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, an 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 just going to have to stand there, and i'm going to give him his time. i'll ask him a follow-up question and see where it goes.

that's what happened. that's off the wall behavior, right? he is interesting. but a lot of people said that that gave him the south carolina primary. i give the voters, trust the common sense and judgment of the american people. they might get it wrong sometimes, but they ultimately get it right. all the debates served a great purpose on all the networks. they got to see who they are.

there's two questions. the one that everybody wants to ask and wishes you were there to do it. 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 news media gets terr y terrified, that's when we're in 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 traditional 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. they're often refer to as the conscious of the congress. after now having working there almost two years, i can't think of a better name. the executive director of the general black caucus, angela rye on the role of today's black caucus. >> it's designed to ensure the members can come together on issues plaguing the community at large. issues that may be plaguing the their districts, where they can find commonality to really come together to discuss legislative solutions. legislative proposals to advance the causes of people that don't have a voice. >> more with angela rooi, sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific, on c-span. our last panel from the 2012 cable show. this last discussion was on the future of television.

cnn's piers morgan moderated the discussion with executives for time warner, cox communication, news corporation and netflix. from the annual gathering from the national cable and telecommunications association, this is a half hour. >> welcome, everyone to this panel. the theme of this is whose viewer is it? although, people have said to me, you should be calling it now whose user is it? that's certainly an interesting question for the panel. let me start with you, gentlemen, mainly because you're my boss. and therefore the only one who currently has the power to fire me. >> you have journalistic freedom. >> let's talk about tv. i spoke at a conference in cannes. you were excited about the tv everywhere concept.

>> we teared up a lot. huge success in the cable industries and other industries. tv everywhere is being adopted they have for dvr, high depth. so this is a huge success and initiative. the proof people want things on demand. they want their favorite shows, favorite networks. they want to go to the brands we trust. we got to do it faster and

faster. and even in europe, they're now adopting this method. we have hbo in the states. 100% of them have it. convergence of internet and internet delivery with television. >> you are traditionally the vicious rivals. i want to separate you at arm's length. and seems to be a more collegiate atmosphere about the tv. -- >> don't be fooled. >> how do you maintain the competitive edge bhil acknowledging you're headed towards the same end game, which is working with other people in a collegiate way to get your

content to the platforms it needs to get to. there needs to be a recognition that we compete day in and day out. i think the challenge is it's easy to use. you sign up one way, you know what you're going to get. you know if you're getting 22 episodes or 5 episodes. you sort of know what to expect. all these experiences, easier to use, more accessible. there's a win/win by competing on one level but creating an experience where the consumer knows what to find.

you don't find the hodgepodge shows and episodes a very mixed ba bag. >> no one seems to be quite sure if you're mother theresa, providing a lovely resting place which is affordable or safe or hanibal lecter. which one are you? >> i'm a little bit of both depending on the content itself. i think there's an appropriate way that we are particularly additive to certain kinds of programming. whether or not cannibalistic, we have billions of hours of viewing. that's going to take away from something. not necessary linear television viewing. it could take away from other things people are doing.

the cartoon network isn't with netflix. the rating is going up. is there a genuine cause for concern on both sides. it doesn't help if you people that go with you see ratings go down. no specific network or show has such highing viewing concentration that you see that cause an effect on ratings. in fact, the stories much more positive are things like "madmen." where in the gap between season four and season five, we brought maybe a million new viewers to amc for the new season of "madmen." people who had four years to watch the show and didn't.

whether or not we took 15 minutes of viewing here and there, i'm not positive. i don't think it's that >> let's bring you in. what is your overview of how fast everything is moving, where it's heading, what the perils perhaps are of where it's heading? >> want me to wrap this thing up. we heard something yesterday on the panel that was up here. and i thought it was fascinating.

as it relates to tv everywhere. as you look at the the growth going on with multiple channels we distribute product on. video on demand, which we hardly talk about anymore. still one of the fastest growing segments of our business. we're putting product on the web everywhere. we have something like 10,000 titles along with a number of live streams. so we're making progress there. i do want to comment on netflix. we get asked this all the time. is ted my friend or my enemy? he's somewhere in between. >> he seems like a nice guy. >> he is. my broadbrand platform is valuable to me. i spent $16 million broadening

that out. 40% of my broad band customers had a netflix stream 811,000 streams of hbo bill was in my customers homes in the month of march. a very important product to them. i need to enable all of this to >> let me ask you two first maybe about this. is it time that the way shows are assessed by ratings purely is reassessed? i don't have any self-interest in this right now but just in terms are there other ways to look at shows now given the multitude of places. and the fact that i for one watch almost all my television on things like hbo a week, two weeks after they air. >> let me start. hbo, showtime, netflix, we don't get paid or make money based on who watches the show or what the

ratings are. we get paid, our incentive is to deliver a service and with you end us together people want to subscribe to it. that's pure subscription television that we're in. very interesting and it's led to a lot of good focus and diverse content. the rest of the networks are subscription supported and advertising, so it's a combination of the two and the fact that you can have targeted programming with ad support, but with perhaps a very big affiliate fee support in order to have distinct programming that doesn't only drive ratings but supports a particular brand that has been the thing that has enlivened television in the united states first and then around the world. if you think of the news channels, most of the, a lot of the economic success of cnn, fox, msnbc, bloomberg, comes

from the subscriber support and the subscribers don't want you to maximize the ratings all the time. they want to gate certain view or a certain depth of analysis and it varies between wide ratings and narrow. so this is a very healthy model. we should all remember as we talk a lot, it's news a lot. internet, internet. tv video is where more action and viewing is. we ought not forget that. the television business, when you look, if you ask the google people what do you look at when you program google they say we look at customer use. if the arrow is green going up we look at that. if you look at television everything is good. viewing, subscription fees, programming investment, earnings, diversity of programming, quality of programming, everything is up. and the internet fusion of tv sets going on the internet, same

at netflix, is just making it more celebrant and healthy. >> chase, to you agree with that wholeheartedly? is the monster that terrified everybody is that internet could kill television. has it in fact become an enhancement. >> it's made it a much richer experience. we don't rate it enough. no question the ability to fine what you want to find which, in some ways begs the questions on the rating systems accurately in reflecting the business today and i think clearly beyond the pure mechanics that are lagging behind, you know, i think what they don't capture is you get all these choices. the opportunity could really have events or programming that's targeted to a particular segment and in the past when you had three, you try to appeal tomb. realistically there are events still, nfl, "american idol"

appeal to everybody. what you want is something that appeals to a segment and not trying to appeal tomb. >> do you figure out how people watch your content? >> you know, i think we want to it be accessible. you want them to watch it in a way that works for them. i think most of them if they have a choice prefer, you know, maybe have the opportunity to watch it on an 60-inch screen in your house. but the convenience and accessibility to watch it -- if they want to watch you at night -- >> i'm surprised at the prospects. >> but, you know, i think there's clearly there's a value tradeoff in convenience and accessible. you want to watch it when you want to watch it. if you have a choice you'll watch it as i said -- >> i watched the floyd/mayweather fight. i said do you watch normal tv.

absolutely. yeah, yeah, i watch your show. i said really. he said yeah. there was a pause. have you any idea how big your head is? [ laughter ] >> let me bring you in here. what part of the relationship with consumers do you want to own? also in terms of how you work promoting brands. companies that you may want to be competitive with over customers, subscription fees, advertising dollars and so on? >> i think we probably -- it's a more complex answer. we all have a relationship with the user. whether it be the content itself, whether it be my network or my platform, whether it be an app like netflix we all have a relationship with the customer. i think we have to understand is this business is getting a little bit more complex in that the customer has choice.

they have many more choice today than they had five years ago. as they have more choice they are more in control and they have more leverage. and that is probably the ah-ha for our industry as we work our way through that. what's the second part of the question? second part was? was it about you? i don't think so. >> promoting the brand of companies where you may be in business, competition with them. >> most cases we're not in competition. that's one of the myths of the business. all boats rise when we're all successful. what i have to be sensitive to is not the competition, but i need to understand the economic model that drives chase's business. in other words if he's in the business to deliver content and modernize that content between transactional revenues and advertising revenues i need to work with him to get all the eye balls back that consume it. it's not a competition issue. >> how does it affect the

advertising part of all this if in the end more and more content providers prefer the subscription model to conventional advertising. because actually it's a better system in the end, controlling the multiplatform way people want to watch their tv shows or movies? >> i think if you can count the eyeballs and get them back and rationalize there will always be an advertising business. advertisers want to talk to users and viewers. they want to be in places where emotions are being touched. i don't see that business going away. i see us creating dangerous moments where we don't capture that information and share it back with folks that need that and you put a lot more pressure on the transactional side and the cost or the price goes up and then you start disadvantaging people in the marketplace that you could have consumption. little bit.

he's a very established superstar of what he does. big investment for you guys. might be competitive to these guys. is the longer term, future of netflix going to go this way? will be producing more and more of your content? >> we're buying in a new category in this case and i think what's happening, particularly the thing we're doing in originals centered around the one hour, one hour serialized drama that are expensive to produce and high risk for networks and generally the best place they land is in the premium subscription place where we're more directly competitive and hbo, showtime, stars and others have chosen not license that contoints. so we want to get those great shows. one thing that we're able to do is create a better economic model for it. in total we're producing originals and spending more to license that content from the

networks. so there's a lot of great one hour drama and highly serialized. that's the business we can do together. expand. to ask you to name the single most important focus for you and your company right now, what would you say it is? >> content. >> as it always has been. >> that's the heart of what we do. we want to brand it, we want to package it, but it starts with content. for us, really the internet. it just opened up a broader universe. increased value. as some fragmentation goes with it. the pie is getting larger. as people can access content now in different ways in different forms in different places content will get more valuable and for us around the world we're now creating content in y