. president obama in cleveland, ohio, speaking at the cuyahoga community college. mitt romney also in ohio today outside cincinnati where he spoke to a crowd of about 100 from a manufacturing plant. this from the "associated press" calling president obama as quote long on words and short on action when it comes to fixing the economy. again, from the "associated press," mitt romney saying if you want to see the results of his economic policy, look around ohio, look around the country. romney's campaign billed the appearance as a dueling event to the president's economic speech in cleveland.

but what romney delivered was his standard 20-minute campaign speech, that according to the "associated press." president obama on now to new york city for campaign fundraisers and a visit to the world trade center site where he and the governors of new york and new jersey will sign one of the final deebeams installed ine world trade center building. >> the story behind the star-spangled banner. this weekend on american history tv. mark the bicentennial of the start of the war of 1812, from ft. mchenry from the site francis thought he would see through the rockets red glare. live saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also this weekend, more from our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. the contenders sunday at 7:30 p.m. this week with three-time democratic candidate for president william jennings brian, american history tv this

weekend on c-span 3. kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on book tv, followed david maraniss on his journey walking in a president's footsteps. for barack obama, the story, sunday starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a video record of his travels, then live at 7:30, david maraniss takes your calls and questions. also this weekend on after wards, jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war on idea, using the tyranny of cliche. >> american politics has been distorted for the last century or so by this idea the further you move away from the left, the closer you get to a bad thing, and one word we use is sexist, so in some ways the best working definition of a fascist in political life is a conservative who is winning an argument. >> that's book tv this weekend on c-span 2.

one of the quotes from the white house staffer i thought was exceptionally inspiring is once you realize the magnitude of difference you can make in public life, everything else will pale in comparison. >> i think it was best put when someone from the white house came and said he said a quote and said those who think they are crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. >> mr. brian's the same man that christopher was talking about that said choose carefully and execute relentlessly. and that meant a lot to me because sometimes we find ourselves taking too many things on and not focusing on the one thing that should be a top priority. >> every year, the utah senate youth program brings students to washington for government and leadership education. this year, brian kamoie made an impact, he's a senior director on the white house security staff. >> i started with the mind set of what is it like to be them? and now what could i share with

them that either i wished i had learned along the way or they will remember when they leave washington? which as you've mentioned is a very tense, rapid-fire experience. so if you leave a few key encouraging messages at a time where you know it's very easy to be cynical about politics, it's a good thing to encourage on people to pursue public service. >> more with brian kamoie on c-span. >> britain's yearlong inquiry examining the ethics practices of the media and the relationships with politicians, heard from john major and gordon brown. today, prime minister david cameron testified and was asked several questions about text messages sent to him by former news international ceo rebecca brooks. he also dismissed accusations

that he made a deal with the news organization calling it "complete nonsense." coming up next, his first few hours of testimony before the inquiry earlier today. >> well, today, the honorable david cameron, please. >> please raise your right hand. >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> your full name, please. >> david william donald cameron. >> you kindly provided us with a witness statement that extends to 84 pages and possesses three

exhibits, subject to one minor matter to which we'll come in due course is this the formal evidence you're tendering to our inquiry? >> it is. prime minister, as i have said to many other witnesses, i'm extremely grateful for the obvious work that the systems have put into your evidence and the material that you provided the inquiry at a time when there are many other calls. thank you. >> mr. cameron, questions about your career before 2001, which as we know the date you entered parliament. you were special advisory at treasury and the home office between 1992 and 1994, is that right? >> that's right. >> in your dealing, to what extent if ever did you express an opinion which was not the opinion of your minister without making it clear that he wasn't? >> well, it's quite a long time ago. so it's hard to remember all the

interactions i had. >> businesses and third parties. the job as special adviser generally was to often be a field minister. sometimes to be a sponge in terms of soaking up a lot of people that wanted to see the minister but the minister didn't have time. on occasions i'm sure i would have made to clear to people, but i can't think of a particular instance. >> on such occasions, do you think you would have made it clear to the third party that you were expressing your own opinion and not your minister's opinion? >> and from your inexperience, do you think was unorthodox or orthodox? >> i suppose fairly orthodox. when i became special adviser i had been working at the

conservator's office for a number of years. and it was very much a political special adviser. i was a speech writer, advising on party policy doing the political side of the minister's job rather than being an expert special adviser in the treasury, for instance, we had some expert special advisers who attack specialists or economists where i was more the general political adviser. >> thank you. now you were in communications between 1994 and 2001, not print media specifically. you tell us about how those experiences influenced your thinking between photograph 1 and 66 of your statement. it was your media background was at least in part brought you into contact with journalists? and that contract which has developed into friendships?

>> well, there were various parts to my jobs, one part was to deal with the regulatory environment that television and television companies faced, which was quite a controlled -- quite a strict regulatory environment. another part of the job was dealing with investors and shareholders and the whole investor relations, which meant dealing with them, and another part was press handling and press relations. so i formed some relationship with journalists during that period, but in terms of political journalists i got to know, i would have said that was more related to the time i was a special adviser because i was dealing with political journalists then and some are still around today. >> thank you. to what extent is your background in these friendships provided you acknowledge insight into how news desks function? >> well, some knowledge, but t not, you know, i'd never worked

in a news room. so some knowledge and understanding, but not as much as someone who has worked there. i would say at my time at carlton taught me more about the television industry, about how it was regulated, and maybe we'll come on to this. a lot of the views i formed about media, media policy, media regulations, bbc, formative period because i was working for a big part of the british broadcasting industry, itv effectively, and i formed a lot of views and opinions which i still hold today. >> thank you. again to divide your evidence into five general headings. and the first heading is general perspectives on the developments of media issues. may we look now at paragraph 13 and 14 of your statement? 04099. >> yeah. >> and you're saying that the

media is the instrument of communication and integral to the democratic process. so we all agreed that the contact between politicians and the media is inevitable, necessary, not inherently unhealthy. is that right? >> absolutely. there's not -- the only way we communicate with people because obviously you have some direct forms of communication, at particularly election time, but it is a very big part of the way we communicate. so the relationships are important. >> in paragraph 14, mr. cameron, you first backgrounded discussions, is that intended to include off the record discussions? >> yes, off the record discussions. but also discussions for journalists to understand more about you. because you want people to understand your motivations, to understand your character, your judge, your views and why you hold them. so these conversations are

important and that's why the relationship is important. >> in paragraph 15 you make it clear a lot depends on the individual journalist. how easy or difficult has that been for you? >> well, it varies completely with the person concerned. sometimes you strike up a good and strong relationship, sometimes you struggle. >> and in paragraph 15, you say the media plays a vital part in interpreting analysis and events to the public. and in your view, putting broadcasters to one side, has the press discharged those obligations accurately and fairly over the last several years of your political career? >> well, i think it's changed a lot. i mean asking politicians whether they're happy with the way the media reports the news as we see it is, you know, it's a bit like asking farmers about the weather.

we're always going to complain. i think a lot of the evidence has been put forward in the sessions you had where people have talked about the growth of the 24-hour news culture, the fact that things move so fast means that i think newspapers have been put in a difficult position because the news has been made, reported long before they reached their deadlines and publish their papers the next day. so i think newspapers have moved more toward trying to find impact, trying to find an angle on a story rather than as would have been the case before 24-hour news and all the rest of it of just reporting what happened the day before. so i think there has been a change. i think that's quite a lot to do with technology and development of media rather than anything else. >> changed for the better, for the worst, or neutral? >> well, i think from a politici politician's point of view and the government's point view, it's sometimes a change for the worst because if there's a big

announcement, something we think is very important, that gets announced on the television. it gets picked over by the 24-hour news and it's quite understandable that the newspapers by the time they come out the next day have got to find something different and i completely understand why they do that. but from the perspective of explaining to the country why you're reforming the health service in this way, why you're trying to cut the deficit in that way. sometimes you'd love it if you'd try to get across more what it is you actually decided to do rather than endless analysis of what the motives were or what the splits were or whatever. but politicians will always complain about this sort of thing. so i wouldn't put too much weight on it. >> do you think they -- >> led me toward spending quite a lot of the focus -- and this is in my evidence, quite a lot of focus on broadcasting.

i formed a view that, you know, if you really want to get through to people, television is incredibly powerful medium. as the medium markets are broken down and newspapers are selling fewer copies and more people are looking at the internet. yes the audience of these big news programs has fallen. but their power in many ways has gotten greater. the one thing lots of people do do all the time is watch the main news in the evening. if you want to explain why you're doing what you're doing is we want to get things across, television as i explain is extraordinarily important and powerful. >> yes, and broadcasters, of course, are subject to different obligations. >> absolutely. and rightly so. >> and between paragraph 16 and 17, you give examples of the benefits. and this relates to campaigns and also you give an example of a journalist from the sunday telegraph accompanying you in

august of last year in the contest of the -- you would agree this work is easier in the realm of less politically charged. doing interviews or campaigns or? -- well the benefits which approved from campaigns. it's easier in areas that are left physically charged. >> well, i suppose so that's the case, yes. >> would you say the same about some of the campaigns with the certain sections of the press over the years? >> well, i would -- i would say these campaign newspapers run -- and it's not always just newspapers, television newspapers can run campaigns too. a number of your witnesses have

mentioned the work by the daily mail. i think that was done the case, that was extremely important. some of them are very reflective of the readers of that paper and some of them are more about what the editor cares about, and i think the politician has to judge in each case. this campaign that is right and reflective of what people think, is it something that needs to be answered? or is it something i'm prepared to have a disagreement about? and so a recent example of that disagreement would be the hands off our land campaign by the telegraph objecting to the planning reforms. i felt we need to reform the planning system. we've got to have that argument. let's listen to their points, but it's an argument we need to have. some of them, and you might -- some are very controversial. but i think it's good that these campaigns have put forward because it's part of the challenge in a democratic system

to say to the politicians, you know, a lot of people care about this, what are you doing about this? what's your answer to this question? and i think it's good and right we have that sort of vigorous debate. >> well, the volume on the megaphone is turned up very loud. difficult to separate the noise and the message, would you agree? >> i'm not sure i would. i think generally because, as i've said, i think the 24-hour news cycle, newspapers have had to turn up the volume on everything. but i think sometimes i feel newspaper reporting coverage can be -- it feels like you're being shouted out rather than spoken to on lots of things. on these campaigns, i wouldn't particularly say that because it's a newspaper gets a good campaign going and taps into a vein of public concern, then actually they're doing an important job for our democracy and the politicians need to answer. and for instance, the sarah's law campaign. i think there were a lot of

people who, you know, were quite condescending. you don't understand. of course we can't tell anyone, and the public were very angry about that. and the public was saying all parents worry about their children and the dangers to their children more than anything. and i think it's important for politicians to understand that and respond to that rather than just trying to push it away. >> in paragraph 19, you explain that in order to maintain and enhance the benefits you've identified, this has to be based on a mutual respect and understanding between politicians. how does one foster in your view that necessary degree of mutual respect and understanding? >> well, i think it's very difficult question. i don't think we have it at the moment, frankly. i think the relationship while i argue that it's got too close in

sort of unhealthy -- it's also not a particularly trusting relationship at the moment. i think a lot of politicians think the press always get it wrong and a lot of the press think politicians are in it for themselves, aren't in it for the right reasons. and it's become a bad relationship. how we get it to a better place, i think part of it will be about having this greater transparency, having better regulation, having a little bit more distance. that will be part of respect. but respect also has to come from high standards in both places as it were. you know, the expenses scandal was a massive knock to parliament and politicians standing and politicians have got to prove they're worthy of respect. and the press obviously has taken a tremendous knock rightly from some of the appalling things we found out through this inquiry. and respect has to be earned on

both sides. >> you refer to him as having a bit more distance, and i suppose that depends on each party to the debate as it were having a sense of society as to what is right and where the boundaries are. are we agreed about that? >> i think that's right. but distance is also about for the politician. and this relates to the issue of the 24-hour news cycle. there is a typical -- the difficulty in politics that you are fighting a sort of permanent battle of issues being thrown at you hour-by-hour where responses are demanded incredibly quickly. it can, if you're not careful, take up all your energy dealing with that. you will never reform our schools, cut our deficits, deal with our economic problems and all the rest of it. when i say this is partly what i mean is that the politician and particularly prime ministers and

cabinet ministers have got to get out of the 24-hour news cycle, not try and fight every hourly battle, and focus on long-term issues and be prepared sometimes to take a hit on a story that didn't respond to so quickly. i did, actually, on getting into number ten entry, try to do that. not always so successful. that is part of what i mean by distance. not sitting under a 24-hour news television screen looking at the ticker and worrying about what's happening every hour. if you do that, you get completely buried by the daily news agenda. >> let's say a bit more distance could relate to the quantity of engagement and you told us about that. but it also could relate to the quality of individual engagements with journalists. are we agreed? are we also agreed that in that second then we need in john ma major's term, each party, each

side have a proper understanding of what is appropriate and what may not be appropriate? >> yes. >> and do you feel in relation to the -- without the individual examples that in the last seconds there may not have been sufficient distance? >> yes. that's part of my evidence really is to say i think this relationship has been going wrong for, you know, it's never been perfect. there have always been problems. and you can point to examples f of -- this has been happening for years. i think for years the relationship has not been right. i think it has been too close as i explain in my evidence, and i think we need to try to get it on a better footing. >> thank you. in paragraph 20, you refer to the need to avoid excessive regulation. and i suppose defining issue in this way. we don't necessarily agree with

that. but the key principle you identify as being transparency, is transparency sufficient? >> no, i think where transparency can help, in my evidence, i try very hard to think carefully. what are the risks when this relationship isn't right and i tried to enumerate the risks? and some of the risks and one of them, perhaps, you know, is the perception that media or editors or key figures in the media wield too much power. in that i think you do mitigate in part by transparency. when everyone can see hauchb you meet people, who you're meeting, that allows others to draw comment. now i think we've got a much better situation with transparency which this government has introduced, but clearly not enough because there are other risks. some of those other risks need effective regulation to deal with them. and i don't think the regulatory

system we have at the moment works, and so we need to improve it. so if we just said transparency and everyone can see who's meeting whom, that's enough, i think that would be a mistake. >> what kind of ideas -- >> are you talking about the relationship between press and politicians or to wider levels? because i -- in relation to how politicians engage with the press, i would struggle a bit to see how regulation could assist. it's a cultural thing it seems to me. >> what i say, sir, is the transparency can help address some of the problems of perception because people can see who you're meeting and when. but one of my arguments is that because the relationship hasn't been right, because it has been too close as i've put it, the

politicians and the press haven't spent enough time discussing and sorting out the regulatory system under which the press exists. and we need to fix that. and i thought he put it quite well. he identified another risk, which is it's quite difficult for the politician to sort out regulation on the press basis because we are clearly an interested party. and if we just steamed ahead and said, right, we're going to regulate it in this way or that way, i think the press would have a legitimate argument. to say hold on, you're beneficiaries of this and we need independence. and that's part of what this investigation is about. >> no, i understand the point. but it seems to me just back to the politician relationship with the press, it's absolutely critical in part by democracy, i entirely understand that.

and as i've said to a number of people can't interfere with human beings being friendly with other human beings, but to some extent, would you agree that the problems of the politician faces that actually the onus is on them because the press will feel, perhaps, legitimately, that they ought to push in order to be able to hold politicians to account, to investigate what they want to investigate, and the more ways they can get information the better, therefore it's up to the politicians actually to say, well, this needs -- this dynamic needs to be changed. >> well, you need to draw some boundaries. but it's very difficult to do. because the politicians do have an interest in not being investigated vigorously. if you take the expenses scandal, it was deeply painful for politicians, but it was absolutely right that it was revealed. and i think it, you know, the

free press we have in this country is a very important part of our democratic system. we shouldn't -- and we need to have that, the politicians continually called to account by vigorous press campaigns. so that's why we need to get this relationship right, transparency's positive. how we make a regulatory system work is another. and i think we need to find a way for some independence to be brought to that. so free press and politicians can say it may not be perfect in every way, but this is a fair set of ideas and we can put them in place. >> mr. cameron, some of the risks, introduce these in paragraph 22 of your statement, and the first in paragraph 23, because politicians can focus on media coverage, there a danger they do not devote enough time

of considering the wider issues of how the media operates and potential instances of bad practices. why does that consequence flow from the focus on media coverage? >> i think because, you know, the press want access, politicians want coverage for what they're doing and policies in their approach. and so the two parties focus on that and when things were going wrong as they clearly were and i give the examples of the information commissioner's reports, what didn't happen was the politicians in the press didn't disengage and say, hold on, we have a real problem, we need to deal with it. it might need changes to the law, an improvement of the self-regulatory system, et cetera, et cetera, that didn't happen. and i thought tony blair's evidence to you was quite powerful in he said -- i'm not quoting, but i know there was a problem but it was an enormous