life. >> i would say that working with schools and the policies schools have has been really important for me. everything from how they handle a young person who doesn't have the traditional like social ties. who doesn't have -- i mean, i transferred high schools five times. and i don't think i had the same math classes any two semesters that we're supposed to be in. is and standards changing from district to district to district and where you are changing between that, it was very difficult for me to have a ground line or baseline. so everything from how they handle that kind of establishing baseline to how they handle the things like break housing and how they handle resources like

getting food, getting employment opportunities, those were all very important to me. >> and i just want to say that it is extremely difficult to look past the adults in our lives. because as i mentioned earlier in my speech i didn't have any support in my family and i was raised my community members in washington d.c. and they weren't even family. so when they were raising me i just took a look at how successful they were. and i've always just wanted to be in that circle of success. every time i'll see mr. george and he was just established and he was always there for us. but he did it for over 20 years and that is how dedicated he was. that kept me going because i didn't want to disappoint them. and for me to let them down, for them to put in the effort to help me and for me to just give up. it wasn't worth it. it wanted to make them proud.

so i was like i want to be just like that. i wish i was as great as you are. leadership starts a the top. so then who you look up and that's what keeps me going today is a lot of successful people in the room and just success period. because i'm so hungry for it to the point that it's going to keep me going regardless. >> i would like to say one of the things that really kept me moving throughout this process and my experiences was, again, the fact that i was able to access these resources without worrying about what people thought about me or how they perceived gender, sexual orientation, anything like that. that it was just a clear, open program for folks who whoever needed to access it. they didn't ask where you came from how you became homeless, whether your sexual orientation is. all those things were eliminated so i could keep my mind focused on my goals instead of figuring

out exactly what i want to be. which i still haven't done yet. so that was the main thing for me just to keep me pushing because it was one less thing to worry about while trying to get off the street. >> thank you so much. are there -- yes. >> generationed unite ed eds united. i'm wondering for those of you that were estranged or separated from extended family if there were any particular resources that would be helpful at repairing, healing those connections or building connections to maybe extended family that are far away that might be supports and resources to you. >> well i would like to say that as far as the extension and reaching out and having resources, facebook was pretty big for me. because i wasn't in contact with any of my family members.

and social networks is big. i used facebook and instagram and put my graduation invitation out to my friends and asked if they can repost my story to find my family for graduation and the story went viral. and unfortunately my family wasn't able to come but two weeks later the story kept on going. and i got in contact with my cousin and she put me in contact with my sisters and i came to d.c. actually and a couple days ago for this event and actually in the process of seeing some of my sisters and nieces and nephews i haven't even met yet. so social network is very big when trying to reach out to extended family. >> in my experience, i found that when talking to families about different situations, just having conversations about lgbt issues about different barriers

what young people have to go through in order to survive on their own is just enough to at least open peoples minds to what's really going on. for me personally there was a movie that i found about a year and a half ago called "a fish out of water." that move just like watching it with friend and watching it with family to break down some of the more religious barriers found in like the communities that i belonged to was very very helpful. >> i by no means came from a small family and my mom was the youngest of nine. i do have multiple aunts and uncles who i am aware of and i am connected with, but who were in similar situations or were otherwise unable to help. i believe two or three of her siblings also were homeless. they have had addiction issues. i think at that point it's almost worth wooil to as everybody is here today to do support young people to that

when we are older and with our own families that we're not surrounded with the same situation and unable to support our own families. >> thank you. >> i'm ruth white with the national center or housing and child welfare in covenant house international. i want to thank you for the extreme generosity you show in sharing your stories with us. and hopefully that will move the ball policy wise and when you are in office, i'm help you work on your campaign or whatever. actually my question is for mark greenberg. i'm wondering what the timeline or plan at hhs for instituting something like the money follows the person program that medicaid has for disabled adults. we're here to make sure the run away and homeless youth act gets passed and it's ridiculous that

hasn't yet passed. so let's accelerate the timeline. in reality it's a lot of money. any kid under the age of 18 in the united states is entitled to services. and it doesn't have to be foster care. especially for lgbt kid that might not be the appropriate setting. maybe youth care. not night ministry. maybe it is your own apartment because the money should be also used to subsidize rent. and in states you can stay into foster care until you are 21 the money should follow you right to college. i'm wondering how flex ebl they are in getting the word it. the federal entitlement at age 1. and you know what you should be able to live with your grandma if it's appropriate but if it's not you should never be turned away. you should still get the federal entitlement dollars. >> so thank you.

we think that there is much more that needs to be done in strengthening coordination between the foster care system and the run away and homeless youth system. it is absolutely clear when we talk to providers across the country. this is just a recurrent theme in those conversations within acf, the part that has responsibility for foster care, the children's bureau and fisb has been involved in active conversations which are going to be leading to -- the technical term is information memoranda that would be going out to child welfare hajss and run away and homeless youth providers on a whole set of issues related to stronger coordination. so that will be forthcoming but let me just invite my colleague, is there anything else you want

to say on that. >> no that was very comprehensive. hopefully by the conference in november we'll have something that's already been disseminated to you. that information memorandum. >> i also want to say with the $150 million to be honest we need the programs to keep being funded so that we can have more successful youth. we're just three people. and there are extremely more than three people who have goals and aspirations they can't achieve because of the money. my situation that i couldn't go to high school and i needed to earn my ged to go to college. not all colleges accept geds but i was able to get into a four year year private school who did. i couldn't be honored for a four year ride or scholarship because of i got any ged.

and i believe that some of that money should also not help get the youth homeless there but to also keep them there. >> i'd also like to point out that you mention there is the discrepancy between foster youth and homeless youth. and i believe i'm speaking for all three of us. that even though we were all under 18 when we became homeless, none of us was eligible for the foster care, which may have followed us into the college and may have followed us into adulthood. i think that double reemphasizes the necessity of having a common definition or some way to define whose and whose homeless and whose and whose not eligible to receive those funds. >> so before we go to maureen before that would anybody on the panel like to ask a question? cindy, would you like to ask a question of the youth? >> well there is always a map of

how to. and a lot of things it is a mentor that helps you navigate through the system. the system is vast and very confusing, to me. and i'm a grown up. but for a kid once you get a-b-c, that reps right. it is like a map. that's what you've been saying over and over again. like a map. but the foster system i have heard the from kids of lgbt youth that the foster care system was sometimes they were -- most of the time they were with very abusive people. and they couldn't figure out which was worse, what they ran away from or what they wound up in. that is a main concern for me about you kids being on the

street. and maybe you could tell them about that. maybe you could. >> so honestly i do -- i was not a part of the foster care system myself. however a lot of folks i've come in contact with and a lot of the folks i still talk to to this day have dom from the foster care system. and the foster care system is basically set up just as home situations are. you still have folks who do not understand young people. you still have folks who are not willing to change their thought process around lgbt issues. basically what with the foster care system like there needs to be more intentionality about who becomes foster parents. >> that's right. screening. different screening. >> there needs to be some type of the lgbt competence training if you are going to take in an lgbt young person. because if you don't understand

a wide variety of things, then there would be no point of you further endamaging this person's life. just to be honest. >> thank you so much maureen. last question. >> -- with the national run away safe line and i want to thank the panelists. especially cyndi and the young people. we help people get to safety or away from their families. if you were aware of our services would there be obstacles or reasons you wouldn't reach out? >> one of the obstacles off the top of my mind would be where do i get the access to internet and/or a phone to call? because pay phones don't exist like they used to. so calling toll free numbers is kind of not a thing that can happen anymore. so it's just where would i be able to use the internet or where would i be able to use a

phone in order to call to figure out where these services are. >> anybody else like to respond to that? >> i would say too that i don't think the barrier would be communicate or reaching out. i think sometimes in experiences that i've had, when i reach out to certain groups or individuals, a certain solution will be proposed. like one of the myths that you brought up, like oh why don't you just go home. and it's difficult when you are a young person whose reaching out to someone for help and they are proposing solutions like this to explain the whole situation or to kind of justify your reasoning, when you really just are looking for a safe place to go. so i think that would be one thing to focus on. is when a young person like, say this is won't work to not go into the details of why not. like just to move on. >> and to add that to. we need adult there is our lives to be honest. we definitely can't do it alone.

and we need adults who are understanding. and we have a lot of people in the crowds today listening to our stories. ski just don't hope that you guys just walk away. and i know some of you are here for policies and what not. but please, you know be there for the kids struggling and who want to succeed. because a lot of us don't know where to turn. and if it wasn't for my mentors and supporters i wouldn't even be here today with this panel with the others. so it is extremely important for adults to take role as well. >> and one last thing i would like to add is that a lot of times when those type of places are contacted by young people, there is this life road map that is set up for them. a lot of times young people are at a point where it's just like i need this one basic thing. i'm at this moment in time i may not be thinking about going to college or right now i may not be thinking about whatever you have set up. right now i just want to lay down for the night. so if you just offer those

things that young people are asking for and then move forward that will be the best strategy ever. >> thank you so much for your youth panel. [ applause ] and thank you so much for other speakers as well as our guest audience for coming today. if you want to join us in this challenge and fight to end youth homelessness. please go to youth homelessness dot acf.hhf.gov. thank you all for coming.

approximate i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of folks who think this might be helpful. but it is my team whose at the table. we're steeped in this stuff day in day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on this stuff for five six seven years. we consult closely with allies like the yungted kingdom in making these assessments. and i'm asking congress to hold off because our negotiator, our

partners those who are most intimately involved in this assess that it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving -- providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems that we've faced in a very long time. and congress needs to show patience. . i said to my democratic caucus colleagues that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk and i will make this argument to the people as to why i'm doing so. and i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. and i think that is worth --

worth doing. we'll see if how persuasive i am. but in i'm not persuading congress, i promise you i'm going to be taking many i case to the american people on this. >> the news conference lasted over an hour and also covered terrorist threats and the economy. you can see the entire briefing tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. president obama heads to capitol hill tuesday for the annual state of the union address before a joint session of congress. we'll have live coverage of the speech.@5zp

the wilson center gathers the diplomatic report of north korea's former communist allies. and these are papers of the former communist-blocked diplomats that were based and that we're writing. we do this for a couple of reasons. number one, we do it to advance our historical knowledge. but we also do it to get a better understanding of the sources of north korean conduct and to identify -- or to really help to inform policy. by identifying the long-term trends in policies. but the thing with these documents is that there's a reoccurring theme in many of them. and that's, you know, you have these former communist diplomats

writing in north korea from their embassies. and they're all talking about, you know, the difficulty of gathering information. north korea intentionally kept even its allies, its fraternal communist allies in the dark. and, you know, it was incredibly difficult informing their foreign ministry what was going on in the country with domestic politics or foreign relations or economic developments. i was talking to one former east german ambassador. and he likened it to you pick up pebbles here and there and assemble it and try to, you know, and hope that sort of a mosaic of some sorts or a picture emerges. so there are real challenges. and the good thing for these

former communist diplomats are they have ways of getting around this. ways of get e dealing with their isolation and the challenges of getting information. they had each other. they shared notes with one another. so we have reports, then, where you have ambassadors that are meeting regularly and describing the contents of their meetings with north korean officials and they're describing what they've observed and their interpretations. this is something that makes the job of a historian working on north korea today much easier. i don't envy journalists because they don't have the benefit of writing on diplomatic issues when dealing with contemporary issues. unlike the diplomats who were,

nonetheless, isolated, you wrnts fraternal or ied logical allies. what this means, then, is that you were perceived as being, you know, from hostile nations which, you know, of course, presents a major challenge. the other challenge is, as a historian, while they compared notes with one another, i get the sense that, you know, from journalists, because of the competition to get scoops on north korea, you don't really compare noets a whole lot. so, correct me if i'm wrong. but so there's a real challenge then. you have a country that's enshrouded in this thick cloud. how do you mind that cloud for stories? and how do you do that credibly and responsively.

so to help us look at some of these challenges of reporting on north korea, we have, like, a great or a stellar panel of journalists and analysts of north korea. we have jean lee who is the former bureau chief for the associated press. she opened the bureau in pyang yung. she is the alicia paerson foundation fellow. we have paul eckert for thomas and reuters who spent over 20 years working on korea and japan. on east asia. we have chad o'carroll who is

the director and founder of nk news. we have mr. ikang duk, or kang duk lee who is the washington correspondent for the korean broadcasting system, kbs. and we have dr. supko shin who is the washington correspondent for the daily newspaper. we're going to start -- i'm going to ask each of you to, in three or four minutes, just make an opening statement describing what you think are the -- how you perceive these -- what are, for you, the greatest challenges to reporting, to it writing on north korea. so what -- you know, what are the challenges, the pitfalls and the problems then reporting on north korea. j jean? >> well, first, i'd like to commend the university and the wilson center for including this topic in today's forum.

i imagine most of us here today either disseminate information about neurologic or get information about north korea. so it's good to step back and look at the coverage. so i'll just make a couple of points to keep in mind as we carry out this discussion. i would just like to say that i am -- i can't under estimate the impact that the internet has had on coverage in general in journalism. i'm old enough to remember the day when i worked at a newspaper and we had one deadline at the end of the day, so we had all day to work on a story to confirm information. that's certainly not the case today in this 24 hour news cycle with cable tv and internet and smartphones where everyone expects to get the news that very moment. site doesn't leave us a whole lot of time to verify information. so sometimes some of the accuracy comes at the expense of

demand and speed in today's environment. there's the rise of citizen journalism. the emergence of online blogs so anybody with a computer and internet access can become an expert on a topic or call themselves a journalist sometimes without the training and understanding of ethics and standards that come when you do an apprenticeship in traditional journalism. so we're seeing a slipping of standards in journalism today. and i should remind you that journalism is a business. the pressure these days, especially with the internet, people expecting to get information for free is sometimes very high on journalists to entertain rather than educate because to be frank, entertainment brings in a lot more money than stories that educate. so this is something that we face as well when it comes to

demand and the type of news that sells. and now, of course, all these challenges that we're facing in being a journalist today is compounded when it comes to north korea with the very basic challenge of access on north korea. on top of these demands from duce 24 hours news around the clock we got the basic problem of getting into north korea. the freedom house think tank publishes a global survey on press freedom, and north korea comes in every year at the very bottom. this is an incredibly difficult country to get into. over the past six years since i've been posted at asia there have been four official media junkets to north korea, maybe five. so very few opportunities for foreign correspondents to get into the country legally, i should say. and so that's the basic problem

of access so that does make it very difficult for us. on top of that the north korean regime and government has not produced or published statistics. it makes it extremely difficult for us to obtain information and verify information and sometimes we just don't have the time or the resources. some journalists just don't take the time or have the resources to follow up on some of those details to provide the kind of accurate reporting that i think is really important in coverage of north korea. so in any case, i hope you can keep some of those points in mind and we can also discuss what he can do, how you as readers should look at this information critically and what you can do to help journalists understand the country and provide better coverage. >> thanks, jean. paul. >> thank you, jean for kicking us off. i want to commend the wilson center's archival project. it's not current events. if you were interested in following the pattern how north korea was working even back in

the late '50s early '60s on nuclear capability, documents are there. some patterns of behavior that repeat themselves. jean hit the nail on the head on a lot of issues facing journalism in general and foreign journalism i won't repeat but maybe expound. the news hole for north korea is small unless it misbehaves dramatically or somebody crazy shows up there like dennis rodman or there's a celebrity aspect which, you know, seems, to me lamentable after doing scholarly work on north korea and that's the driver. in a business sense eyeballs are eyeballs and maybe in the larger humanitarian sense, more attention to north korea is a good thing in the long run. i don't know. the jury is still out on that. the access issue, of course,

drives you crazy because i have not exclusively but i've covered north korea off and on since the early '90s. i got my start in journalism out in tokyo and if you're working for a news agency in japan in the '90s before south korea relaxed some of its policies you were kind of a de facto pulse taker on north korea media because it was illegal to monitor it in south korea. but they tended to under the sunshine policy era of the late '90s -- reuters we shifted our north korea tending operations from tokyo to seoul right around the time of the sunshine policy,ht and it was always before that very cumbersome because you would have in addition to whatever you did in japan in your coverage, whether it be, you know, military or political, social, you always had to keep an eye on the pulse if something

were to happen in north korea and one of the things that happened on my watch in tokyo was the death of the first founding leader and that was before the internet. so you were kind of one of the voices, you know you chose your words very carefully because you were kind of the world's, one of the world's views on north korea, one of the formative views. the access question is, of course, north korea -- i remember even when there was sort of good news something to celebrate about north korea. i was rubbing shoulders with a north korean diplomat in beijing and i said this would be a good opportunity to invite some journalists in. he just laughed at me, that knowing laugh ain't going to happen. funny that you still think that might happen. there's that. the access is no picnic even here in washington with people who deal with north korea, the sensitivity, the nature of things. we are not in a period of intense crisis between the united states and north korea

right now and we haven't been for quite a while, at least since the nuclear test of 2013. so there's not that intense spotlight on u.s./north korea when there has been. when that spotlight shines brightly that's the hardest time to get information on this side of the pond. and i think in all of the countries that you consider players on north korea, if you can just consider the six-party opponent, countries russia and china, their in pyongyang media but their awol but their media functions differently. russia had great linguists under the soviet union and became experts and some of those people we talked to. but they don't really -- it's not like there's a collective weight they've pull but you're operating in absence in any kind of leads and other sort of potential sources to follow. the case in china, china is much

more relaxed about the press than north korea which isn't saying much, not very relaxed. when you work and cover social issues and all but high politics in china, you do have a local media that addition into things, within limits. they do on environmental or social issues, sexual issues. so there's somewhat of an open book. north korea does practically known of that or zero that i know of. so they are not even sort of a component to that coverage. i will say that, again, it's not unique to north korea. i mentioned, you know, north korea is on one extreme end but in terms of hostile working conditions we now know there's worst places to be caught as a journalist than north korea from those unfortunate videos that have circulated in the past half year. so to keep things in perspective. as i was remarking to a friend in the audience earlier, the monarchy of thailand is impossible to cover from that

country, burma until recently, myanmar was not -- was best covered from outside and only covered from the outside. so there's a spectrum of this and north korea does sit on that one extreme end. i'll close there with that because there's a lots of threads we can pull on. >> thanks. i agree with what jean and paul said. north korea has a disproportionate amount of interest from the general public. if you view north korea news you'll find five times as many more articles as ivory coast needs. ivory coast is one country that allows north korea, has much more open information environment. journalists are freer.

there's more interest in north korea. part of that is because the general public -- because of its access issue tends to look at north korea sometimes as if it's the moon. another planet. that in turn drives a push for sensationalism and mainstream journalists that don't cover north korea that often. that's one issue. we have a big challenge with small stories that just echo chamber into extremely sensational tabloid nonsense very quickly which even get traction from quite prestigious outlets. so that's one thing. access is another. in a different way to the way jean and paul have said. so we specialize in only north korea. we do it day-to-day, which is in the slow summer days of august can be very, very difficult. you know, we are really struggling sometimes to find leads for stories to do something original and it's those times when personally it does get to you and you just

wish this could be a bit more of a normal country and access and get in and interview various people and find leads for content. that's something that troubles me a lot. and it's something in the long term if we can't resolve well, i think, drive good journalists away from the subject because they will just find to it be such a challenge to continue working on. the other thing which has been alluded to is we have an issue, a difficulty with reports from north korea that it's quite unique to international relations. so we often hire south korean nationals, be they interns or staffers in seoul and we actually have a problem with quite a high turn over rate with these people because oftentimes

they will apply for the jobs, start very eager and within two or three weeks be getting quite a lot of pressure from friends or family not to continue this because of the national security act in south korea and it can be a challenge to access north korean propaganda. there's fear sometimes in families that doing this kind of work will make you a target. there's rumors of spies, north korean spies in seoul and just makes it difficult. yeah, the other difficulty is doing it on such a specialist basis, we rely on our users to provide us the bulk of our revenue and we operate on a very shoestring budget as i know a lot of the other specialist providers in south korea. that's an issue for the media long term again. if we can't pay quality journalists reasonable salaries they will drift to other subjects. and, again, that's going to be a problem for maintaining high quality journalists in this field in the long term.

>> we have covered north korean news, and every day we are doing news on north korea. i have to confess in this podium, i made a lot of error as editor and as reporter -- we can't help make some mistake. everybody talking about the access issue. there are limitations from north korea, the person mentioned

about the difficulty of north korea. if we think about north korea and then closed nature of north korea it's very difficult to make a mistake to cover the north korea news. be the important thing is the correction. when we make["b a.+p4ñ mi0vñi"aûn÷spm we have to make a follow-up on the information and news and then sometimes we can find the solution on the news. so even though this forces us to make a mistake when we cover north korea, much more time to make a quick correction on the news and also i want to make one more issue.

intentional providing false information from certain suppliers. they belong to some think tank or some media or whoever, sometimes they are providing the false information intentionally. so maybe they are aiming to get some money or fame, but those kind of actions, some kind of a criminal thing. so as a journalist and then traditional media we have to be

very cautious on that kind of activities. so as a journalist, it's human nature for us to make some mistakes. as i mentioned, quick correction and then caution against the intentional providing of false information. it's a very difficult thing for us, we have to think about that very carefully. that's my comment. >> thank you. sukho shin has written a book about the problem or the problems of reporting on north korea. if you could hold it up if you like. a little bit of promo.

he calls this, the problem, division journalism. but how do you define that? tell us what you -- the thesis of the book. >> thank you. i have been covering north korea for 12 years since 2002. i think i did a good job -- [ laughter ] and sometimes i made mistakes. in 2010 i confessed in my column some of my mistakes in our paper. after that got some comments, that was very good. you are very brave. so i developed the column and i published a book published in

2012 just before i came to washington, d.c. as a correspondent with my company. it has not been translated in english, but english name would be "overcoming the bad journalism on north korea," maybe. not divisive journalism but bad journalism on north korea, i think. in this book i opined what is bad journalism on north korea is and studied it. what are the causes. and then what is to be done to overcome it? as per the definition of bad

journalism, i think like that. my fellow journalists, inside and outside of south korea are striving day and night to get information and facts what is going on in the sacred kingdom. from time to time we can find some articles or reports which is partially correct or incorrect, inaccurate, unfair, from certain sources. we can see too much guessing, and we can see politically tainted information. and lots of whisper thinking. and then over blame or offer

beautify on north korea and kim jong-un. and maybe there will be inadequate quotes from inadequate pundits. that is my definition of bad journalism. yeah. for now i will -- >> thank you. i suspect you're going to have a lot just to feed off from one another. but sensationalism, the word came up. we do see a lot of sensationalism in reporting on north korea. you know, the recent 40 day disappearance of kim jong-un was, i mean, really -- it was a trying time for people that do study the country to see so many reports coming out with just

these really sensationalist claims or reports. is this a result of the lack of information? information? well, chad, you said that north korea is seen as being the moon. for me i say that there's this general impression that north korea is unknown and unknowable, and so people feel that they can -- i guess the standards of ethics of journalism go out the window a lot of times in some reports, but in some reporting on north korea. and there's a lot of sensationalism in the reporting. >> going to that example, speaking on that example, the problem is every once in a while there's a kernel of truth to these rumors. for that reason -- for example

when kim jong-il died. how long was it before the world knew? >> it was a long time. >> maybe two days. >> was it two days? >> yeah. >> so likewise. when there is a gap you can't help but speculate and wonder what is happening behind closed doors. and so in the case of kim jong-un's disappearance for 40 days you can't help but speculate what's going on behind closed doors. sometimes there's a kernel of truth behind these rumors the media is sometimes required to speculate or address that issue. >> but, ap and reuters run a pretty tight ship on those matters and separate opinion from fact and don't generally print speculation unless they identify it no one knows for sure, diplomat says this, but in

russia they are saying this. the problem comes at the next level where people aren't really so much reporting on north korea but assembling stories about north korea for websites over to chad. >> yeah. when you talk about kernels of truth rings true. this example some of you will be familiar with. it shows absurd levels, disappearance of 40 days. we had a situation, if you remember, it started around day 20 people were asking where kim jong-un was. there was rumors that he was having health issues. bizarrely about six or nine months before there was a report about cheese imports into north korea and specifically from switzerland with emental. i'll read the report. kim jong-un has vanished from the public after binging on emental cheese it has been claimed.

as the rest of the country starves he's ballooned in weight. eats so much cheese he developed a limp. i can go on and on. there was nuggets of truth. but the fact that it's acceptable in outlets like "the washington post," "international business times" based on the loosest claims shows some of the serious challenges that we're facing in terms of north korea. yeah. it led to other ramifications, more serious ones with people in d.c., from new focus, when that disappearance happened there was a conference held with senior exiles and coincidentally they talked that kim jong-un wasn't

really in control. a journalist saw that and saw kim jong-un was missing, it was a perfect pretext to lead to headlines leading natural there was a coup. those started echoing around d.c. a lot of experts started to get drawn into this. sorry. specialist watches. but it really -- it did -- i would say it did focus a bit on reputational damage because they happened to have their theory emerging at the wrong time and all these coincidences conjoined with kim jong-un's disappearance

and people incorrectly assumed there was a coup. >> i was at that conference. what was being said -- i mean the theory was there, but what really came out, to me at least was that this organization and guidance department served as sort of the guarantor of ideological purity. it's not that you have the shadowy organization controlling things but they are the ones that are guaranteeing that diplomats, that all party officials, everyone in the party adhere's to the ten points of the monolithic ideological system and they are following the party line. that was what really emerged the conference. but this idea being pushed then gave these interviews where he elaborated on things that sort of expand upon an idea that really didn't come out from the

broader group of participant, the exiles that participated in that conference. i was on a panel where i was asking them, what is the role of this ogd, if you're saying they are in control, do they play a real function in the formulation of foreign policy because the panel i was on was ogd and foreign policy. the diplomat i was asking this question to no they just make sure diplomats tow the party line. to see that and go to the extreme that it did, where, you know, they are taking this and saying kim jong-un is not in control and ogd is really in power was shocking to me. >> dr. shin, i would note he has a ph.d. in north korean studies and not the only south korean

with a ph.d. on north korea. so they put in their time. he mentioned the expression inadequate pundit which is kind of funny at the risk of being one myself on this panel. it struck me as very eye-opening the last round of nuclear tests which were the first under kim jong-un, suddenly there were 50 more north korean experts being advertised by their universities, media departments than i ever remember in the circle of people i ever quoted in 15 years. you know, these people were accredited academics but when you look at their actual north korea it was maybe one was a part time diplomat at the cato organization for a while and then he kind of turned that into something. some of them were more insightful. these were people i never heard of and expounding on north

korea. we don't rely heavily on those folks by any means. >> here's a question about credibility. how do you verify the credibility of sources and like in this case with john and, you know, recently we've had the reports of -- the reports of kim jong-un having died while on the phone or having had a stroke and while on the phone arguing with kim jong-un about the execution of her husband. the first question that popped in my mind how does this guy know? i don't know who it was. was he still in the country at the time? what was his role? all you are hearing is that this person is reporting and that's fact. >> i think sourcing and attribution is an incredibly important to this whole discussion. and i'll explain why we get, we have these stories that are

based on rumor. standard is quite different for reuters and ap and other mainstream big news organizations than in south korea maybe you can explain to us what the standards are for sourcing and attribution. generally speaking you want to have two sources for any story and generally want to name them. because if you don't name source they can't be held accountable and if they ask not to be named after much discussion because i think we're very reluctant to publish somebody as an anonymous source we have to explain why it they've requested anonymity. we have to explain how it is they are privy to that information. you have to fine another person to back up that information. now if you look at a lot of stories that are published by north korea they do not meet that standard.

unfortunately what happens in south korea, it's a very competitive market. they are very quick. so many news outlets in south korea and very quick to put information out often with one unnamed source. doesn't explain how they got that information. unfortunately what happens there's so much pressure for foreign news outlets to pick up that information and cite the south korean news organization as the source. i want goes around the world. the echo chamber effect. nobody knows what the real source was. it becomes obscured inside the echo chamber. sourcing and attribution are very important. it's one thing i ask as well. who said this? how now this? who has verified it? >> on that echo chamber, i was sharing the story with you yesterday, i think. i remember when they were first talking about succession which son it would be. they are going back and forth. i think two papers in south korea reported different things. one said kim jong-nam, the other said kim jong-un. then somebody in washington at an event said we're receiving reports that kim jong-un is

going to succeed. then the very next day you see in the south korean press u.s. experts saying that kim jong-un is going to succeed. anyways. dr. shin or mr. li if you want to comment. >> i discussed this issue with expertise on north korean issue, we can't escape from the false reporting even on the succession of the sons or tests or disappearance of kim jong-un. i think on the issue, the mainstream media in korea didn't make much of a thought on this issue. maybe some journalism like a

private writer, they write some on this issue than other media -- and then the kind of rumor going around. but then we report on kim jong-un's disappearance. in korea we have to talk with the government official who can have more access to north korean information. first the state that can be a

serious problem. he'll appear in some days. we'll be more patient on the news. so i remember kbs didn't make a mistake on the news didn't make a false report. with patience and then with little bit of more discussion with government officials, i think we can escape some false report. >> i was just going to say and jean raise it as well. in proper news organizations there's no excuse for suspending standards just because it's north korea. they might have done it kind of thing. you have a personal reaction, you know, when the uncle was executed and quickly fed to the

dogs. i don't know that anybody touched it. there was a part of me and maybe jean you felt that way as well. they might have done it because they have done some very demonstrative punishments of at any rate -- traitors in the past. before the internet, when there was a couple of major news wires in the world, you would send -- i bore the sense that i could be the world's first pair of eyes on a given set, be it a plane crash, so i better be honest. being wrong is one thing and he's talking about being wrong because you're being misled or in this competing views that turn out to be wrong themselves. there's a lot of reasons or a lot of factors go into being

wrong sometimes. i want doesn't tend to be let's entertain them with the cheese story. again it's a different world out there. i'll note what jean said calls to mind the whole anonymous issue really after the iraq wmd and the "new york times" problems most media outlets and "new york times" especially took pains to explain in every story almost to the point it burdened the story. this person couldn't comment. the reasons behind not citing the name became very cumbersome. generally media outlets now do explain the circumstances under which they, you know, people cannot be named. >> right. i also want to find out, i want to hear from you about perhaps about the attribution -- >> just to follow up with what

you said. i would disagree mainstream media outlets are part of this problem because of what i see, an example comes straight to mind. kim jong-un had cut being ordered across north korea. now bbc their monitoring service picked that up and gave it a lot of credence by saying in south korea media or south korea media and the problem is that it's maybe they won't use anonymous sources themselves but happily quote whichever outlet it is and republish that and say south korean media said. it seems to me a way for the journalist in question who was putting it together, all the editors to basically washed their hands of responsibility because they can just say well we just transmitting this from another outlet. >> definitely a fair criticism and that's why it takes a good degree of knowledge of what's what within a media.

there's a quality press in south korea and then there's the more fast and loose types. >> on the question of attribution and jean you raised, what are the standards in the south korean press typically? do you quote from anonymous sources and how do you verify the credibility of these sources where, again, with this report about kim jong-li dying while on the phone with kim jong-un. how was this verified. >> there's some difference on north korea to find out if he died or not. it's difficult. nobody knows.

even the intelligence agency doesn't know. so that's another problem. but usually if we check again and again and discuss the issue more openly then we can figure out what is going on and what is correct or what is incorrect. so usually over and over again discussion, that's the main thing. also, i think to make a mistake on north korean news we have a reliable source. we have to have a reliable source and then gives us the news and we have to talk to him and then he can tell us whether it is correct or not.

then we go to another specialist. that's one mechanism to make news on north korea. >> dr. shin, going back inside to korea, what are some of the problems, what are the causes, rather? >> i think it's very timely to quickly wrap up the causes of pundit journalism. i found three main causes. my colleagues already found two. but i have just a new one. i think the main causes, the

main principle about too much concern or too much interest on north korea but too less information or too less fact that journalists can get. because the government don't tell the truth. they think the information is their power. so they use the information, they offer the information when they aren't necessary, not when we aren't necessary, i think. most korean governments also. the second cause, as they said already, the industry as some have already said too much competition between media companies and between reporters.

and too little reporters but too much space on newspaper and too much on tv news to fear. so we have to write or report whatever every day, every night. so sometimes we don't have enough time to verify the fact and cross check. that's the reality. and the north koreans will not argue about their articles, false articles. i want bring. this new subject to -- you know everybody has their own view of

north korea. so do the journalists. so usually the conservatives want to blame north korea, right? and the progressives want to beautify north korea. so when conservative journalists meet conservative authorities or conservative pundit or vice versa, the progressive meet the progressive i think it is likely to overshoot. >> just quick follow up on this from north korea. in the old time there was no newspaper from north korea even though we made a false report

but after kim jong-un took his position -- if we make any report on north korea especially regarding the top leaders and then, you know, one day or two days later they show. that's very characteristic thing over these days. >> they do have the internet. i mean some of them do have the internet and i can tell you they read -- >> does this thread more caution and, you know, in camera reporting or does it not impact

that at all? >> i heard the reporters who cover the ministry. they made some complaint against north korea because north korea made the threat on the reporter. so yeah. those kinds of things happening right now. >> i have a real case about me. in 2012 i remember in the

summer, in august i and my company were the target of north korea's missile attack. they announced we will attack you and your company. at that time the sixth media outlet -- >> cyber attack. talking about attack. i'm not sure they done it or not. but usually it was done, cyber attack done by north korea. >> because three of us have been outsiders, i guess jean -- >> no. >> outsiders covering south korea we can agree with that sharp division of attitude and there's also a temporal factor, the mood of a nation. my time of being assigned in seoul was 2001 to 2004 which was sort of the crest of the sunshine policy and i got a sense that officialdom which was the government they were strongly invested in the success but i thought that sort of seeped into the media that some of the behavior of north korea that could be seen objectively

of killing any sun because there was a little light because the mood of a nation supported it, a sense that there was a peace dividend and a check to be cashed that never came around for north korea and here's the time and that led to a degree of wishful thinking to sort of prop it up while at the same time the mood in japan turned extremely hawkish and here in the united states 9/11 and all -- the access of evil, the mood was hawkish here and some of that discourse although it shouldn't tends to seep into the framing of a story and sort of the template of the coverage even though you still have to do your job and report. but there's a certain, you know, atmospheric and north korea never tends to help itself in those cases. so it can go either way. >> yeah, still today when they talk about north korea you always see the word north korea

preceded by communist state, isolated state. north korea claims it's not communist any more. isolated. well, ambassador was talking about north korea's buddies helped in the general assembly. you see these perjorative terms and the language the national media uses that are unnecessary. i don't see why they need to use those kind of words. >> i don't speak for reuters any more as i left the firm a year ago. i was part of the debate that took place when kim jong-il was still alive whether to call it stalinist. north korea hates it but that's not a reason in itself. it accurate? i remember one senior editor said aren't they beyond the pale and that's okay? my joke at the time well did some descendant of stalin

complain? the fact of the matter is the mainstream media moved away from using it of stalinist. this is a country isolated, impoverished has microbreweries and there's no one size fits all description because we're not in the 1950s. >> i think as american journalists we're always aiming to be as objective as possible in our coverage. apparently except when it comes to north korea and this is when the political aspect starts to affect journalism coverage of north korea. it's a different situation when it comes to how politics affects coverage than in south korea. but in international community i think because north korea by its own actions has really turned itself into kind of a rogue state, that political situation has seeped into the coverage as

well. for a lot. >> i want to ask you about some of the unique challenges to an organization or like nk news, chad where you are reporting on a daily basis. i mean that's everything you do is report on north korea. but you're also working, the people you're working with are not trained journalists. how do you adhere to the same standards and how do you strive to and what are the unique challenges. you do work with a lot of scholars that are not reporting necessarily on a contemporary issues, so there's a variety. i mean ate great resource for, you know -- there's the aggregator portion, there's a lot of great tracking devices that you work with specialists to develop but then also a lot

of reporting on contemporary events but, again not everyone has the same training. what are some of the unique challenges? >> we are aware and as a result we had input from one particular personality he's well-known in the field, he's given us guidance. i wouldn't say we're not up to reuters standard or ap in terms of having the resources for that kind of back and forth editing and having three people looking at one piece before it publishes but we try our best. and, you know, when we get things wrong which we have done in the past, we call it out. we issue a correction. we'll alert people through social media, our daily emails we got something wrong here. but, i would say at the same

time i'm very proud of what we've done because several of our journalists they keep getting posts by reuters, "financial times," kbs. we must be doing something right . in terms of equality. >> my prepared remarks and contrary to what dr. shin was saying about too much there may be too many specialist outlets but in my earlier remarks i was going to mention nk news as part of the future in what they are doing at this early stage because presumably they will grow and be valuable but also that there's just a crop of young 20 something, younger generation of north korean watchers, korea watchers, they learn their korean and train as korean specialists and then work in journalism.

the outside world certainly needs a lot more of that. for korea -- for south korea itself as a vibrant economy of a u z -- i'm going to ask that you wait for the microphone and then identify yourself.

>> i have a question for gene and a separate question. the question for gene if you could basically share some of your tactics and skills you used in your information finding and your verification that you used in journalism and reporting in general. as we, and those of you not journalists in the room welcome there are ways to verify your information. you can go to can you go to primary sources or roundabout way and there's many

ways you can go about it. but you mentioned the whole two source verification for reporting. on a country like north korea did you find yourself having to develop different skills or different tactics to try to get a second confirmation on more sensitive facts not just cultural. so aside from just on the merits of being on the ground in north korea if there were differences or similarities in the skills and tools you used in your information gathering. and my question to the doctor, you speak to practically everybody, people of all different capacities and rules when it comes to north korea, with it's government and think tanning. i have a question about think tank experts and mr. lee you talked about supplying false information and false assessments. if you could offer a suggestion now that i'm a think tank and this provides to me too, if you could offer a suggestion to

north korean experts in washington, d.c., perhaps if there's as you're reporting you hear everybody's assessment if there's gaps you noticed in their understanding, different experts see north korea with a different lens for whatever reason they do, is there something -- is there a lens or something about north korea understanding that you wished some american north korean experts new or had and perhaps make their assessment either more accurate or well-rounded for example or if there's a suggestion or certain area of north korea that you wish think tank experts in d.c. could work on or something that they are missing, something that if these people knew fact x about north korea i think their understanding of north korea might be better or more whole? >> all right, thanks. >> just on that point regarding north korea, i'll let him answer that question as well, but i

would encourage experts to speak to people who go in and out of the country so you have a better understanding what the situation is on the ground because looking at north korea from the outside can often be very different than looking at it from inside the country. i'm not sure i want to divulge all the secrets to you how it is i got my stories, by the way. but i would like to say any good journalist whether inside the country or outside the country will get the story if they develop the right sources and a lot of times journalists don't have the time or make the time or don't have the resources to reach out to the people who have the knowledge and the information to verify certain pieces of information or give them certain pieces of information. but it's extremely important, obviously, to be talking to people in various cities around

the world, in various fields and practices to develop the kind of relationships so that they know to trust you, and that you know to trust their information. so i spend a lot of time doing that both before i started working in north korea and afterwards. >> thank you. actually for me the second question is too difficult for me to answer and i believe dr. lee will. but i would like to answer the first question because i prepared for that. so actually the book is the ten solution of what should to be done to overcome pundit journalism. i think journalists to deal with north korea have to study, have to think about the north korea. we have to be a professional not only journalism for north korea. that's why i studied north korea and earned a ph.d. on north korean studies and having this seminar here today.

then after being a reporter who had studied north korea seriously i can find ten ideas to make content while preserving the principles. so i will quickly read just title, the ten titles. maybe it would be helpful for you all. just quickly the ten titles. one is basic. cross check. cross check. cross check. when we cross check the information we can get more information in doing so. and the second, major from north korea. for example, we can make a

graph, graph with the data that north korea opens. third, cover north korea directly, like we have to visit, and we have to interpret from the northen korean zone. fourth, utilize the resources from the society from academic, or social sinuses or something like that. and the fifth fact-finding in the past, the woodrow wilson centers, nkied project, which was my treasure ship for

scooping, so i made lots of scoop in the under, in this document. and sixth is making network of intellectual supporters and seven thr making international sources. that is why i'm here as a correspondent, washington correspondent for three years. the eighth, a news gathering in-depth propaganda image from north korea. yeah, we can find some hidden information in the photos, in the movies. they gave us through the footage on tv, i think. i have some success stories in my book, several, and ninth, persuade with my own experience. it is very persuasive. and the last, provide my own

opinion. the ten methodologies with these tactic, we can report a lot, preserving the previous. >> let me ask, mr. lee, before you respond to the question. did you do the special -- are you two unique in that you've really specialized in an area? i guess, my impression of the field of journalism is that it's in some ways like diplomacy. i was talking about ambassador king earlier today and i asked him about a former colleague of mine who we were studying korean together, she invested a number of careers studying korean and is now in pakistan.

in the field of journalism -- in the u.s., can you really specialize in one area to the extent that is being suggested? >> it varies by organization and policy. in the case of my basically 19 years at reuters, mostly overseas, there was a five-year limit on a posting, after which you can make an argument to stay, it would be more financial -- you would lose benefits, you had gone loco or something. there is some element of the state department wants to move things around, you don't want someone getting stale on a story, when it comes to a specialized issue, critical languages are involved and also source maintenance in a secretive country, some of our china guys, i say our, reuters china guys have been there for a longer period of time because source cultivation can't be wasted, there's no point sending them to bogota or something like that. it would be wasted. i don't think you do, in a busy

bureau like seoul, in my time, we had the world cup for soccer. we had plane crashes, the usual gamut of industrial disasters, contentious politics. there's the whole economy merits a couple of reporters for an economic news wire. it varies. on the korean media side, they tend to cultivate deep u.s. specialists. >> in korea, some media have some specialized generation, but the number is limited. it is not huge. just a little bit of media has a specialist on north korea, and then -- a lot of think tank in washington, they are doing specially good jobs, the endowment, working in there, they are doing some segments on north korea, so it's very helpful for us to cover the

north korean news and also endowment, working in there, they are doing some segments on north korea, so it's very helpful for us to cover the north korean news and also the -- korea -- u.s. korea institute in size, they usually have one time breakfast meeting in a month, so -- and also they show us a lot of the satellite images, so we can write a lot of those stories with the images. just if i add one more thing or recommendation for the think tank, why don't you invite north korean officials or the professors, academia to the united states. the think tank can appreciate

the united states government for them to invite the north koreans and then that would be very helpful, so that's my request for the think tanks. and also i -- in the first state, i used the long information from the think tank, but i deal them in like the pseudo think tank, agency, there are a lot of agencies who are selling the north korean information for money, so it is

not a near think tank, i mean, some kind of pseudo think tank-like agency. i think one obstacle is you would have to pay for a lot of things and salary. >> should be on the bottom. >> now we're being recorded.

a lot of things we want to invite north korean officials so washington and we can't. so very recently, it was october 21 st, foreign relations had an event with -- it was an official in new york. the north korean ambassadors are not allowed to leave. if you could also please help us, we would love to invite north korean officials to dc. >> yeah, i was outside of the

room welcome do i don't know if you have already handled this one. the question is about the mind-set problems. i mean the idealist problems. the part of the newspapers or any of the media, on the same fact they are always different. directions of writing the articles which make the readers confused. where is this is true on the part of the organization media organization, but it was also on the part of the individual reporters. >> that is an excellent point that dr. shin was touching on

earlier. spending on the ideological end of the paper, it's presented differently. greg? >> thank you some of the panelists mentioned that north korea media reporting as changed under the kim jong-un regime. we remember the media launching horrible attacks because of the sexual orientation. against gender against president obama because he is an african-american. if you have an opportunity to

talk to someone and provide guidance or training, do you get a chance to tell them how insane or how out of whack it is. do you think they understand they might be doing this because they ordered to it might be done for domestic purposes. do you think some of them understand what is going on or understand the basics of international human rights standards? >> going to your earlier point about how quickly they respond as i was saying earlier, they do have internet access in certain quarters including inside kcna. certain people have to have permission to access the internet as we know. but i do have conversations with north korean journalists on a regular basis. i should go back to -- i was going through the ap archives a few years ago in new york, and

they asked me to look through ap's own coverage of the korean war. but instead of referring to them as north koreans it was just the reds. i think they are behind the times in being "pc." but i do have opportunities at times to talk to kcna about their coverage and give them pointers, indeed. i have not talked to them about their descriptions of presidents, but if i get the opportunity, i will try to bring it up.

>> i was called part of the reptile media. a name i am proud of. >> we'll take two. here and then -- >> great, thank you, iris portney, first off, for those based in pyongyang are there any stories that were less difficult to cover than you expected. second, i believe early on in the discussion you were referencing the western media interest. and i'm wondering, were there any nonsensationalist substantive stories that you filed or that friends of yours

working for other organizations filed because you would not want to say something negative about your own editor. that your editor didn't run because there was no interest in that. if that was the case it was possible at times to slip in some substantive background about north korea into, say, a story about dennis rodman? that would be the question on that thanks. >> if you could just pass it the other way, there we go thank you. >> i'm dennis from the u.s. korean institute. last year columbia journaling school, i was in touch with a korean-american, and he said you have to read "the orphan master's son."

i read it. i read about the man that wrote it. i could not see that he spent any extensive time in korea or speaks korean. his bio does not indicate that. i read the parts about the abducting issue. in my former job, i interviewed a mother a few times in tokyo. i don't know if he is psychic. i have been to north korea but not pyongyang, and his description, the pulitzer, how was he able to write that book when we're talking about how hard it was to get access. i know part was his imagination and part had details that were quite perceptive.

>> it was a work of fiction. we should keep in mind, and also i think anyone can write a book based on what is available in north korean propaganda, which is what he did. it is not reflective of what life is look on the ground. >> but novelist have a long history of holding a mirror up and some do it very well. the comments call to mind to the boiling controversy to kim, and her new book. she was criticized by her university employers for having written a book and there is controversy about the details, but her argument and she came out with it today on her website, that for background she

taught it and wrote an account. she is a fairly acclaimed writer. it received a big audience, but people are saying she broke confidentiality, but her point that was you don't get any depth without emersion and you treat it as an emersion project. i think the jury is out on how often that should be done and what risk it entailed for future people going in. compared to what's available, i think it was worth a candle to try to do it that way. >> i think that has been a debate among journalists. if you sign a contract and an agreement, and you break that one of your jobs is to protect your sources. >> she disputes the nature of the contract compared to others. there is other issues that we

don't have to get into here. the teachers here and the motives, but it is a tough question. she is arguing for the greater good. it is an interesting approach. as chad has pointed out and will say again, sometimes it seems like people are just making it up when it comes to north korea and they get license because it's an arcane topic, and the sort of fantastic they liven things up and somehow a lot of sins get covered in that "oh well it's north korea" which should not be the case. >> it is very difficult for outsiders, including south koreans to figure out the picture of north korea.

visitors monitored by north korean officers. and usually we can -- people in north korea. they actually, me and paul, we visited pyongyang in 2001. with the eu, and at the time, we met a lot of people. but the -- not people just -- the group divide north korean. so even though we visited north korea -- but we didn't see the propaganda thing, i think. >> i would add, in reference to your question, we have done surveys where we ask what top ig would you like us to cover more

of. when you put the surveys out, the thing that continues to come back as feedback is people want to know about daily life and culture way more than any other topic. so we have various defectors come in and talk about very mundane aspects. how to have fun. how to date. little stories that i would say can only really be done accurately outside of the country. but yeah, it is encouraging that there is despite the sensationalism, a strong interest in learning about the realities of life on the ground there. >> we could go on and on and on i'm afraid we need to draw this to a close. i want to thank you all for coming here and spending time reflecting on some of these challenges to what you do on a daily basis. so please join me in thanking them.

[ applause ] and thank you for joining us today. and all afternoon. again, one more time thanks time, thanks to kenyon university and ambassador sun for being an excellent partner over the years and for helping us organize this seminar today. thank you.

president obama and british prime minister david cameron pledged a joint effort today to fight domestic terrorism following deadly attacks in paris, france. they also strongly urged the u.s. congress to hold off on implementing new sanctions on iran. prime minister cameron admitted he's been talking to u.s. senators about it, and here's what he had to say. >> the big picture is very clear. the sanctions that america and the european union put in place have had an effect. that has led to pressure. that pressure has led to talks. and those talks at least have a prospect of success. and i would argue with the president, how much better is that than the other potential outcomes? and that is what we should be focusing on. but to answer you very directly, yes, i have contacted a couple of senators this morning and i may speak to one or two more this afternoon. not in any way as british prime minister to tell the american senate what it should or shouldn't do.

that wouldn't be right. but simply to make the point as a country that stands alongside america in these vital negotiations that it's the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and they could fracture the international unity that there's been which has been so valuable in presenting united front to iran. and i say this as someone who played quite i think a strong role in getting europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions including oil sanctions in the first place. and i would simply make this point, that those sanctions have had an effect. and to those who said if you do an interim deal if you even start discussing with the iranians any of these things, the sanctions will fall apart the pressure will dissipate no one will be able to stick at it. that has demonstrably been shown not to be true. so the pressure is still there. and as the president says, if

the iranians say no and there is no deal, then by all means let's sit down and work out what extra sanctions to put in place because we're absolutely united in a simple thought, which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon or military action to prevent it. in the end it comes down to that simple choice. and so i do what i can to help as one of the countries negotiating. sure, i will. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> it's i think the way the president put, it i wouldn't disagree with. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british prime minister in 35 years i think to meet with an iranian president, and it's very hard to know what their thinking is. but there is a very clear offer there, which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and to conclude an agreement with them which would be mutually beneficial. that's what should happen. >> the news conference with

president obama and prime minister david cameron lasted over an hour and also covered terrorist threats and the economy. you can see the entire briefing tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. president obama heads to capitol hill tuesday for the annual state of the union address before a joint session of congress. we'll have live coverage of the speech, but our coverage also will start before 8:00 eastern, as we hear from former house historian ray smock. and to get your input on expectations for the speech. republicans have tapped newly eblthed iowa senator joni ernst to give the party's formal response to the party's state of the union address. senator ernst was elected in november. she is the first woman to represent iowa in congress. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2, saturday night at 10:00, on book tv's "after words," "wall street journal" editor bret stephens argues that our enemies and competitors are

taking advantage of the situation abroad created by the u.s. as it focuses on its domestic concerns. and sunday night at 10:00, democratic representative from new york steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a top secret government surveillance program. and on american history tv on c-span 3 saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on "lectures in history," george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west during the 1830s. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "real america," nine from little rock. the 1964 academy award-winning film about the forced desegregation of little rock arkansas's all-white central high school. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet @c-span

tweet @c-span #comments. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the u.s. supreme court heard a case on free speech and criminal threats in the age of the internet and social media. this case is a test of what the prosecution has to prove to win a conviction in internet threat cases. the oral argument now. this is about an hour. >> you'll hear argument next this morning in case 13983 elonis versus united states. mr. elwood? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the first amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech for a few well-defined narrowly limited classes of communication clearly surmted by history and tradition including what this court has called true threats. the government is -- >> i'm not sure that the court did either the law or the english language much of a good

service when it said true threat. it can mean different things. it mean you really intend to carry it out a. you really intend to intimidate the person. or that no one could possibly believe it. so i don't -- >> that's true. >> we can't fault you for citing what the supreme court has said, but it's a mostly unhelpful phrase. >> and it also doesn't help it was announced in a decision that didn't have the benefit of barrett's briefing or argument. but if you look at the tradition, threatening speech was not punishable by common law, and until the late 20th century american threat statutes required, or were interpreted to require proof of a subjective intent to place the listener in fear, and because of that -- >> that was an assault in common law, wasn't it? if you threatened somebody with violence. and don't actually apply violence it's still an assault, isn't it? >> i think assault is somewhat different because assault can

also be attempted battery bup it's my understanding there is law to the question that assault when it involved placing someone in fear did require a specific intent. >> how does one prove what's in somebody else's mind? in this case the standard was what a reasonable person think that the words would put someone in fear. and reasonable people can make that judgment. but how would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatener was genuine? >> i think two ways. and generally speaking. as we indicated in our brief, in order to prove up these threats which are increasingly made online using a cell phone or a computer, you would have to search the computer or cell

phone to show it was actually used to make these statements. you will also find on there a wealth of information as the court indicated in riley. people conduct their entire lives electronically. >> yeah, you're going to find a lot of information on the cell phone that the guy's really angry at his ex-wife. and would like to see her suffer. and he's going to put it online. and then you're going to say, well, that was just therapeutic as you sit in your brief. it was therapeutic. yes. of course, it shows he was going to do something dangerous. it's a good thing that he had this outlet of the internet so he didn't have to do it. >> but i think the point is there's a lot of information you could find. you could find for example, that he'd visited a web page in which she confide someone else she was in fear. you could prove -- >> how does the fact she's -- i thought your whole point was the fact she's in fear doesn't tell you enough about what the

defendant wants. >> no but if he -- if you can see that he visited a website at the time she was saying i'm afraid of this guy or i'm afraid of what he's saying, you could prove up he knew at the time he was aware -- >> all he has to do is say either as i understood your brief it's therapeutic, it's a good thing i could do this or it's art. >> if he was on notice that she is in fear that is all we're asking for. that if he knows she is in fear, he doesn't have a right to continue on. that is what we view as stating an intent to cause fear. >> could you tell me whether it's your -- i'm sorry. >> could you tell me -- i'm coming a little bit off of justice ginsburg's question. you can infer what a person's state of mind is from the circumstances of how and what was said in