates in south carolina, you moderated with newt gingrich. david gergen called it one of

the explosive moments in debate history. we all know the exchange with newt gingrich going after you and cnn with the question about his alleged extramarital affairs. my question to you as a moderator, what were you thinking? what was going through your head? >> i think you take away the word alleged. i think we're being a little too careful here. >> the question was -- >> thank you, chris. >> the question was, one of his ex wives had said he came and asked for something specific, nb open marriage. we had a conversation, is that a legitimate question for presidential debate. i said, yes, it is. then we had a conversation about, where do you ask it. i don't think there's any debate it was a fair question, a relevant news question. this is a legitimate debate, is it first in the debate or not. i said, you know what, number one story of the day, if i approach newt gingrich on the street, that's the first question i would ask him. i'm going to ask him this question, he is going to turn at

me, he's going to launch at me, launch at the media and he's going to say nasty things about me personally, about cnn and the news media and we're and the news media and we're going to have to stand there. the audience is going to jump to their feet, we'll ask a follow-up question and we'll see where it goes. that's what happened. i was doing my jobs a i see it. i've known him for 20 years. he was doing his job as he sees it. he looked at me during at break and said this is a great debate. i said i thought that was despicable. he said come on, we've known each other a long time. then he brought ka list that up and said isn't that a great debate? parallel universe. >> isn't that the definition of insanity? that's off the wall behavior, right? >> he's an interesting man. but the voters, look, a lot of people said, a lot of people said that that gave him the south carolina primary. it may well have. i don't know. i don't read minds. obviously he had momentum coming in and got more momentum out of

that. however, i give the voters -- to chris' point earlier, i give people trust the common sense and judgment of the american people. they might get it wrong sometimes but they ultimately get it right. and cumulatively, those great debates serve a great purpose on all the networks. people got to see what they're for, what they say, nen the voters get to make their choice. >> in all fairness, you had the guts to ask the provocative questions. by the way, there's two kinds of great questions. the one everyone wants to ask and you wish you were there to do it fshlg then there's the question that, like, david gregory asked of the vice president the other day about marriage equality. just elicited something that may not have been spontaneous. i don't know what biden was thinking when he was asked the question, but what he was thinking when he was asked the question is news.

it gets true honesty out of them. and the old sam donaldson question that bugs you because the guy won't ask it. when the media gets tertied, that's when we're trouble n trouble. that's when we stop being a state. that's the great quality of what you did there. i think it's great. >> i want to read this as a quote so i get this right. i'm going to ask you a yes or no question, chris matthews. just yes or no. good luck. quote, from 2008, i have to tell you, it's part of reporting this election that feeling most people get when they hear barack obama's speech, i felt this thrill going up my leg. i mean, i don't have that too often. is the thrill still there today? >> well, i had actually -- if you had done your reporting over at c-span, you would have checked that i said the exact same thing in 2004 after i heard his address up here in boston. >> this is 2012.

>> i said this in 2004. >> i know. i want to help your reporting first. and i also said thereafter in 2004, which you didn't pick up on, i said four years ahead of time, we just heard the first african-american president, which you failed to mention, which makes me look a little sharper. but you didn't offer that. so in other words, you only offered up -- the thrill was real. back in ronald reagan, every time he came into the house chamber, he would feel a thrill up his spine. i do have a physical reaction when people talk about my country. he was talk about our country. when he said, only in this country is my story possible, it gets to me. and whatever else you think about this guy's politics, which i think are left of center, whatever you think of his politics, his story is an amazing american story. when he talks about the way he did it, that was my definition of american exceptionalism and i'm thrilled as i speak about it now. i think this is a great country. and i am thrilled by it.

i'm willing to say this, and i meant to say it as part of my reporting. and a guy like tom brokaw wouldn't have said it. i'm an untraditional person and i have unttraditional values anticipate i probably shouldn't have said it because i've given a lot of jackasses a chance to talk about it. >> thank you, chris. >> so i hope you feel more satisfied that it's the most obvious question raised by any horse's ass right winger i've spoken to. >> so let me conclude on that note with our next question. >> not that there's anything wrong with it, of course. i have to throw that in. but thank you, steve, for serving up that little souffle you've been working on since last night sometime when your brain exploded with this idea that you were going to ask me about it. >> we are just about out of time. quick question. each of you, maria, finish this

sentence. barack obama will win because -- or mitt romney will win because. very quickly. >> oh, boy, that's a tough one. >> cnn. i can't wait for cnn. waiting for this baby. >> i think barack obama will win because there's the same -- can i say it in spanish. [ speaking in spanish ] and that means -- it's a very typical saying in spanish. it's better to have a bad one that you know than a new one that you know nothing about. >> and mitt romney? >> and mitt romney will win because the economy was not able to get off its feet. >> john king. >> i'm going to change the question a little bit. if barack obama wins, it will be because being unchallenged in the primary has allowed them to focus on general elections and reaching out voter turnover machine and combination of the

demographics of the country and easing of economic wor prips and if mitt romney wins, the simple question, are you better off than you were four years ago? many people will say no. >> chris matthews? >> i want to quote our numbers guy. it's too early to call. i'm not sure it's going to be close in either direction. nobody knows if this election is going to be close. i do think, though, that it's too early to call anticipate i do think these debates, the three hour and a half debates we're probably going to have are going to be spectacular. i think everybody as cynical as some people have gotten are going to watch it, they're going to love it. we're going to have 24/7 debate about each debate. between each debate it's going to be fantastic. i think we're in preseason. i think it's going to be awesome.

as to asimilar met trick forces. one guy, traditional type of candidate. republicans, you usually have to run two or three times then they get used to. democrats are feeding the hot hand. he's the hottest hand in the democratic party. watching him yesterday deal with the line in that press conference convinced me, he's still got the acuity, the incredible articulation, to match romney in the worst moment of his life, this is going to be one hell of a debate. even if the economy doesn't pick up. but i do think the president's job performance is riding on the s&p and that's a dangerous place to ride right now. >> the turnout is going to be major. >> 10% of the turnout this year is going to be latino. >> maria, jo season, chris, come back to c-span tomorrow morning. love to have you. >> i would be thrilled to be there. warren buffett talks to the economic club of washington tonight. and we'll have live coverage.

he's going to discuss economic issues of the day with carlisle group co-fender david rubenstein. it begins at 8:50 eastern. this is primary day in six states including california and new jersey for several congressional primaries under way. wisconsin voters are going to be polls to decide whether to replace republican governor scott walker with milwaukee mayor tom barrett. c-span 2 will have the wisconsin results lye starting at 9:00 eastern. >> finally on a personal note, michelle enand i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance and help sdurg their transition. george, i will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the forming living presidents before i took office. plus you also left me a really good tv sports package.

i use it. last week, portraits of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> in 1814, dolly madison fam s famously saved this portrait of the first george w. now michelle, if anything happens, there's your man. >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library. the senate is about to tack almay jor reauthorization of farm, food and nutrition programs. kelsey snell with the national journal daily, tell us about some of the major issues that will come up during this debate. .