who have lent their names to this will be joined by thousands and thousands of other americans who agree that we've sent thousands and thousands of thousands of people to die for the right of a free press and james risen is one of the people who took advantage of that right, who doesn't want it to die. as we stand here mute as people in power don't want to be embarrassed and begin to listen on your phone and mine. now is the time for more of the kind of journalism that james risen is doing. and it's for that reason i have this once in a lifetime opportunity. a great american, a patriot james risen. >> wow. i don't know if i can live up to that.

i have to think about that for a minute. i just came here, really, today, to thank everybody involved with this. i was not involved with this petition drive at all. and anybody who knows me knows i couldn't organize a one-car funeral. the fact that this has happened just leaves me speechless. and the main thing that gets to me is i realize i don't deserve all this. but i also know it's really not about me. it's about some basic issues that affect all journalists and all americans. you know, when the -- my lawyers always tell me never to talk about my case. but there's a couple of things i can say. and one is that the justice department and the obama administration are the ones who

turn this really into a fundamental fight over press freedom in their appeal to the fourth circuit. they said this -- that this c e case, the central issue of this case was not some details or specifics or anything. that the fundamental thing this case was about was that there was no such thing as a reporter's privilege. if you read the government's brief in the fourth circuit appeal, that's what they say. there is no such thing as a reporter's privilege. and they turned this case into a showdown over the first amendment and over the freedom of the press in the united states. and so, i'm happy to carry on that fight, but it wasn't me who really started it.

i think what, you know, this has been a long case -- i got subpoenaed in 2008 first. but what i can say now is with all of these people showing their support, i'm willing to keep fighting. because now i know that i have just an enormous group of people supporting me. and one of the things that i'd like to say is that the real reason i'm doing this is for the future of journalism. my oldest son tom, standing right there, is a journalist. and i want to make sure that the same protections that i've had in my career are there for the future reporters in america. because there is no way we could do our jobs if we don't have the

ability to have aggressive investigative reporting in america and to have the ability to maintain confidential sources. there's no way to conduct aggressive investigative reporting without a reporter's privilege of some kind, without confidential sources. and i don't believe there's -- you can have a democracy without aggressive investigative reporting and without freedom of the press. so i just wanted to come here, again, and say thank you to everyone. it's just really amazing. thanks. >> can you speak about how it's affected your ability to do your job? >> well, i didn't really want to answer questions, but it's obviously had an effect. but it's -- but i'm trying to

keep working. so i'm just trying to do what i can. thanks. >> we have a bit of time for q & a. and because this is being streamed live, i'd like to ask that people go to the mike there, which is live, and if there are any questions, please keep them brief. identify yourself and your news organization. i think i see a little bit of movement in this direction. are there any questions the mike is over to my left. okay. >> one more question. i'm reporting for take part w h with -- or anybody else, you know, who is familiar with the case. i know that attorney holder said while he's in the position --

can you speak to sort of the specifics of, you know, how the case is going to play out from now on? it's my understanding you have no other options to appeal. so timing, et cetera, whatever specifics you can share on that. >> just a brief answer, i do a lot of criminal cases. mr. holder has said on his watch no reporter will go to prison for doing his job. however, the alternate evil is just as bad or worse for the first amendment. i'm talking a room full of reporters. and if i tell you doing your job is going to result in bankruptcy, would you continue doing your job? it's that simple. thank you.

>> steven nelson from u.s. news. president obama just gave press statements less than an hour ago. and he said that police there should not be bullying or arresting reporters who are doing their jobs. and i'd like the panel's opinion on, you know, whether you welcome this and whether you think that the president may be should take his own advice here? for anyone. >> i'd like to say i wanted to express -- one thing i meant to say, i wanted to express my support for the reporters who were arrested or detained in ferguson. and, i think, the central question that we're all facing now is how does first amendment and the freedom of the press survive in a post 9/11 age.

>> i would ask someone on the panel. i know you mentioned the trend away from democracy and towards an authoritarian form of government. other speakers brought up cases where the administration, whoever is sitting in the executive office. either slandered, not published or, or other things happen. so if you or somebody else on the panel could address this trend, also that it is happening

more under president barack obama. bush was criticized so much from the left. now it's happening under liberal or democrat, as a president. so where is this trend going? >> so i think what this case illustrates in the broader trends we were talking about are some threats to press freedom. but i think it's important to put that into a global context. and there are many countries, including russia that have far worse press freedom records. and where journalists are imprisoned, are killed and their murderers are never investigated. indeed, in most cases of journalist murders, 9 out of 10 are never investigated and we know several outstanding in russia, as well. there are threats certainly to the free practice of journalism. luckily we live in a country

that has due process and a rule of law and in many countries, those things are missing. keep this in perspective and not let this become an excuse for authoritarian governments to use in their crackdown on press freedom. >> the fact that they exist give us an excuse to brow beat journalists. the expansive national security state. and so one can make an argument in the name of national security, you can do x, y or z. you can censor speech by classifying certain information and so on. it's actually turned into something where information is

embarrassing to the government becomes classified. i know this as an attorney representing guantanamo detainees and later representing criminal suspects in the united states. and never have you asked me five, seven years ago i thought my expertise in national security or in guantanamo would make me suitable or would be the value add to joining a case where a represent a journalist. think of that. i get calls from journalists who want me to represent them because i represented guantanamo prisoners, that's perspective. >> so i had another question for james. i know you don't want to take more questions, but could you talk about the harassment you faced under the bush administration for your national security reporting? and also the fact that this subpoena was dropped by the bush

administration and has been renewed under the obama administration. >> first of all, the subpoena wasn't dropped by the bush administration. it expire d in 2009. it was after the bush administration left and then it was renewed by the obama administration and a whole series of subpoenas. i talk about the harassment i got during the bush administration. so that's on -- it's in public in the court documents where i described the -- all of the

efforts, both public and some private efforts by the administration to in my view to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a chilling effect on reporting that i was doing. it was -- if you remember -- if you were around in 2005 or 2006, it was a lot in the press about that. it was a fairly concerted effort against me and my colleague at the "new york times." yeah, it got pretty intense. so, thanks. >> hello, i wonder how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent?

i remember you said this is just the begin ining what would foll? and a sideline question, is this an opportunity to push back with the federal law? >> and i'll address the first, part of that as 2008 obama delegate to the democratic national convention. given hope a bad name in the last few years. your question about how hopeful i am. i do think this is inherently a political case. being pursued by this administration. you'll notice if you go to rootsaction.org where you can read all the statements.

and one of those journalists flat out says something i think is true based on the evidence. this is a vendetta against james risen. and if you read the book, the former legal department of the cia. he makes clear that there has been a lot of hostility at the cia for quite a while. he's the most named vilified journalist in the book of 30 years. that to me indicates the entire effort by the justice department. we continued to see in recent weeks to bring this issue to create more of a ground swell of

public pressure. anybody else have comments on the other aspect question? >> one thing i see from these kinds of action. first of all, if you look at it, there's a political washington and then there's a career washington. and it's really career washington, the fbi, the nsa people and all those who do these investigations and want to stop leaks in the first place. and post 9/11, they've had more and more power to track that information. so my point is not to give the obama administration any breaks here. it's going to get worse no matter who's in charge politically, so the best and maybe only antidote to that is a ground swell of public support that says we're not going to stand for this anymore. and that's why i think petitions like this are so important.

and that is also hopefully going to lead to a federal shield law. congress doesn't act in the abstract. it needs to see, unfortunately, somebody going to jail or threatened with jail to really get going and act. and that's in the states, that's often how we see shield laws enacted. when there is a state controversy. and in on the federal level, it's happened the same way. first with valerie plame and then with other incidents. so this is the kind of thing that will prompt action. and i hope tsz enough to get something done in congress. >> i had a follow-up for you, mr. leslie. when you were talking about the shield laws currently being discussed in the senate and the house, would those apply to national security issues like the ones that james covered? >> it's all in the wording, obviously. but we think it's finessed enough to say that the exemption

for national security cases is really going to come into play when there's an ongoing threat to national security, not when there's just an effort to examine something in the past. as long as we maintain that and, you know, obviously the wording can change day-to-day as it goes through every step of congress. but that's a critical thing, the government will always want the ability to investigate incidents where there truly is a current, real, meaningful threat of the national security. and, you know, we're never going to win that one. if there's literally a bomb going to go off, they're going to want to investigate everything they can. as long as there's that limit in there and we can keep that. i think it can be meaningful and help in cases like this. >> i'm a law student at stanford. i've worked at freedom of the

press and idf. i wish you could talk more about how it would as it's written protect journalists. he spoke at the conference a couple of months ago and indicated he didn't think he would be protected under the bill as it's currently written. and i think the language that might be relevant you're pointing to in the senate version, there's language about preventing or mitigating future attacks. and the idea of preventing or mitigating doesn't seem to have future tense to it. seems like we can could be focused on any sort of ongoing terrorist activities. so anything could be covered under the kpipgs. exception. so i ask you this because i wonder if you could help me see the bill the way you see it because the way i read it everyone's going to fall through the loophole. that said, aside from the shield bill, are there other solutions you might be able to put forward

that might be equally useful to help address the kind of situation we're seeing here. thanks. >> well, i think the thing i'd point out is an incremental change. there's no golden ticket that's going to solve everything. you can't ask the government to solve everything. they can't do it. it has to be reporters continuing to do great work. so with that, we never thought the shield law was perfect. you fight over every little word and hope to get something that will put the brakes on most investigations. and, you know, mitigating harm from a terrorist attack, if that's the only exception that's going to stop a lot of the subpoenas that we've talked about.

even as we name the ones that the obama administration is looking into. so, yeah, it's not a cure all. there's no perfect way to get all this done. but every little thing helps, getting the department of justice to have a better policy about what it will do before it issues a subpoena is a big step. assistant u.s. attorney out there who now knows he has to jump through a lot of hoops and ask for permission from washington and directly from the attorney general will hesitate much more often than an ausa who can subpoena anybody or get any records. so it all helps and none of it's perfect, i think, is in a sense the best i can say. you know, we've never thought the shield law was perfect. i'd argue for an absolute privilege in the courts if only the courts would agree with me. >> i think congress is your problem.

>> i think we have time for one more question. >> i have a question to james risen. it's not about your work, but it's about the effect of the last six years on your sources. are they still motivated? or even more motivated? and what new guarantees do they ask, what has changed in their way of coming out with the informations, especially in the sector of national security? >> you don't really think i'm going to answer that, do you? i'm not going to answer it. thanks. >> i'll give you an answer. at least as someone who is representing the sources in a lot of this. i mentioned there literally

are -- i can count on two hands the number of journalists i actually feel safe taking a whistle blower to in this country because of the climate. and one of them is jim risen, and it's a very strict test to ask someone if they would be willing to go to jail to protect a source. but whistleblowers have to face that question every day now. are you willing to go to jail to blow the whistle and to tell the truth and to reveal fraud, abuse and illegality. are you the one willing to be put in jail or even worse, exiled from your country and rendered stateless? it's a huge price to pay that both whistleblowers and journalists are taking to get this information out to the public interest, out to the public, and we need your support in congress on whistleblower protection bills, on surveillance reform bills and on reporter shield bills. i know in the whistleblower protection legislation, the

national security exemption loophole swallows just about everything because i could probably link this glass of water to national security, if you gave me five minutes. so i hope that helps answer. >> can i make two quick points? oh, go ahead. >> i just want to add to that. i mean, the community to protect journalists put out a report last year that includes dozens of interviews with journalists about the impact of these issues on their reporting. and it's on the website, cpj.org. but essentially the broad overview was it has had an impact on sources going. not only whistleblowers, just sources in general. and the society of professional journalists recently sent a letter about new rules that have come out from the administration and from various departments of the government prohibiting, you know, basic contact with journalists, the insider threat program. and other things like this that

cpj and other organizations have signed on to in opposition. we see across the board from whistleblowers on to general functionaries, this is having an impact on reporters being able to speak to their sources. >> on that note, i want to mention that as we adjourn the news conference, we do have this room for another hour or so for one-on-one interviews or discussions. you don't have to rush off. but i want to thank everybody for being here. >> okay. >> i wanted to add before everyone leaves. president of the newspaper guild. and we did award the freedom award to james risen yesterday, which we hope he'll receive in october. and it's not enough to commit journalism, you have to act to protect it and that's why we honor james risen, and it was

the night -- in the lead-up to iraq. and it became -- >> thank you. north carolina senator kay hagan is running for re-election. and polling shows the first-term democrat in a dead heat against her republican challenger, state house speaker tom tillis. they debated last night, and here's a look. >> the problem that we have with washington is it's broke. the people are not communicating across the aisle. senator hagan over six years has not authored a single bill that's gone to the president's desk. that's a problem. we need people that are going to bring people together. in areas where we can't agrecan agree, don't move into areas that we can't agree.

like obamacare, 2 1/2 million jobs equivalent, 600,000 with the epa. let's reduce regulations and create jobs. that is something i've got to believe we can all agree on. >> let me ask a question again, on which issue would you take on your party's leadership? >> i don't know at this point, it's kind of hard to say. because in the senate, which i'll speak for the senate. not for the house. harry reid hasn't allowed anything to be passed. george, you know this better than most people. when you have the house and 350 bills to the senate and you only have a few dozen votes in the house and only a few dozen votes in the senate, it's hard to figure out where the differences would be because they're not debating. there's no such thing as regular order. senator hagan has rubber stamped the policy. save all these tough votes until after the election. you need to understand, delaying the mandates and delaying amnesty are all election issues on the ballot. and you have an opportunity to

stop it. >> you want to ask your question again? >> you go ahead. >> the keystone pipeline. i disagree with the president, i think we need to build the keystone pipeline. trade deals. i have voted against trade deals because they sent too many north carolina jobs overseas and i voted against my own party's budget because it had too deep cuts to our military. speaker tillis on the other hand would've voted to turn medicare into a voucher program. he would've supported sequestration, he would've supported the government shutdown, in north carolina when that took place, it was the height of our fall leaf season out west and our fishing season out east. that's what the speaker would've done. >> 30 seconds. >> more campaign 2014 debates on c-span tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, pennsylvania's republican governor and his

democratic challenger. that's live from pittsburgh at 7:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. tomorrow live at 7:30 p.m. eastern, a debate from the 17th correctional district of illinois. later, thursday night, live from chicago, the democratic governor of illinois pat quinn debates republican challenger at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling l $100,000. create a five to seven-minute documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015.

go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> bob woodward discusses journalism and national security. it was part of the conference from earlier this year. this is about 50 minutes. >> do we get a cold start here -- or? i'm bob woodward of the "washington post." let me introduce the panel. we've got a great group. jane mayer who i've known -- >> forever. >> -- forever, it seems. worked at the "wall street journal." the new yorker now for almost 20 years.

it's astonishing. many journalism honors, especially for your 2008 book "the dark side." how the war on terror turned into the war on american ideals. so that's one of those titles where you know where you're coming from. we have bob deets in the middle here, the distinguished professor of public policy at george mason. he's been the in the intelligence community. did you work for alan dulles, or not? >> no. >> the first cia director. bob was general counsel for the nsa for eight years. is that correct? amazing. he then was the counselor to the cia director general hayden for three years. he's worked in defense

department, state department, and was unbelievably a law clerk to justice william o'douglas, one of the great civil libertarians. we'll get to the question of what douglas would think of your career path. worked for the economist, u.s. news, l.a. times, pulitzer prize for great reporting on afghanistan, pakistan, and i think i'm going to say this from the point of view of the washington post covers the intelligence committee better than anyone. next to him, at the end, is peter moss, a senior writer for new look media. has written for just about -- >> "first look." >> first look, i'm sorry.

done a number of books, including the book love thy neighbor on bosnia, the war in bosnia. i want to make this a conversation, not presentations. and do not hesitate to interrupt. i'll do the same, if that's okay. and our topics is the perils of covering national security. and i think we'll start with jane and go around. what is -- what are the perils of covering national security now? >> well, i think it's become harder in that i think our sources are under more pressure than they used to be. and so i've had a source in particular during the bush years who was under investigation by the justice department for violating national security and for having spoken to me. my phone number appeared on his

cell phone, apparently. and it ruined his life for quite a while. it was very expensive for him to get legal counsel. >> do we know who this is? >> i don't think i should identify him, but he was falsely accused and eventually cleared. but the point was, during that period, you know, the cliche about what happens to the press in such situations is that it has a chilling effect. it wasn't just chilling, it was frozen. he couldn't speak, i couldn't speak to him, i was toxic to others who wouldn't want to get drawn into this snare. >> and this was the bush administration? >> this was during the bush years. and i don't -- i don't think it's probably loosened up a lot since. but it has -- when there are more legal risks for sources, it's -- there's not a clear dividing line between the sources and the journalism that comes from them. it becomes an issue for the

reporters, as well. we get people in trouble by interviewing them when we don't mean to. and -- >> when we don't need to? >> when we don't mean to. we get them in trouble, we put them at legal risk. we can't guarantee that we're not going to put them at legal risk. it makes it very hard to get stories and tell the truth about what the government's doing and holding it accountable is basically what we're trying to do. so -- >> and so, is it tougher now? i$s tougher now. and, of course, the first amendment makes it clear that news is important to the american people. the trouble i have is that while that goal, that role is very important, the government also

has an important goal. and that is to keep the american people safe. what we're talking about here are national security leaks. we're not talking about leaks from the fda or the department of agriculture. we're talking about leaks that may in some circumstances imperil the safety of the united states. between those two issues, i think that the safety of the american people wins. now, i understand the importance of the press, the important role it plays stuff that's highly classified provided to people that swear they will not violate the confidentiality that's been provided to them and go ahead and leak it and the press publishes it, to me, they imperil -- >> do you think there have been examples of things that have endangered the american people? >> yes, i do. >> example.

>> well, if i could tell the principal first. the principal is that in the intelligence area, the leak ends up being the harm. you know, in other words, if something's leaked about some new military capability, yeah, that's serious. but the bad guys still have to figure out how to counter that new weapon system, the defense, whatever. in the intelligence area, when you leak information about how information was acquired, the bad guys immediately know, stop using that means of communication or that, you know, that -- that means of communication. and that's -- that's, i think, very risky. >> do you have an example, though? >> yeah, i think that the leak involving that special nsa program during the bush years was very damaging. >> in what way? you were there at the nsa at the time? >> yes. >> okay.

>> i was told, and i think i was told responsibly that you would get a stream of data and then all of a sudden it would stop and you would see a correlation. and it wasn't like anybody said, oh, wow, the nsa's on to us. but you would get intercepts and they would stop. and you would see the correlation between the leak and the stopping of the communication. >> okay. >> mark, what do you think is the main peril of covering national security? >> well, i agree with a lot of what james said about the difficulty these days. i don't think it's ever been harder to do this kind of reporting. it's not only the crackdown that is taken place on leakers that created this climate. in the wake of the revelations over the last year about surveillance has created this, you know, perception among people that the surveillance is everywhere, right?

and that everything is being watched. and so, similar experience to jane. you have people who you have developed relationships with over the years who won't talk anymore because they're concerned. people who otherwise may have been on the fence, who have never dealt with reporters who might be inclined to do it. i think maybe second guess it and start to think, what's in it for me to do this? you have phone calls with people, you know, used to be sort of ironically talking on the phone and they would say, so, if anyone's listening to this call, i'm not revealing anything. now people will say without any irony, whoever is listening to this call, i'm not revealing classified -- it's just accepted that somebody's listening to this phone call. >> do you think they are? >> i mean, possibly. it's like -- i think over the last -- again, over the last year, whether it's people listening to my calls or my sources, you know, they're trying to get the source, i think increasingly, we certainly

have to be under suspicion. >> you're still able to function and work? is that correct? >> you have to function differently. you have to -- you have to be more careful, certainly about electronic communication, about phone calls. it's less efficient, i suppose, and especially on a daily paper, that can be hard. >> how do you communicate? do you move the flower pot? >> you meet at parking garages. it's -- you know, you try to have more first person meetings. there's also, you know -- >> but to set those up. >> it's hard. you have to somehow set them up in some means. by some means. and, you know, there are -- people are going to encrypted communications now. i think that -- if you do that, both sides have to be doing it, right? so i think the -- you know, the concern is about when you're a reporter and you want to get someone to be comfortable and talk to you and you've never met this person and the first thing

you say is, hi, i'm, i want to talk to you and you've got to use this phone because otherwise you're going to go to jail, you know, who is going to want to -- again -- >> do you use encrypted communication? >> i don't know how much i should say. >> you decide. >> yes. yeah. it's more recent. i didn't used to. >> and that's got to be -- you are talking to somebody for the first time or for the 20th time, let's go encrypt it. are they smart enough to realize that's an admission that some sort of transaction going on. >> people surveilling? >> well, no, but if they find out x, y and z have established encrypted communications with the intelligence reporter for the "new york times" that's semi incriminating, right? >> yes. >> yeah. >> i think we can all agree on

that. >> yeah. >> maybe we're just talking about sports. >> yeah. okay. good luck. what's the main peril here? >> well, i would, first off, just kind of to respectfully disagree with what bob said here about leaks being the harm. i think in many cases, the lack of leaks is the harm. if there'd been more leaks, for example, in 2002, 2003 about the intelligence upon which the decision to invade iraq was made, our national security would have been better rather than harmed. that's just kind of the basic point. we can talk more about that, perhaps. but it is more difficult for everybody up here, for people in the audience, for people who are watching. one example i'll give is a couple of -- a number of months ago, somebody if you're asking how this works and how it doesn't work. a number of months ago, somebody contacted me through a friend and had something that this person wanted to kind of talk about and provide to me that related to iraq. and it wasn't monumental, but it was interesting.

and i said to this person, okay, and we were talking not through phones that could be traced to me, at least, don't send it to me via e-mail. print it out. and here's the address, send it to me over the mail. because at this moment in time, i think mail is some more secure than e-mail for certain things. and this was a work around, which did not work because i never received this material. either it was intercepted or it wasn't sent. i believe it wasn't sent. so having to set up that kind of security operation, obviously, affected the fact that this person did not provide the material. and that's a cost, a tax in a way on this new era we're in. yes, sources will not come forward. but i would say that, on the other hand, and this is why i don't like the framing of this in a dirge like way. we as journalists are presented now with this incredible, challenging, exciting story. kind of the story of our lives.

i feel like i've had several of the stories of our lives. and it's hard. >> and what is that story? define it. >> in my view, the story is, challenges to the fourth and first amendment of the united states constitution. which involves a crackdown on journalists itselv ourselves an sources. i covered in most of my life overseas conflicts, you know, made my name, i guess, in bosnia first, and boy, there was a story that people didn't really care very much. but also, it was difficult to cover because it was hard to make people understand why it would affect this country, america and their lives, and i couldn't make a very persuasive argument about that. but, boy, when you're talking about challenges to the first and fourth amendments, you are talking about how life is lived, how the democracy exists, what

the future is as members of the free society. that's a much easier argument to make and much more important one than the slaughter of some people in the balkans. and i find myself as challenged and as kind of passionate about this story as i did about genocide and the balkans. >> okay. go ahead. >> oh, i was going to say, to bob was that i think what's hard from one of the things that's difficult from a standpoint in the press is the way that the national security community sometimes and you in this case define what's protecting the american public. it's not as if the press is going to harm the american public. we just define it as a stronger country. when there's consent of the governed of the programs you are implementing in their name. and we are feeling even bad news

sometimes strengthens the country because the rest of the world gets to see our transparency and our accountability system. it's a larger framing of what national security is. but -- but because of the panel before defined it, because of the way the executive branch has a monopoly on defining what national security is, you get to put your own parameters around it and define us as outside of it sometimes. but we're not trying to harm the country by writing these stories. in fact, i want most reporters feel they are really helping by getting this information out to the voters. >> i also am very clear in my mind that reporters often do not understand why something can be harmful. or why certain kinds of things would be guarded. one of the arguments that's always dragged out in these

kinds of meetings. i assure you, this is not caused generally by evil intentions. i think when people are writing reports, you know, there are three different classification levels. most people just put them default top secret. there ought to be a way of addressing that for sure. >> okay. but reporters are not helpless in this. and bob deets, you're saying, oh, look, reporters don't understand the implications of publishing some of this stuff. as mark, i'm sure and peter and jane can testify to when you find out something, you go to the government and you engage in, let's be honest, a negotiation of sorts and a listening, like one of hillary clinton's listening tours. you go listen, and you say, what

is the argument that this is going to cause harm? and if you look at the snowden case in my own newspaper, the "washington post," we have been extremely careful about what we have published. >> agreed. >> always going to the government. and the government making their case. and i think erring on the side of, okay, does it make sense? and there's a lot left out. so i'm not sure -- you kind of are suggesting that the reporters are a bunch of people rushing into the -- and just kind of publishing willy nilly. but that's not the way it works, right? is that right, mark? >> sure. i mean, like any -- you're going to be calling for comment. you're going to be going to the agency you're writing about. and it's happening, actually, far more than it used to where

the government pushes back now to try to get you to not publish. now, you know, we keep pretty high standards for what we would not publish. and there are different standards. if the government is making a case that this does specific harm to specific individuals, this story, i'm talking about. that's one thing and we listen to it really seriously. if the argument, as was the case in many of the wikileaks arguments is, this is going to be really embarrassing for us for the government. it would hurt. that is a lower standard. and usually, that's not a reason not to publish. >> and when you go to the government, you learn all kinds of things. first of all, you get a second or third source if you can get them to validate what you have, which makes sleep much easier at night. and often in those -- it's not just a matter of calling and saying i want your one sentence comment, it's meeting with people, it's having serious discussions. sometimes weeks or months go by

before some of the stories are published. >> i think we're finally beginning to learn what bob woodward does. >> well -- >> the inside story. >> well, but -- it just makes sense. and i've been in the oval office and the seventh floor of the cia and other places where people have said, if you publish this, you know, recently somebody said, if you publish this, we could lose a war. well, that gets your attention and you listen very, very carefully. >> no, i agree. pretty much everything that i wrote in the book, "the dark side," i ran by the authorities at the cia just to check it, make sure it was correct, which is incredibly important, and see basically if it was going to cause some kind of undue harm. and, you know, we didn't always agree, but at least i was able

to weigh their arguments and see what -- whether i thought they made sense. >> mark, go ahead. >> add on to that, it also goes to the point about classification. i don't think it's just a question of whether something is overclassified because we all agree that generally things are. it's really that i don't think there's a period in the country's history where the basic -- the entire war is conducted in a classified manner, right? it is a secret war. there's been the wars of iraq and afghanistan but so much of it is intelligence wars and wars carried out clandestinely and they're still secretly even when they shouldn't be like the drone strikes. >> which, by the way, they're not secret, the drone strikes -- >> they're not secret but they're technically still classifi classified. >> but the government will -- there are people in the government who will officially validate and discuss those things. >> but they still won't cut -- after a strike come up and stand up and say, this is what happened. some people really would like

that -- in the government on would like that to happen because they think they'd be able to explain it better. but it's -- and so i just think that it's -- it's never been more important, because this is the conduct of the war. it's all a secret that national security reporters tell people what's going on. >> peter, what do you think of that? of going to the government and saying, here's what i understand happened or is going on? what do you say? >> well, i would say that's a useful and generally necessary step. you know, we have a story out this morning that i co-authored, on the interceptum, one of the first sites about some of the nsa documents that were leaked to us by snowden, top secret -- >> summarize the story. >> the nsa is hacking into computers of people who control computer systems that the nsa wants to infiltrate. so these are innocent people who are targeted by the nsa because they have, as one of the documents said, the keys to the kingdom.

in this case, we went to the nsa and said, look, is there any harm involved in us publishing this? and the answer was no, there was no harm involved. and so we have gone to them and asked. i would say, however, in terms of the usefulness of talking to officials, yes, yes, of course, but actually right now i trust documents more than i trust officials. these documents say a lot more and tell me a lot more -- than most officials would -- >> and they are a potent tool when you go to the government and say, i have this document and it says the following -- >> i don't, my personal feeling is i'm not using these as tools. i'm publishing them or we're publishing them. the greatest tools are instruments. and i think that these documents operate best not as instruments in terms of leverage with government officials but instruments in terms of informing the public. >> i'm not saying only as a tool but, you know, yes, publish them but it is -- when you go in to

see somebody in the government and say, i have this document or i have these notes of this meeting and i understand the following is occurring, that gets their attention. >> it gets their attention, but it doesn't necessarily get much truth out of them. >> sometimes it does. sometimes -- don't you find that to be the case, jane? >> sometimes. i mean -- >> don't you learn things? >> what i was going to say is i think the government -- the national security part of the government, anyway, has a credibility problem at this point. when you look at cases like the case of tom drake and -- who was an nsa official, former, who was prosecuted under the espionage act, was facing potentially 35 years in prison. he's 57 or 58 years old, whatever he was at the time, the rest of his life in prison, and the case -- >> but what -- >> -- fell apart. the reason, it was complete overkill. the judge himself eventually

threw most of it out. >> and even general hayden said publicly that it was a case of prosecutorial overreach. >> i mean, as the previous panel quoted the judge saying, it was unconscionable what had happened to his life during that period. there were five documents he was charged with taking that were unauthorized that were classified. three of them had to do with some kind of complaint he had made to an inspector general and he'd said he'd been told to take the documents home. the other two, one was classified as just plain, you know, office items basically. and the other was declassified three months after he was prosecuted for having it. and eventually the case ended up with him pleading to a misdemeanor. but the idea that that could have been portrayed as a huge national security case under the espionage act and that that man

could have faced potentially life in prison suggests that there's a judgment issue sometimes on these calls about what national security entails. >> bob deitz, how come that wasn't stopped earlier? >> i don't know. >> okay. >> i don't know the case. i know drake. i know some of the people he's dealt with, but i don't know the facts of that case. facts matter. >> of course. let me ask this general question, which i think is important and the earlier panel said quite directly that the obama administration is anti-press and that -- actually, it was said earlier that the prosecution on the effort to get jim risen from "the new york times" to testify is a persecution. do you think the obama administration is anti-press, peter? >> i wish you could have started with somebody else here. >> okay. >> anti-press is a very broad

phrase, so i'd like to get away from that, maybe, and just the specifics are, you know, how many people have been prosecuted, leakers, under the beem administration versus previous administrations? as the previous panel i believe went over and as we all know, it's more than any other previous administration by several factors. that's rather concerning to me. and one of the -- when i was listening to the previous panel, one of the people said, well, but there's the jim risen case but really that's kind of it, in terms of actual journalists who are now facing incarceration if the supreme court rules against them. yes, and you don't need more than one case to make your message. that's the point of that case. as soon as possible case is equivalent to me of hundreds of cases because the impact is the same in terms of -- >> mark, you think the obama administration is anti-press? >> like peter, i'm going to punt that direct term. but, no. i'll answer your question.

we've had trouble sort of digging into what are the origins of this incredibly large number of investigations. and you know, some of it is that -- >> they're not just investigations, they're prosecutions. >> right. the tools available to the investigators are far better than they used to be. so prosecutors want to prosecute, and they want to make cases so they can make cases better than they used to be able to make cases. so there's part of that. but at the very least you certainly see, you know, supervisors can tell investigators not to go in certain directions, and that is not happening. and so at the very least, the aggressive prosecutors trying to make their cases against leakers aren't being stopped. yes, some of these cases are holdovers from the bush administration, but at the very least, you know, there is -- there are conscious decisions being made not to stop them and that is, i think, where you see the continuity between bush and obama. >> but just bureaucratically,

being realistic about the way the justice department works, people at the lower level start a case and they get very aggressive and it's just like one of your editors at "the new york times" would hesitate to tell you, don't pursue that story because it might appear as if they're stopping you from a legitimate inquiry. so i think up the chain if you talk to some of these people there's a lot of reluctance to stop it. the difficulty is they're not setting the policy at the very top and saying, you know, just from my point of view, i think they are harming themselves by either declaring or appearing to declare a war on the press. >> but, you know, what frustrates me a little bit about the way this discussion is categorized, by hypothesis, all these cases involved somebody who committed a felony. >> maybe.

>> i said by hypothesis. in other words, yeah, enough -- prima fascia case and just like the police investigate robberies and white collar crime and so forth, it's very hard for me to understand the argument that says, well, this felony shouldn't be investigated. and if you are trying to put together a case -- well, archie cox, you know the watergate prosecutor until he was bounced -- in one of his briefs starts out saying something like the grand jury's entitled to every man's evidence. he was quoting some british jurist. how is it that you put a line around this felony and say, oh, don't worry about it -- but we're going to pursue other felonies. to me that's just that's. sorry. >> no, that's good. every time a white house official gives some comment about a classified drone strike, isn't that a felony, too?

should you go down -- you could really broaden it to every one talking about classified information. >> i agree with your point and every time i've been involved in these discussions i point out how official leaks make the administration lose the high ground. absolutely sure. it's so hard to explain rationally why a senior official can leak and yet when it happens to the gs-15 level, then the world's about to end. i agree with you. but nonetheless -- >> that's a really big problem. >> it's a huge problem. >> the earlier panel, i mean, you can't talk with people about national security issues and not discuss classified information. i mean, that is just the reality. >> yep. >> you know that yourself. >> i agree. i agree with you. >> and so the idea that these few cases where they seem to have evidence and they pursue them with this zeal and these tools that they have, somebody

at the top needs to -- i think this is a commonsense solution to kind of say, come on. let's get real. >> does this work in this case, you mean? >> yeah. >> i agree. >> is it really worth it? >> i agree. >> and the idea that the obama -- i mean, do you think the obama administration is anti-press? >> i think every administration is anti-press. every administration -- >> i've known some. i've known some. >> some more than others. yeah. some you've known more than others. >> i think there's a continuity here rather than -- >> yes. i mean, i think -- it's what the framers of the constitution understood, power has a certain tendency to make people want to hold on to power. and leaks particularly of unflattering information are not welcomed by people in power. so, i mean, i think the problem with the prosecutions is there's a sense that they're arbitrary because there are authorized

leaks that come -- that are favorable and push one particular line and then there are some that unfavorable and they're prosecuted. >> i agree. >> and so the question is, who should -- who gets to define and decide what the american public should hear about what the intelligence community is doing? should the intelligence community get to decide only? or should the press get to decide also? and should there be -- what do you do with dissidents within your ranks who are critics who feel that maybe what they're seeing has crossed some line and is wrong and they want to speak out about it. such an american, you know, sort of act to speak of in dissent. >> and don't you think -- most people, not everyone, but -- i mean, to use the legal term, bob deitz admission against interest.

you can find people if you can talk to them for a long time, they may say something that's against their interest that's true. just in the last ten or so minutes, i mean, what's the remedy for the press in terms of how we operate? is it to go encrypt it? i mean, snowden told you, peter, he said, you know, it's -- an amazing quote. unencrypted journalists' source communication is unforgivably reckless. >> when encryption is required. not every communication that i have with a source requires encryption. not every relationship requires it. but when it's required and you don't do it, then it is unforgivably reckless. as jane was saying earlier you get your sources into trouble. >> what do you use as a reporter, mark, in this environment, then?

what kind of frame of mind do you go into? are you kind of, hey, look, now i have an excuse i can tell my editors i talked to six people and they all hung up on me? >> that sounds good, actually. you know, you have to -- as i said, a lot of it is more -- less efficient. you have to -- i think you have to be conscious of the security of your sources. i mean, you're entering into a trust. you know, i think when you're dealing with people who have been involved in government their sources, you're inclined to think they know -- they know how to keep themselves secure. i mean, they knew -- know better than i do the state of surveillance, right? but, i don't think that gets you off the hook. i think it means that you have to be very careful, increasingly careful that, you know, it's not because of something you've done, you get your source in trouble. >> go ahead. >> i would just also say, this

isn't a big mystery to me. there are very, you know -- there's this thing that we all carry around, well, sometimes you don't carry it around. that's the new important measure of protection that actually is very easy to take and you don't use this thing at certain times. for a very long time, reporters managed to do very well without these devices. >> i remember the first time i talked to somebody who was in a very important position in the intelligence world and he got out his blackberry and took out the battery. and i thought, what the hell are you doing? and he said, you know, then they can't listen. >> but this is something that's been going on -- i remember in 1999 when i was still covering the balkans, i was in belgrade, this is during the milosevic era before cell phones -- before you had any conversation with anybody about politics, you would not only take out the battery of your phone, but you would put it on the table. the phone and the battery. not just so that you showed the other person that the government couldn't be listening but the other person knew that you

weren't recording the call with their cell phone. this was back in 1999. you know. the kind of trade craft we now have to adopt actually has been used and i've been using in other countries for quite awhile. it's not so new in some ways. >> but to address the -- >> go ahead. >> the question you asked a minute or so ago about what -- kind of what's the solution. well, the solution is the american people. the american people through their representatives have decided that there are some things that are sufficiently important that they ought not to be discussed in the open press. now, there are plenty of ways of addressing that. you know, if you get the american people to agree to a shield law. that's not happened. and i think -- i'd be surprised if it ever happens. >> but -- i mean, sometimes the representatives of the people get it wrong. >> of course they do. >> and, you know, we're on the outside. and so i don't buy that.

i mean, i think part of the remedy is to be more aggressive, frankly. >> as a reporter? >> as a reporter, and that you have to work harder. i remember working on the fourth bush book that i did, and there was a general who would not talk. e-mails, you know, phone messages, intermediaries, nothing. so i found out where he lived. it was in the washington area. and what's the best time to visit a four-star general? >> dinner? >> without an appointment. 8:15 on a tuesday. because they will have eaten, not gone to bed. it's not monday. and it's not getting close to friday. and so i knocked on the door. and he opened the door and he looked at me and he said, are you still doing this sh -- and he meant it. and he looked at me, and then just got a disappointed look on his face. disappointed in himself.

he said, come on in. and sat for two hours, answered most of the questions. why? because i showed up. we don't show up enough. and it is incredible the drop-in visit, if you're worried about surveillance and security and so forth. and i think if we ever get -- you know, the obama administration, i've done two books on them, you know, tried to understand. and i think there's a lot of ambivalence about the press, as there always is. and you can deal with them. and if you just show up and persist and say, i've got this, we can do our job. the tragedy of this would be like if we just packed up and said, oh, it's too hard. the snowden era and the prosecution era has created a new world for us. and i think it's really kind of the old world.

i started in this in the nixon era, and it was -- you know, they -- it wasn't that you were on their christmas card list. and it always is tough. and we should remember that. and so if you work eight hours a day, you're maybe going to have to work 10 or 12. >> i've sat on cul-de-sacs and curbs waiting for people to come home, not so long ago, really. it wasn't the grand life that i thought "the new yorker" would be. i thought it would be cocktails at the roundtable, you know. >> if you're honest with yourself, you probably don't sit on the curbs enough. >> oh, i'm sure not enough. but at the same time i have to say, i'll say one thing from your standpoint, at least what i would imagine would be your standpoint, i think the press needs also to make sure that when we do push really hard, and make our calls, if something's important enough to publish when the national

security community is saying, don't, it really should be something important enough to publish. i think it needs to have some kind of -- that we should try to keep thinking about something that serves public interest. not every secret is equal. you know? just because you find it out doesn't mean you need to put it in the newspaper or the magazine. it has to -- i feel, anyway, there should be an important public purpose when you take that on. >> peter? >> i would just say one thing following up on your point everybody's point here kind of about sitting on curbs. one of the things -- it depends whose curb you're sitting. generals have told you some very useful things, and that has been helpful for everybody. i personally have found in covering iraq, afghanistan, being with generals, being with colonels, being with lance corporals, that actually the people whose doorsteps, quote-unquote, i sit on, the better ones are the lower level.

the generals i have talked to -- i remember one time i had an off-the-record talk with petraeus. and i was taking notes and thinking, wow, this is great. i look at my notes afterwards and there's really nothing in there whatsoever. it's one of his geniuses. >> absolutely. he's very good. very good at that. >> so is mike hayden, by the way. in the same way. >> and that happened again and again with the senior officers that i would talk with, whereas when i was talking with and hanging out with, you know, the specialists, the lance corporals, the captains, i was finding out a heck of a lot more about what was really going on. that was a lot more -- >> but then you move up the food chain. i agree with you that sometimes the best sources are names we never hear about. and no one else knows. but then you have to -- if you're ultimately trying to write about decision-making, you need to get to the generals and the people in the white house, or the pentagon, who are making some of these decisions, or the cia.

>> i don't have the bob woodward special sauce to get that access. >> but what gets people to respond is information. if you have the document, or the notes, or the details, if you go in and say, i understand you're launching operation pink starling tomorrow, you know, and pink starling is a protected code word, people will say, okay, we better deal with this. >> but actually, the higher-level people probably don't know what pink starling is. the programs that -- if we're just talking about the nsa, there are so many of them. and and they are so technical, that i would be really surprised if the high-level people know the details of more than a small number of the most major programs. >> i think you'd be wrong about that. >> yeah? >> i think so. many could not perhaps describe the engineering details, but i would be surprised if there are

more than a handful of programs that are not understood -- >> all right, i take back the handful, you're right. but there are -- impossible to count how many programs there are in the nsa. >> there are, there are. >> we're talking -- we can talk thousands and probably more than thousands. and i just imagine it's beyond the capacity of any individual to have significant knowledge about more than a handful of these thousands of programs. that's what i was trying to say. >> but i agree with bob dietz, and i agree with you. but the answer is, work the low level, the mid-level, and the top, if you can. and you're going to get a total universe portrait. anybody else -- we have a couple of minutes here before there's a coffee and martini break. maybe not martinis. but to summarize -- i mean, you're the historian of this. what's going on here?

when the historians look back at this era, what are they going to say, the snowden era, the prosecution era, the persecution of jim risen era? >> i don't have an apocalyptic vision. i don't think, unlike some members of the first panel, i don't think the west is about to end. civilization as we know it is disappearing. i think there are new challenges. the tension that jane was describing between administrations and the press, i worked in the carter administration. my god, the wailing that went on there about stuff in newspapers. i don't think that's ever going to end. i do -- i would like to mention one more thing if i may, bob. in these discussions, there's often a lot of talk, as peter did, a reference to the fourth amendment.

the supreme court has, in the two cases that really addressed fourth amendment issues, in the criminal context that may touch on national security, they've always drawn a line between, on the one hand, domestic security, you know, stuff that involves criminality in this country. on the other hand, dividing that from national security involving threats abroad. and in the two major cases on this, the supreme court went out of its way to say, all right, we're not talking about foreign intelligence here, we're talking about domestic intelligence. my experience at nsa is that that line was rigorously drawn, and rigorously observed. i think most reporters should rest easy about whether there's going to be a tap. and i don't believe there is necessarily a fourth amendment right when you're talking about conducting foreign intelligence.

>> but most reporters who cover issues like terrorism, for instance, have many overseas phone calls. >> from terrorists? >> certainly as close as you can get to them if you want to do the reporting, sure. you're going to try to get in there and understand what's going on. many reporters, you know, john miller, who worked in and out of the government, was famous for going in and interviewing bin laden. is that a crime? should it have been eavesdropped on? >> forgetting whether it's a crime. if somebody is speaking with bin laden on the phone, and we're not picking it up, the head of nsa ought to be tossed. >> yeah, right, but under nsa rules, if that were the case, and it was jane mayer, an american citizen, her name would have to be minimized. it would not be circulated. >> or maximized. >> exactly.

all the headlines. no, you're dead right. it would have to be minimized. the minimization rules are religiously followed. >> i think we're done. thank you very much. renee ellmers was first elected to congress from north carolina's 2nd district in 2010. this year the republican congresswoman's being challenged by former "american idol" contestant clay aiken, a democrat. the two debated last night. >> we never ended the war on terror. this is just an extension of it. >> can you end it? >> well, that's the question. we're talking about radical islam.

we're talking about those that believe this is the plan for the future. it has been in place since, you know, the beginning. we have to make sure that we're doing everything we can to keep our allies safe, working with our allies, working with those countries to make sure that we have a presence there. and we are working with them. when we leave, when we draw down, when we say we're victorious in a land that we are not, that's when these groups emerge. and we have to end that. to the point of the president, and support to the president, yes, we will be doing everything we can too support the president on this issue but he has got to stop telling our enemies what we will do and what we will not do. it's just simply not a plan for strategy. >> mr. aiken. >> there are several things about congresswoman ellmers' answer that concerns me. first, a few weeks ago she said she is not in support of sending ground troops to the region, and just a few days ago, speaker of

the house john boehner changed course and decided that he believed that it was important to send ground troops to the region, now we hear congresswoman ellmers saying she would send ground troops to the region. the men and women in our military should be protecting the united states and our soil. to hear her change her tune because the party leader changed his tune is concerning. congresswoman ellmers went on the record not too long ago saying john boehner was her boss and you don't want to upset the boss. so i understand if that's that's her mindset that's probably why she's changed her tune now. but the people of the 2nd district are her boss and the military right now is overwhelmingly against send ground troops. i am not going to change my tune. i said that i don't believe we need to send the men and women of the u.s. military into harm's way. when we have seen that it is not a credible threat, we'll reconsider it, but simply going in and sending our men and women into harm's way because of the

party leader telling us, this is party leader tell is us to do it is not a viable reason for me. ieslne more note. in the ring jor. can we depend on them? >> we have to work with those groups. we have to show support. john boehner may be the speaker of the house but the people of district two are my boss and that is exactly why we're here today. >> no, i appgree -- >> because i'm reapplying for this job. >> i agree but i want to speak to your point -- >> what i want to clarify, this is some of the things that maybe as an sprainer aware not aware of. these things are fluid. when the president asked for his support he asked for it in a certain way, we gave him that support, that was what we voted on. i think there was much debate and much concern that that wasn't quite enough and i agree. but at the time, we allowed the president, we voted, we came

together unified in a bipartisan fashion, to support the president on this initiative. i do believe that there will be much more that we need to do. >> more campaign 2014 debates on c-span tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, pennsylvania's republican governor tom corbett and his democratic challenger tom wolf meet for their final debate. that's live from pittsburgh at 7:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. tomorrow, live on c-span at 7:30 p.m. eastern, a debate from the 17th congressional district of illinois. incumbent democratic congresswoman sherry bustoes debates challenger bobby schilling. govern democratic governor of illinois pat quinn debates republican challenger bruce rouner, 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now more about the relationship between the government and the press. in august reuters news president

steven adler spoke about restrictions put on the media by the obama administration. he's joined by executives from the "new york times" and the associated press for discussion on whistleblowers, national security, and media bias. hosted by the national association of black journalists, this is an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. here to host and mot raderate today's plenary session is pierre thomas. 2012 nabj journalist of the year and senior justice correspondent for abc news. he joined the network in november of 2000 and reports for several programs, including "world news," "good morning america," and "nightline." thomas was also key member of the abc news team coverage that won edward r. murrow awards for reporting on the capture of osama bin laden. the tucson shooting spree and

assassination attempt against congresswoman begangi giffords. and the newtown elementary school massacre. thomas was a key member of the abc's team covering the terrorist attacks of september 11th, winning a peabody award, a dupont columbia university award, and an emmy. he also received an emmy for his coverage of president barack obama's inauguration. please welcome pierre thomas. >> hello, everyone. thank you so much for coming to the 39th annual convention of the national association of black journalists. revolution to evolution. shaping our future. this year, nabj is focused on preparing and equipping members for the shift taking place in news rooms across the country. this year you can look forward to some great panels, workshops and seminars, including today's session, government and the media. today we will address some of the challenges facing our

industry, specifically actions by the government which appear to infringe on a truly free press. journalists subpoenaed to go to the court and reveal their sources. the justice department secretly obtaining months of phone records from the ap. the white house restricting access to many presidential events. how do we operate going forward? fundamental challenges that stretch to the heart of what we do. today we have some of the nation's top journalists here to discuss these challenges. and they have confronted these issues firsthand. we'll have some time for questions from the audience, but i'd like to first introduce our illustrious panel. first we have steve adler, the editor in chief of reuters news, and he's the executive vice president for news for all of thompson reuters. before joining reuters adler was editor in chief of "business week" where during his five-year tenure the magazine and website won more than 100 major journalism awards.

he's a graduate of harvard law school and served as editor of "the american lawyer." please welcome steven adler. next, we have beane bace. the first african-american executive editor of the "new york times." before taking on that real he was a managing editor for news. after graduating from columbia university in 1978, the new orleans native went to work for his hometown newspaper. in 1988, he won the pulitzer prize for his investigative work leading a trio of reporters who uncovered corruption in the chicago city council. please welcome dean bace. our final panelist is brian caramelano, vice president and managing editor for "u.s. news" at the associated press. overseas coverage in operations and state bureaus and regional desks.

2010 to 2013 he served as ap's asia-pacific news director. he led ap's coverage of the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis in japan. he's a graduate of colby college in waterville, maine. please welcome brian. okay, we're going to get right to it. >> again, we thank everyone so much for coming. this is an important discussion and we will try to move it along quickly. james risen is a "new york times" reporter. in 2006 he published a book called "the state of war" and it contained a chapter that the justice department contends revealed classified information. the justice department has issued a subpoena for mr. risen seeking information about his sources. risen has said he will not reveal his sources. the courts thus far have sided with the government so risen

faces possible contempt of court, possibly jail time, fines if he won't testify. dean, give us a sense of how james is doing and the impact on him and his family. >> you know, it's had a huge impact on him as a reporter. i mean, jim has built his whole career on the world of national security and anonymous sources. i mean, from the times he was -- the time he was at the l.a. times to the time he was at the "new york times," that's his bread and butter. and it's been a lot harder for him. it's harder for him to make new sources. his current sources are nervous about talking to him. things get slowed down because it's not like he can exchange e-mails with them or have phone conversations with them. that said, just as a plug to jim, who is a particularly tenacious reporter, i would say if you look at over the last year while he has worked up

against this problem of the government going after him, he's prone big stories, he was one of the two or three lead reporters we put on the story when the "new york times" had to catch up, try to catch up, with the "post" and others on the snowden story. so he's still in their hanging. but that's what he does. that's his bread and butter. but it's certainly held him back. his mood is, he's nervous. i mean, i don't think he's nervous because he's worried about going to jail. i think he's nervous because, if you imagine covering a beat and suddenly all of the people you deal with are nervous about dealing with you in particular, i think that's sort of -- and this is the beat you've covered for a decade, i think that sort of throws you off your game. >> it's at the heart what was we do in our profession. how has the paper sought to support him and keep him aggressive? >> you know, it's -- we've actually helped support him in

the legal arena. but what i -- i talk to him a lot. i make sure that he is deeply involved in washington coverage, that he's in all our washington national security meetings, and mainly i'm sort of a pain in the butt to him to make sure that he's working on snowden. we throw big stories at him, we give him ambitious assignments. i mean, it would be too easy to say, jim, just sort of chill out for a year while this thing plays out but that wouldn't be good for him or for the paper. so mainly we make sure that we throw assignments at him and that they get good play. and that's -- i think that's been helpful to him. >> dean, i want you to ask this question and i want steve and brian to jump in. when you have a reporter asked by the government, give up your sources, what's at stake for our entire industry? >> first off, i think the answer of any self-respecting news

organization to that question is, a strenuous no. because what's at stake is not only that particular story. what's at stake is our very relationship with the government. and our relationship with the government should be adversarial. i guess that's an old way of thinking of things but it really should be. our role in this society is to ask hard questions, to try to find out things government does not want us to find out. and the moment you would accede and give the names of your sources to government, you sort of wiped out one of the primary missions of the press, which is to find out things they don't want you to find out and to ask them hard questions. you lose that. >> steve? >> -- an example from yesterday, it's really interesting what ends up happening. you go out there and you do a story and the government doesn't look it. in this case we did a story about the securities and

exchange commission and we were inside the room when they made a ruling on a case. they didn't like the story. and it obviously came from someplace inside. think about what they did, what impact that has on us. they went to our reporters and asked us, what were the sources for that story? of course the reporters wouldn't tell them. so then they got their inspector general to do a multi-month mu investigation where they interviewed 53 employees at the s.e.c., they went to the e e-mails of 39 employees, they checked awe the visitor logs. at the end of it they couldn't figure out who ursources were so i felt good about that. the deterrent effect on that of the people of government, what was the message that was sent? the message that was sent is, never talk to a reporter. your job is in jeopardy. we don't want reporters to know about these things. so the poisoning or the potential of getting transparency of government just from that one event. you see that in all agencies.

you see that everywhere in the government. and it has a tremendously negative effect ultimately on doing our jobs and fulfilling our responsibility, which is sharing with the public what's going on in government. after all it being our government. >> brian? >> well, i mean, i think the risen case and the case that steve just described in the ap phone records situation with the department of justice is all part of a really troubling trend. i'm sorry to say i'm not optimistic it's going to get any better any time soon. if you play this forward in the years ahead, it really calls into question the ability of journalists to do their primary function which is to hold the government accountable for their actions to the people. >> given the volatile state of the world, the war on terror and the covert actions we see our government taking, has it ever been more important for journalists to be digging and finding out what the hell's going on? >> it's never been more important. i mean, if you think about -- if you think about the state of foreign policy, for instance, the u.s. is engaged in at least

two, possibly three, undeclared, relatively secret wars. in pakistan, where it's running extensive drone operations. in yemen. and some can make the case for parts of africa too. these are dangerous missions that have large implications for those countries, large implications for foreign policy in the united states. and they were embarked on with no debate. there was no debate in congress, there was no debate or discussion about how the u.s. should manage a war in yemen. and it's our job to find out what's going on in chemical men. and it's more important than ever that we find out what's going on in places like yemen so the country can have its own debate even if government chose not to have it. >> it seems like we've reached a point where national security concerns, whether they exist or not, seeps to trump the first amendment in the government's

operations. many of these cases the first amendment's not even part of the conversation except when we're talking about it amongst ourselves. >> right. i want to move on to a story that really struck me as well. ap gets the scoop in may of 2012 about terrorists in yemen wanting to blow up a plane using a new kind of underwear bomb. well, the government wants to know how you did it. the justice department goes out, goes to a court, and secretly obtains two months of telephone records of reporters and editors at the associated press. ryan. your reaction when you found out the government had done this? >> well, i mean, my reaction was outrage. as i think it should be for all journalists and all citizens, really. because the justice department violated its own guidelines in doing this. there were guidelines that existed governing these types of investigations and they had existed for decades. and, you know, the two primary

ways in which this particular investigation violated them was that these kinds of subpoenas are supposed to be as narrowly drawn as possible. this was an absolute hoover operation in which they took phone records for 21 phone lines, including our former washington bureau that the ap hadn't even occupied for six years, and the hartford, connecticut, bureau where one of the reporters in question had worked seven years before he transferred to the washington bureau and was involved in the story. and that gave the government conceivably insight into the actions of hundreds of ap reporters, far from any stories that might have had anything to do with this particular scoop, and the government has no conceivable right to know any of that stuff. and the second way in which it violated the guidelines is there was no prior notification. we found out a year after that story had broken some at some point in the ensuing year they had scooped up all of these phone records spanning 40 days and there was no opportunity for us to challenge that, there was no process of judicial review. and they cited this loophole

which had always existed but turned out to be a very gigantic loophole was that prior notice was required unless doing so would substantially impair the integrity of the investigation. and they took a very broad interpretation of that. which was to say, that the leaker would know they were being sought if this had been made public. but after they announced the investigation, like about two days after the story actually broke, so the fact that they were seeking the leaker was already widely known. >> when you confronted doj officials with what they did, did you get an audience with the attorney general? how high up and what was their reaction to your outrage? >> well, to the justice department's credit, they convened a very high-level group of media representatives and government officials and the justice department has changed those guidelines. we think they have changed them for the better. so that the exception for prior notification requires the attorney general's sign-off. and instead of a presumption of violating the integrity of the

investigation, the presumption is it won't and they have to prove that it will. so those guidelines are stricter now but they haven't really been tested yet. >> but how striking was it that something like that could happen? looking at your phone records, and the most senior levels of justice department not signing off on it, it sounds like that's what happened. >> yeah, that's exactly what happened in this case. yeah. it was striking. i think in some ways the revelations on the nsa and snowden, the ap case in some ways seem sort of quaint now. we now know that the government is able to access everything for everyone. journalist or not journalist. and so i think that journalists who have operated in more restrictive country overseas have always sort of assumed they were being watched. now we is assume the united states is one of those countries and take the same precautions we would if we were operating in china or north korea or iran. >> one trg thing about that, a very -- it has focused for years

and years on all types of violations abroad. it tries to protect journalists working abroad. and now gotten very focused on the u.s. which i think has really limited, back at the end of the summer they're starting a campaign called support the right to report, where they're going to be asking everybody to sign petitions. but what they're saying is the kind of problems we at reuters see everywhere in the world are problems -- put into perspective it's over 200 people in prison around the world for being journalists. and there's way more in turkey and iran and many other places of course than there's ever fact that we're now thinking of the u.s. in somewhat the same category is rather troubling. >> and on a practical level, when you pick up your phone and the ap offices, do you now wonder? >> sure. i mean, i think we all should wonder, whether we're in an ap office or any other journalism shop. >> again, i want the reaction of the other two panelestists.

when you heard about this case what was your reaction and did you think, my goodness? what was your reaction, dean? >> i find this case more troublesome. more troublesome than the risen case. it's the most troublesome, you know, just -- for two reasons. first, the sheer audacity and scope of the effort of the investigation. but secondly, as he said, the fact that it sort of was -- didn't even have to get approval at the highest levels shows that, i would argue, that -- and i would attribute it to the post- 9/11 era. some people would attribute it to other things. i think the view of government after september 11th, that secrecy was so important, especially on national security matters, became so pervasive, became so powerful and so ingrained in a generation of

government officials, that they felt comfortable doing something that, 25 years ago even, i think would have required a real discussion. we're going to subpoena, we're going to go after the records of a major american news organization. i think the fact that that could be done at the mid-level and even surprise eric holder says a lot about just how entrenched that secrecy is in the government. >> the white house has been restricting access to many presidential events and distributing its own photographs. and then giving access to the photographs to the media, not letting us do the work ourselves are rethink we just had a case recently involving some of the former astronauts that got some coverage. steve, talk about why this is a particular problem. >> well, i care about the photographs, obviously we take photographs and it's important. because you don't want the record of what goes on in your

administration to essentially be pr. so there's been a blurring in our entire industry and in the world between what's independent journalism and what's kind of an institution going directly to the public with their own message. and on some level that's fine and companies do it as well and people are using twitter to disclose things. and up to a point that's okay. but on the other hand, you know, you do have to worry that there's not a respect and a value placed on independent journalism. so we were involved and ap was involved in lobbying very hard with the white house to give us more access. we've gotten a little bit more access. >> did they get it? >> we've gotten a little more access but it's not everything you would want. >> but did they understand why -- >> did they understand? you know, i think only partly. i mean, i think one of the troubling things that we're all facing is this is at administration that said it was going to be the transparency administration. and there's been a lot of the language around the importance of transparency. and i think we all viscerally

believe that the government belongs to the people and that we're the representatives of the people and i think we're all fairly idealistic about that. and we think the government works better when it's transparent. that fresh air, transparency, fresh air is the best disinfect ant. it does not look like the government feels that way. you see it not only in the white house, you see it in the executive agencies. they make it very hard. it's harder to get press passes, it's hard to get into meetings, you get handlers who sit with you more. that's partly a practical problem but it's very important as a symbolic problem. we really do want to be a society that believes it's important for the public to know what's going on, it's important for independent journalism to exist and to exist in a really robust way and it does not feel as if very often the administration feels that way. >> and then i want you guys to jump in. is this administration more restrictive or less restrictive than past administrations? >> i just actually asked members

of our washington bureau before coming here what they thought people have been doing it for a long time. and they do feel as if it's more restrictive than it has been in the past. i think they're a little more upset about it perhaps than they might have been. becae this administration billed itself as being more transparent so i think they feel a little deceived by that. but i think there's been an increasing desire to control the news. there's always been some. and look, we accept that and we understand that being a journalist isn't for the faint of heart and there isn't a constant back and forth with any government and that's fine. but i think we also believe the government should -- a democratic government should believe that a free press is important and should at least try to facilitate that in a general way. that's the kind of place where we end up thinking, we're not so much that's true. >> brian? >> yeah, i think it's part of a trend that began before obama was elected, but i certainly think it's gotten -- it's gotten more dramatic and the trend has gotten worse.

you know. and i i think social media has given the obama administration and a lot of elected officials the plas ubl cover story that they're going straight to the people with their message, but of course they can manage the message very closely if they're going straight to the people. it's not really -- there's no reason to believe that it's an honest presentation of information. i also think that the way the obama administration has handled access has given other governments, state and local governments, a roadmap for how they can quote-unquote manage the media. and we saw in new york with the bill de blasio administration, who also by the way said he was going to run the most transparent administration in history that he tried to close his swearing-in to the press. and our news organizations and many others protested and eventually they opened it. but in the first 100 days of his administration he held 53 events that were closed to the press that were on his schedule. and 30 others that had restricted press access. and that was just in the first 100 days. >> wow. >> you know, i'm not -- i'm

not -- i think the obama administration is more secretive. but i think i agree that it's part of a continuum. i think there was a -- an amazing confluence of events starting with and probably more forcefully led by september 11th. i think september 11th, i think the bush administration was more philosophically secret. and i think september 11th told them that that was okay. i think that the press didn't challenge it enough. and therapy along came a whole new way of covering candidates. i think social media made it easier for candidates to sort of -- for politicians to sort of communicate with people without going through the mainstream media, which is good and bad. i think all these things came together, a secret environment, the ability to communicate differently with people. and then the constant campaign that politicians go into.

and even while they're in office behave as candidates all the time. i think all those things came together and i think they've sort of reached their full flowering in the obama administration. but i think they began over time and built. >> one thing i'd add to this is, we're not without our own resources. and you shouldn't -- nobody should feel sorry for the media. and some of the changes that have occurred actually benefit us. >> yes. >> so the fact that there's so much more access to electronic information means we have more ways to get information. >> that's right. >> there's also lorber yes, sirs to entry in the media industry so there are way more players. while on the one hand so-called mainstream media may be somewhat in decline. but you've got blogs and you've got the guardian here because of digital, you've got al jazeera because of digital and television, then you have all of the smaller organizations. so i do think you're out there trying to get information and you're working hard to dig it out, you actually have more ways

to get it than you used to have in the past. in some ways it's an arms race. the administration has more tools but so do we. >> and more outlets to publish it. which you buy the argument that i think everybody now buys that the press wasn't aggressive enough in the buildup to the gulf war. i think today there would be a lot more places, including the guardian, which is more activist news organization, more blogs, more places where questions would have been raised, and i think that -- i agree with steve, that's healthier. >> i want to get to edward snowden in a moment. but as news executives, how are you trying to manage, deal with social media and also the fact that people can go around us, talk directly to the public themselves, and how do you try to use the social media to your advantage? >> well, it's -- i mean, there's so many different ways where social media factors into it. the way we do our work.

in that instance in particular, it's interesting that when a public official takes to social media, often what they say on social media is news itself. and the reaction to that is news itself. then of course we all use social media as a way to develop new audiences and broadcast content our journalists are producing and it's also an incredibly powerful news-gathering tool, especially in terms of finding people who may have something to say about a specific event or a specific topic. i it is i would say woven into the news room in so many different ways that it's just part of daily journalism now. >> you know -- go ahead. >> i was going to say, i worry less about the ability of politicians to get around us and use social media because that's different than sort of some of the secrecy issues we're talking about. i think that that's probably -- as much of a -- as much as that's vexing for us, i think that's probably okay.

it's a little weird for the media to make the case that politicians should not -- should have to engage with us to get to the public. so i'm not sure -- i'm not sure that would be a winning argument that i would be willing to make whistle stop tours and fireside chats by politicians to engage this is just the way to do it. >> right. >> and full disclosure, i thinku it may be jay did invite member, of the administration to participate in this panel and as far as you can tell they chose

not to. edward snowden, he was responsible for releasing a mountain load of information about some of the nation's covert activity. there are a number of officials who say notwithstanding what hew did was right or wrong, the or notion that one person was p responsible for releasing this information relatively young s person, they make the arguement that it shouldn't happen.choose >> i'm going to ask in a different way. i think that he provoked an important discussion that the

country wasn't having and couldd only have had with his disclosures. i think that snowden gets a tremendous amount of credit. i think the country barely knew the extent of the nsa spying. i think there are glimpses of it and stories over the years. but i think he provoked a really significant discussion and a po debate that we should have had.a i mean, i actually think the th nsa's position in this case is a little bit untenable. somebody should have said i would argue that the country ready for the giant amount of e spying that the nsa can do? and without even going into the very nitty-gritty of it, and i don't think the country had that debate, i don't know by the way what the results of that debate would have been. it might have been even more m intrusive spying.intrus but i'm not sure that answers -m it doesn't answer the question whether he's kranl or in a weira

way as a journalist i don't y a think that is my question to answer. but if somebody who is news body organization took advantage of some of the things he leaked, lk they were really important. >> it's reasonable to the government to consider it potentially criminal if they do which again is being said is a very different question from ueo what our responsibility is. and my view is we haven't stolee the information or paid somebody to steal the information, our job is to inform theform publico and so we're in a different re role. it may be the administration's job to protect certain information like. this but it's our job to releast it. being careful about not puttingb individual people in jeopardy. if we get it.. so being a lawyer, i'm not going to convict them without a trial but i think in these situations

sometimes itth is civil vil disobedience and the person diso knows their penalties which may be appropriate, the person chooses to do it. more important for our ses discussion is it is our responsibility if something is newsworthy and we didn't seal t for us to present to the public and let it be part of the publiu debate.de >> i'm also going to dodge this original question.o you know, it's not my place to . say. think about what we know now because of the disclosures and what we know now is really with important and i would argue that people had a right to know thato their government was doing thata >> do you think disclosures thn helped our cause as journalist d or hurt our cause?>> i >> i would argue they help our . cause. they help our cause because fo two reasons, the government has yet to offer substantial proof y that they truly hurt national security. which helps our cause. because that's always the

arguement. the second thing is that i thinr in the case of wikileaks and in the case of snowden, the press , behaved aggressively and responsibly. i have looked at student t disclosures in the course of ouu coverage of it.co and there are things in the ngs snowden disclosures that everybody, including glen greenwald has not disclosed. i think it proves the press is very responsible, cannot put things -- is not looking to just throw things up that jeopardize lives. i think it l helps our cause. the government might argue otherwise. i would make the case that we were, you know, we did what we were supposed to do but we were careful. >> i guess my view is, you knoww we in the media never going to i win any popularity contests ando we're down in congress and, youe

know, public approval. i think that is okay. i think that the real resistanc to powerful institutions in ouro society right now and we're often lumped together with othe powerful institutions and it's a popular system, you know, to people have a lot of power and to the media it does. i would say it is our job to do our job a responsibly and not o worry too much about whether popular as we're doing it as long as we think we're it, performing a public service. >> i do worry, you know, about e the effect.ing depending on what ends up de happening to snowden, you know, who knows what the future holds. and th e chelgsea manning case, certainly it must discourage people who would be willing to t dispense that information from future.e.gain in the so while i agree, you know, that media has credited itself with t the way it handled these cases, i do worry about the future wli

wi whistle blowersfu and the case steve described earlier. >> one of most common things you hear from the government sourcei is i'm going to lose my job. >> i want to take advantage of the years of thoughts on this year. do you have some of the young journalists and other young journalists out here a sense of some best practices. what advice do you have for youa organizations or individuals who come under the fire of the government, be it city hall, t y state or federal government in o terms of protecting the sources. >> i'll start. clearly we're living in a worldu where you have to assume your o work is being watched. so you have to be very careful u about using e-mail, incrypted e-mails. you have to bear very careful t about phone calls.

particularly in going places where you think you're being thk watched and followed, you know,r it's very least you want to tury off your phones. that is not enough. o n enough. very often you don't want to have a phone with you.you when we travel don globally to . dangerous places, we'll take a o burner phone, we'll take an phoe electronic device that has no sensitive material on it.t so a lot of things you have to do just in terms of basic self protection. it is recently report done by the aclu talking to 50 journalists about are you beingo deterred by this urstuff? and the main thing they said is that they feel like they're in y the espionage business more nowr than the newse business.usines. you do have to be careful about all those things. i think we all overuse e-mail. there is somebody looking at the e-mail, whether it's foreign government or local government. so being careful about allvernna things is really important.ng i think you really have to exercise best practices. you have to be very clear with the source about whether you'ree prosecuting them and underd you

with your editors as to what rules you're operating under. will the organization back you up if you're protecting a source. it's really important to work in an organization that will back you up. so to put in a personal ad for all our organizations, i think one of the virtues of large mainstream media, although we all have our faults, these organizations do really support journalists when they're in trouble. that becomes really important in a world where that happens more and more. >> yeah, i think steve just made two really key points at the end there. one is, i would hope anybody who's in that situation as a reporter can rely on the organization they work for to go to bat for them. them. and the other one is, and i one think that it is more important than ever is to make sure in negotiating the term of tiatin disclosure with your source that they understand that risk that they're taking on as well as being aware of the risks you'reg taking on. of i think that those conversationk in the past couple years have probably, need to have a much more detailed conversation withe sources about that kind ofd disclosure has gone up the past couple years. up they're probably risking jail

time and other penalties and they should know that.il it's part of the journalist lti. responsibility to make sure thaa the source is aware of the riskn that they're taking.si >> i think i would agree with both of you that best practices, making sure that your editors cs are behind you, and the only e thing i would add is more of a cheerleader point which is keep doing it. i mean i think that what inspires me about jim horizon he is did not come to me and say, t you know what? i would actually like to cover, you know, the agriculture kno department now. i just wanw,t to do something different. he remained in the thein realm national security. r he continues to break stories. he's hampered but he is still in the game.ham i think that sends a tremendous signal to the people who want to show his reporting. wan it also sends a tremendous portn signal to other peopleg. that dm that kind of reporting.