accomplish before he started the war. it cost 4000+ american mice. it cost $1 trillion. i write in my book, and i don't think this judgment will change. it was one of the biggest strategic blunders in american history.>> james man, sunday night at 8 pm eastern on c-span q&a. >> white house correspondence joint presidential spokesman in a discussion on the relationship between the two sides. told stories from administrations president george hw bush through president trump. this is from the white house historical association summit with representatives of presidential historic sites across the country. this is just over an hour. >> to introduce our distinguished panel of presidents in the press, is another very distinguished

journalist and author and director of the white house transition project and a member of the board of the white house historical association, my fillets, logs, and my fellow colleague that we have worked together to bring the summit to life. has been incredibly instrumental and is added to the planning of this including putting together this next panel for which she is perfect to introduce the participants. they've done a great job, haven't they? it's been a super conference.

welcome you to the presidential site summit, we are thrilled to have you join us for the gathering of presidential leaders, and subject to specialist. thank you for supporting our attendance. our subject today is presidents and depressed throughout history. this will feature a moderated conversation with former press secretary, white house association, correspondent former meet the press moderator journalist, and other related speakers. they will discuss the role of media and presidents throughout history. following this panel, judy woodruff the managing editor of the cbs news hour presidential

historian john meacham. the relationship between the president and the press is a crucial one for all of us. when you look at all of the events that the president has where he speaks, looking from president reagan through trump, a third at least of the occasions where he speaks are ones where the president is answering questions from reporters. and so, it is an important relationship for us, simply because of what information we get from them. and from the sessions we have. the relationship is a fraught one, leah roston, who was waiting about rock -- washington correspondence from the roosevelt administration talks about the nature of the relationship, and the way in which it's a contest over

information, the newspaperman motivated by the ancient values of journalism are interested in precisely that type of news which the official, the president, is least eager to reveal. in the final analysis, the press conference reduced itself to a contest, and officials adept at straddling. so the ferreting out straddling is something that you will always see in the relationship between the white house and the press. in 1902, william price, who was one of the first white house correspondents talked about news and get their news. there are some things that have

not changed. as a matter of fact, the new white house is nearly always the result of the newspaperman themselves, there is no getting out of prepared news, their acquaintances with public men all over the country with departmental officials and you can say members of congress which enables them to get the first starter tip. these same fans -- friends, sometimes it is a question of hard digging, as the minor put it, to unravel the story. that is the case, and you can see that in the white house press briefing that sarah sanders has for her predecessors . the reporters are just acting as minors. frank is the director of the school of media and public

affairs curry is one of the planners of this presidential site summit, he was also the spokesperson at the state department before coming to the white house, ron nesson, who was the press secretary for gerald ford, and he was also at the white house correspondent before that, richard benedetto, and columnist ken wallace, who is this correspondent and journalist, and susan page who

works as a journalist and washington bureau chief, she's the author of the soon-to-be published biography of barbara bush called the matriarch. please enjoy this presentation. i know it will be a good one, on the relationship between the presidency and the press, and how communication between the two has evolved, and how it is changed in time, and the way in which it stays the same. >> i will sit here and >> thank you very much martha for that wonderful introduction. i think on behalf of all of us, taking our seats, we want to thank you for what you do, to preserve history, and the connection between presidents and our current occupants of

this great country. i am looking forward to this great conversation, he knows where it will go but mostly we will try to put in context of the relationship, often adversarial, between the press and the presidency. i was listening to martha, when she talks about reporters at the white house, miners digging for information, ferreting out information. it reminded me when i was in a pool covering george hw bush, and he went out for a jog, and the pool went to cover the dog. >> not a swimming pool. >> no, this is the press pool, a small group of people, he is jogging bar, and we were in the middle of a big debate in the country over the budget compromise that he and folks

were negotiating at the time, and there was word that the president was going to flip and raise taxes, write, remember what he had said at the convention, so i screamed, being that minor digging for information, are you going to raise taxes mister president? and as he jogged by, he says read my hips, no new taxes. i thought i did my job that day, don't you? what we want to talk about here is the historical and contextual sense of the relationship between the relationship -- contextual sense of the relationship between the press and presidents. there has always been in adversarial components built in, there should be. but, it has changed over time, so we will talk about that with some reflection on where we are today, but not a focus. not a preoccupation, but as i say to try to contextualize it. so, let me start by going down the line, and asking each person to tell you which president they covered, or

presidents, so we have some historical and biographical information. >> thanks for having us. welcome. as you can see from my beard, on the gray, i started a long time ago. i started in 1986 with ronald reagan during his second term and are covered reagan, george herbert walker bush, bill clinton, george w. bush, barack obama, and today, donald trump, and i'm sure we'll get to this but today is more of an adventure than ever. >> i'm wrong, and i -- i'm ron and nested, and i covered the white house for nbc news, then change sides and became president ford's press secretary. i'm richard benedetto, i covered the white house through george hw bush and bill clinton, and george w. bush. >> i'm susan page, my first campaign was in 1980. i covered president carter's

final campaign trip and then i covered the white house and national politics since then. >> i have served prior -- with presidents clinton for two years at the state department 93 and 94, and then went to the white house in 1995, and i spent four years, which is comparatively a long time, too, for the press secretary to be there, but i had a bonus year in my last year because of a certain intern. >> i remember those days well. as much as we try to forget them, i started covering the white house and the reagan administration, and george hw bush, i was privileged to interview five presidents. so, here we are. mike, let me start with you with this question, and then ask you all to chime in as we have noted there is an often adversarial relationship between the press car and the white house. and, yet, there is also a fundamentally shared objective on both sides, which is to inform and engage the american

people, and the world. the world tunes into this in a very profound way. why is it important, and this is unusual, in places of leadership, the press car is there, they are present on the premises, that the presidency is under such a constant layer. >> i think it goes back to something fundamental about our democracy, which is, we hold those who have power accountable. now, not every american every day can walk down and ask the president, what are you up to today. so, the press is there in effect as a surrogate for all american people. to ask questions that are sometimes uncomfortable. every president going back to george washington chase at the press, they didn't feel like they were getting the flattery and, great coverage.they deserved, so that's been something that has been

relatively common, but i think that every president, maybe until now, has understood that the press is a fundamental elephant -- element of the way in which we protect our democratic process in our country. because of the way in which we scrape out and ferret out the truth about what is happening in our nation. >> susan, from the journalist perspective? >> i'm going to use a lesson i learned from mike, i'm going to answer the question i wish i had gotten. >> that's never happened before. but that is not to say, working on this with barbara bush, i'd done research for presidential libraries, bush 41 and 43, clinton and reagan, i just want to thank the archivists, and others for their fantastic help, that you gave to somebody who didn't actually know what she was doing. it was really helpful, and a great resource for the nation, so, thank you for that. i think it is important to have

people who cover the president every day, who understand what he says is a little different from what he said the day before. great sourcing with people around the president although i think it is also important that people do other kinds of coverage of the white house, you step back and have a broader and more historic perspective, but it is, it is part of our role as envisioned by the founders, to have reporters, a free press, that has -- is watching the president, and holding him or her accountable, in a way that you can only do if you are really there. being there is an important part of doing good journalism. >> ron, you've been the journalist on press secretary, you are certainly there at a time of great tumbled in america, i am interested in how you see that relationship of presidents and accountability. >> reporter: it seems to me that, i was president ford's press secretary, and, it seems to me that, the attention that

we pay -- i don't know exactly how to put this, but it seems to me, that you know, the reporters who cover the white house, i think, they need to, i think, when i was covering the white house, the rule was, let me put it the other way, when i was on the other side, when i was president ford's press secretary, there was a rule to never do anything or say anything you don't want to see on the front page of -- front page of the washington post. i think a lot of our public officials don't understand, that rule today. but, >> tell me a question? >> you know, this balance between press being there, physically, and that sense of

accountability that mike was talking about. >> yes. well, you know, my feeling about it, because as i say, i covered the white house, then i was also in the white house. and, i just felt like, you know, as a reporter, i needed to find out everything i could find out, and pass it on to the american people. and, that is the rule i tried to follow. >> as a print reporter, with different deadlines, then we are accustomed to thinking about today, right, in the world, where to social media and cable television and talk radio all on all the time. do you see that this coverage has changed dramatically, as the velocity of information has increased? >> i think it is interesting the fact that you started off with a lapdog, washed all,

attached dog division, that is a good way to think of this, because, i think we have moved from watchdog to attack dog mostly, now. and part of that, frankly, is that president trump has put us in the position of being the enemy of the american public, as he calls it, fake media as he says. and i know we don't want to draw on president trump, so actually last night i did a little due diligence and look at our history, i wrote a book about this called feeding the beast, we are the beast, the media, that came out sometime ago, but if you look at our history, going back to john adams, with the alien and sedition act, and lincoln and some of his, the prosecution of the media during the civil war, woodrow wilson talk about how shameless and colossal the errors were, constantly in the media, of course, jefferson, after his initial comments supporting the newspapers that turned against the media, anyway, there's a whole history of how this relationship has been very adversarial, but now, i think it has gotten to the

point of, i think a lot of us on both sides aren't comfortable with this, an unhealthy situation, where both sides are on the attack. >> from your book, looking at that as historical content, do you think the notion of access and accountability have changed over time? >> yeah. there's a long history of this. you know, teddy roosevelt took pity on the reporters on his side and allow them space in the white house, that started at the briefing room tradition, a long time ago, even he was critical of the media, roosevelt was very much friendly with the reporters who covered him, but was also at odds with the owners of the newspapers, and editorial writers. i'm sure ron and mike understand how different studies. but even roosevelt, the guy who got very great press, sometimes what he would do is, if he would like a story, he would call the reporter into the office and he would berate the reporter, made from the store,

one time he had a reporter stand in the corner with a dunce cap on and the reporter did it. so there was some difference there. suppose that would be a tough thing to go home after. >> what did you do today, daddy? >> i stood with a dunce cap. >> what about this notion of accountability, then. >> accountability, you know, the american public wants to know a lot of things all the time. we can't provide them with everything, but we try to give them a window into the thinking, and operation of the white house. the presidents want to keep as much information back as possible. we want to get as much information as we think the american public wants. one of the things that is interesting, about today's particular president, but i haven't heard other journalists say this, but i say this, i say if people criticize donald trump

so much, as a journalist you should love it because you get the president thinking every single minute. but you don't get that point >> the difference is you can't challenge that in any way, which is probably -- >> right, that's where the tension comes, because we get the information, he errors his position on whenever it might be at that particular moment, we can't question him directly on that, again, but, nonetheless, we still get a chance somewhere else down the line, to come back with it. so that, whether we like what the president is saying or not, he is getting information, we would wait with other presidents, two or three or four or five days or more to get the president's words on something that was happening. so, as a reporter, you still wouldn't want that. >> mike, as i recall, i think it was when you were in the white house, there were a series of rockwell illustrations of the press and press secretary, in the oval office, and i remember one with

roosevelt sitting at his desk with what looked like fawning reporters gathered around. could you talk about the attack dogs, not lapdog, but there was a very deferential stance, at least that's what it appears, in the pre-watergate time. but i think that was right. i think it was a collaborative effort. >> collaborative. the president of coexisted with the press corps, that was heavily interested, and sometimes heavily invested in telling the president a story, and that began to break apart, i think partly, because of television, because of the changes in technology, and the media itself. and also, because of what we have been talking about, the fact that they had responsibility not to be the propaganda machine for whoever happened to be president at the time, that they were there to hold those accountable,

>> comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. >> yes. wasn't there -- i don't want to say propaganda, that's way too strong, but during world war ii, a time of war, there's been a fundamentally different relationship, certainly against pre-watergate between press and president. >>.subsidy true. that is the changing nature of this relationship. when they became much more of what we now call, we use the term, the adversarial relationship. i think that the adversity with the two conflicting institutions, built during the latter part of the 20th century. it is ironic, because in theory, both sides of this equation want the same thing. they both say if we could just get more troops to the american people, we would be in better shape. the presidency, the white house, the white house staff said if they could just hear about all the great things that they -- we were doing we would

understand -- they would understand what a great job we're doing here and of course the processes fundamentally it response ability to support the truth. the problem comes when they skew apart for what matters most. and, what is the agenda the press has versus the president has, when they are in conflict as they often are, then you get this adversarial sense in the relationship. >> there was definitely a cozy relationship with the white house press corps and presidents during fdr's time, when reporters did not tell americans, that the president was in a wheelchair. and, during john kennedy's administration, reporters were aware of his personal behavior, and didn't tell americans about it, and i think that that ended with -- i think that's the watergate scandal ended that period, opposing us, and made reporters feel their obligation was something different. >> i would actually even go back, further, misleading the american people about the nature of the war in vietnam. >> i agree.

the vietnam war followed by the watergate scandal, led to a collapse of that feeling of cozy trust, trust in institutions. it made reporters feel that their their obligation was not to find out, not to be friends with the president, but, to be a watchdog, on things the president was doing, whether it was war, or something else. >> i think there has been a very big change, and the relationship, since i was covering the white house. and, i was fourth press secretary. and, the big change it seems to me is, in those days, you had morning newspapers, with a deadline of 6:30 in the evening. you had on television, no cable television, and he didn't have any internet. and, you had, morning newspapers, hunter brinkley and

cronkite on at 6:30 at night. so, when i was at nbc, if i covered a story at 10:00 in the morning, 11:00 or whatever, press secretaries briefing in the morning, i had until mid or late afternoon, to do research, to contact other sources, and so forth. and now, two things as a result of cable tv, and also, as a result of cell phones, basically, everybody is a journalist. you know, i have my cell phone right here. i can take any -- type anything i want to and hit the send button and it goes up to 10 million people in the world. >> you have a very good following. >> congratulations. >> i think that is really a big change. >> absolutely. i say to people, i was with cnn, cnn revolutionized things. we knew that in the white house

. for the first time if the president gave a speech from anywhere if we took it live it was going on filter to an audience, not through a network, not through a newspaper, secondly, we were on all the time, so we were filling the air with interviews, information, debate, other things. and, that excelerator, and illuminated -- that accelerated and eliminated the decision- making process. >> a couple of quick points, susan said to go back to france in roosevelt, not only did the reporters not right about his disability, he was part of -- paralyzed when he was 3839 years old and he managed to overcome that, never recover the use of his legs. the news photographers in those days actually entered into something of a conspiracy among themselves, because you don't see pictures of roosevelt with his disability. and, when a new photographer would come on for the white house, the veterans when they saw a new photographer started to take a picture of his leg

braces, sometimes they would slap the camera away and said, we don't take pictures of the president like that. so later on, some of the news photographers regretted this because they felt the country deserve to know, but the other quick point is that, when i started covering reagan, reagan's people understood, even that he was a conservative he could get different -- decent coverage because they understood access works two ways. white house staff and the president talked to the media, they not only give information out, but they also learn what we're doing. you don't get much of that with the trump presidency now. they don't care much what we are doing. constantly streaming out as richard said, twitter, always on the offensive. richard? >> we were talking about the relationship between roosevelt and the press, and pictures and illustrations of press coming in, very famous picture of lbj walking the grounds with a group of reporters, and there was a time, when presidents and reporters could sit down, or

walk, and the idea was for the president to be able to speak directly and share a thought process or whatever. does that happen now? it doesn't. have we lost something in that? >> we have certainly lost that personal relationship reporters who covered the white house, the president knows the reporters who cover the white house, he knows them by name, but you get to know them, usually. i know that when you covered bill clinton, when you covered george w. bush, you'd covered george hw bush, and ronald reagan, they knew who you were. and they wanted to know a little bit about you, whether they did it in the background, or whether they did it upfront, by asking you questions, they knew a little bit about who you were, and, where you were coming from. and, they would say to that a little bit. i see this now, it may have a lot to do with who gets into

journalism today. just an interesting question to me, because, i remember the days when i wanted to be a journalist. i wanted to be a novelist. i like to write and i was going to write this great novel but i found there was a way you can make money writing -- you like people. you like being around people, you want to build a relationship that way and write about it. tell people this story. and, so, we wanted to go -- when you become a political reporter, you go out and meet these political figures, you want to write about who they are, you want to find out something about the person, you want to find out about what they do other than just govern, so, that was the attraction. i'm not sure that young people today who want to be journalist want to do that. i get the sense that what they want to do is -- see, we liked politics, we like politicians

as journalists, that is what we are attracted to. younger people today get the sense that they don't like politics, they don't like politicians, and they see that the only rule is to be up -- be a critic, rather than being given information, it's that they lean more toward the critical side, and i think that has an effect on how the people feel about government and politics. >> he operated can have the effect of really undermining confidence across the board. but, the sense of sharing the thought process of the president, directly with the press, so that the american public in the world can sit back, how that information but spent on people's minds, you try to this thing called psych backgrounds. >> i was thinking after we were talking, about, senator john mccain, whose memory, we are heavy on right now. he was masterful at drawing the press in, and having the conversation, that he enjoyed the give and take.

i tried some of that, with p -- president clinton. i wanted people to get a sense of his thinking, it's hard to do, if someone is going to sit there and transcribe everything word for word. so, we created some opportunities, once famously on air force one, where the president would come back and just kind of sit and gab with the reporters. and, i got asked, what are the rules for attribution here and i said, you know, why don't we just call it psych background, it's like according to someone familiar with the thinking of the president, who happened to be the president, you know, president clinton is thinking such and such, strong objections to that particularly. >> i recall that being an understatement. >> particularly from the ap, which took a very firm stance that the president of the united states cannot talk on background. >> the president of the united states is always on the record.

>> facilities in formal occasions, where you would sit back and have a beer, and talk about life, you know, that's not allowed, because the president has to always be accountable. now, there are some people particularly those who work for magazines, but have more interesting color and flavor and what was really going on, behind the scenes, they probably had some appreciation for communities like that. it was not a happy episode. >> the other thing, to be aware of, there are different constituencies in the press corps, of course wire services and networks are very upset when the president does not live on camera on the record. we ended journalist to step back a bit, you know, a lot of us think, well, i don't like the idea of the president off the record. something that mike is talking about, you're getting the president's thinking. my thought was always, you wanted to know as much about

the president as he possibly can , so when the president does something, you know the president is thinking, he can put it in context, and you can say to yourself, that is the president i know, not the president i know, to have some context on it. >> we have had some sense, for now i want to return us to the current -- i want to tie some of these past practices to where we are now for some context for a moment and then go brautigan point >> that will be hard to do. >> i know you can do it. >> are very adept at these things. >> in the current moment, we are in a situation where we have more antagonistic -- more personal, more challenging, more -- you could argue ideologically driven adversarial relationships, then we have seen before. when the president is going so far as to call the media the enemy of the people and fundamentally dishonest. and representing the opposition party. is this unprecedented?

richard nixon had an enemies list, is this unprecedented, and what impact will it have on the larger scheme of things. >> it's not unprecedented to have conflict. as ron knows very well. or as mike knows during the impeachment debate, in his administration, that's not new. i think the intensity of it now is different, and i think wendy president called the press, the enemy of the people as he did in the tweet about an hour ago, that is a different level of antagonism, then we have seen from previous modern presidents. i think that is a new place for us to be. i do think president trump deserves credit for being pretty accessible, though. not only does he tweet, which i think is an excellent way to get a look into his thinking, he tends to answer questions when he walks on the south lawn to go to the helicopter, he does a lot of interviews on fox, with friendly correspondence, but nonetheless, he is doing interviews, he talks to reporters sometimes, reporters

who have covered him for a long time, he's had some off the record conversations. we do have a look into what he is thinking, that we didn't always have with other modern presidents. and i think that is a good thing, that is something he did during most of the 2015 campaign, not right towards the end, but in the early part he was one of the more accessible candidates i've ever covered. >> as i've said, there's an old expression in washington, never do anything or say anything you don't want to see on the front page of the washington post. i don't think the current president understands that rule. but, you know, thinking back again, to my time in as the press secretary to president ford, you know, he was, i think, the pardon of nixon was so unpopular, it really turned the press against him. and, -- is budget and the press

against him, you felt at the time in the briefing room in your dealings with the media? >> yeah. yeah. and, as i say, he was very unpopular. and, forward never really recovered his reputation, i don't think, from that. but, he is -- i don't know exactly how to put it, but i think that he was a popular -- he was popular until the nixon stuff came along, you know, and, ford was, you know, he was popular in washington, but, not after this happened. after the pardon of nixon, i think that was -- he was very unpopular. i remember one time, somebody asked ford about, you know, how he felt about this, and he said something about, those reporters, they get there --

you know, he was critical of reporters, and, they get their -- they get their information sitting on a barstool, i think was one of his favorite expressions. >> yeah. well, you know, the relationship changes from president to president, certainly, because every president has a different personality, press corps has its own personality and they change. the prep -- judgment of history, and i think gerald ford just to say it, winston churchill, just to speak to what ron was saying earlier, when we were backstage, history, you cannot be judged until 30 or 40 or 50 years later, and, you know, think of harry truman. harry truman left the presidency in 1952. 53, with the job's approval rating of 22%. one of the worst -- lowest measures of that particular time.

he is now considered one of the best five presidents, or 10 presidents on every list you see. in retrospect looking at harry truman's presidency, he could have run for reelection in 1952 but chose not to because he was so unpopular. he was not term limited out, because it didn't apply to him when they changed the term limits law, but, he didn't run, because he was so unpopular. but, history looks back, how does he do? he comes out pretty well. >> ford i think was very unpopular with the press, because he pardoned nixon, and there was a lot of criticism with ford. he was probably our most athletic presidents -- president, as i said. i remember one time there were all these stories about him tripping and falling, something like that, and forward said, those reporters, they get their

exercise sitting on a barstool. >> he liked the barstool, that was his refrain, i guess. let me ask you this. in your experience, as reporters, what was your most adversarial moment, did you have something that you thought, this is getting really hot here? >> no bill clinton impersonation. >> know. let me do a mike mccurry impersonation. i was working for usa today covering clinton, and in the morning my phone would ring and it would be joe lockhart, and he would yell at me about stories that i had done, that other reporters had done, stories i have not yet read. in usa today. and the first time i got this call, are would think, mike, are you asking for a --? no, he was just yelling.

the third time this happened, i thought i know it's happening. so, you're talking to clinton in the morning, and he's saying that usa today, this story, and then mike would then say to joe, call susan, and then joe would come back and say i gave her and he would go to clinton and say we really told them off. is that correct? >> 100% correct. i got a few of those calls, at cnn. i like those calls. the key element, i always had my -- deputy joe lockhart, went on to be secretary i had him make the call so i could be, we'll be friends forever. >> i have a similar story. one day i get a phone call from scott mcclellan, then deputy press secretary at the white house, and he says the president didn't like that story you wrote this morning. and i said what did you like about it? >> he says he just didn't like

it. it was directed -- george w. bush. and i said what was the story, the story was president bush takes pride in the fact he never changes his mind. while here are three places he's changed his mind. it was on the front page of usa today. so, i said what's wrong with the story, anything inaccurate there? >> well know. >> what does he want. >> he says well, nothing, start stammering. well, 3:00 in the afternoon comes, this is 3:00 in the morning -- this is the morning, the press is still mad about that story, so i knew it was going on, so, i said, what do you want, and he says, can i tell him you've been admonished? >> that's right. >> well, i said you can go back to telling him anything you want to despise you probably

said ellis is vital to despise not to just talk about the clinton administration, but why not. during these periods we have these buses going on, i remember one time going over there, having an interview with doug sauce maker, senior political advisor, and, i sat down with him and he paused and said, am i supposed to be mad about something? and i said, well, >> he couldn't remember what he was about to be mad about, he knew something. >> did you remind him? >> no. but i don't know what it could possibly be, but, we've all had these i think chief of staff -- he was very difficult even to get along with. ed rogers, who would do the calling, and complaining, there is always that kind of an adversarial relationship. i think that what bothers a lot of us now is the idea that we are at the point where in the ministration is undermining the institution of the media by

undermining our credibility. >> do you think that is the case? do you think there would be lasting change? we've talked about this sort of dynamic process of a relationship. >> i think the current ministration is definitely intent on undermining the credibility of the mainstream media. partly, what president trump wants to do is get to the point where his base will only believe him and not believe anything else. despise let me ask a question of mike and aaron here, which -- mike and ron, how does a press secretary balance the commitment to both serving the president, and serving the public through the relationship with the press? i mean, you have the spokesperson for the president of the united states, but you're being paid by american taxpayers, and you have a

relationship with the media, the press in that room, that depend on a degree of trust and credibility on both sides. >> i like to think of that balance, thinking of the geography of the white house, all of you have been in that office, the press secretary has in the west wing, the park service will light up for you, when things are not hard and lets us hot enough already. anyhow, there's a front door where the press will sometimes gather but there's a back door, where -- which is convenient when you're trying to escape the ones at the front door but if you go out the back door you turn right, 50 feet away is the oval office. turn left 50 feet away is a briefing room. where you conduct the briefing every day, and that geographic metaphor is exactly, for me, the nature of the job. it is this balance between

keeping satisfied those who are seeking information, who have legitimate questions and expect the white house to be accountable and produce information that it ought to be the public's right to know, and then also serving the president who signs your paychecks. representing the president's thinking and point of view. what did ministration is trying to accomplish, that balance is the nature of the job every day, you're never going to keep either side of that equation happy. you get the president saying you and your friends in the press are trying to destroy everything good about this country, then you get -- but how did the president say that? >> oh yeah. >> you and your friends in the press. >> yes. pretty close to it. >> but the difference and the important difference is, as much as she would fuss and fume, then he would go back to

reality, and he would stop meeting sometimes and say, get mercury in here, because the press is going to be all over him, i want to hear him ellis as i want them to hear what we are talking about. it wasn't because we want to get our opinion about what happened, but we -- wanted to have the context of the decisions being made to that i could report on it accurately and truthfully. >> i know that when you started working for gerald ford, you had a conversation with him about the need for you to be near him, your proximity to the president. >> what i told him when he offered me the job was that i needed to meet with him every day, before my press briefing, because my job as i interpreted it did was to answer questions from the press as the president would answer them if you were there which means two things,

number one, i have to find out how he would answer them, and then also i said i wanted to attend meetings with cabinet members and so forth, and, kissinger didn't like that too much, but, basically that is what i did, i had a daily meeting with the president, and i could attend any of his cabinet meetings and other meetings, so, i come in the morning as my staff would put together a list of the questions they thought i would be asked in briefing, and some of the questions, kissinger could answer, secretary of the treasury could, but most of them, i needed to be able to reflect the president's views, so i had my daily meeting with the president, and i don't know whether the press secretary is nowadays still had that or not, but i thought that was very important, and ford agreed to it. >> a couple more, but i would like to open it up to questions

from the floor. one of the other things we talk about is the notion of credibility, both the presses credibility and the white house is credibility, both are under siege today, very little trust in the press, and there is very little trust among some in the information that is coming from the white house. i certainly remember when i was in the white house, and when i was there achieve at cnn is a resident said something or press secretary would say something that was mistaken, or a misstatement, there was an effort to quickly correct the record. i remember marlon fitzwater would walk around with this big cigar, he would light and walk through the press office and say, what i said or what the president said let me treat that, there's a very good relationship there, we got a lot of credit for that, but we are not at that place now. now, there is a very particular

and personal, and some would say grandstanding environment around this. >> where do you see this question of credibility now, in terms of, again, plugging in all the technology we have done for the cameras and social media, and how we regain a sense of trust and information emanating from the white house. >> i think the credibility is the number one most important thing -- asset that journalists need. and, it is under fire. we have all these different ways of delivering information that are faster, and go further, and are more transparent, and that has been to our peril in some ways. because, to go out instantaneously without a chance to check a second source or double check information against other ways. so it is actually i think

increasing our fundamental obligation, which is to be careful, we want to be first, but we want to be right. we have to always remember that, we need to be more transparent with readers and viewers about how we get information in a way they can trust, that is especially true where there are so many stories that all rely on anonymous sources. the president sent out a tweet that if you see the word anonymous sources in a story, stop reading it's alive. reporters makeup anonymous sources. for try very hard to limit the number of anonymous sources we use, we try to identify them as much as we can. you see that now, an article will say according to five sources three in the in what you read, and we will make mistakes, we will correct them in a way that is fast and

honest, and doesn't weasel out of corrections. say we made a mistake on this, we apologize we will try to make it right, try to not make the same mistake again. i think the only way we rebuild the credibility we lost is to do our job every single day as well as we can, and to hold on tight, because these are turbulent times. >> welcome a couple of points, one is, just to show you the kinds of things we are up against so many people can get their information from sources that are completely unfiltered, completely uncorroborated, in other words we are taking a secondary role because people can reinforce any view, whatever they want, because this is a case where we gave four speeches over three weeks and i got the same question after each speech privately asked, the press the -- person came out asking the same way,

why don't you people in the press corps do the biggest story in washington. this was a couple of years ago, and i said what would that be? the reply was, the same in each case. we all know that michelle obama is a man. how do you deal with that? so i said, where did you hear that? people said in the exactly same way, i don't know but i know it's true. that is what we are dealing with. >> where were you giving your speech? >> he was on the barstool. >> i exercise. but, the interesting thing was the same question asked the same way. that's part of it but the other thing is, i think for one side or the other side, you have to have the same sort of suggestion. the politicians and the white house need to understand we are not monolithic in the press corps.

there are some good reporters and some bad reporters and they need to know us well enough to know the difference and we need to understand that they are not monolithic either, that there are people you can trust in government, good sources, people who know what they're talking about and people who don't and we need to make the distinction too. >> before i open it up to questions, i'm interested in your thoughts on this. i think several of us have had time at presidential libraries, working on the documentary for the history channel, i don't know if there's anyone from the reagan library here, thank you very much. and in the context of this conversation of the fraud relationship between the healthy adversarial relationship between the press and the president, at our current point, and the larger trend that we have got, about people not understanding the government, people not being historical in nature, we are rather ahistorical culture which is not a good thing. what do you think that

presidential libraries, childhood homes and historical sites can do through their work to help people to see and understand and bring to light this weird relationship between the press of the president? >> well, one suggestion i have to all of you here, with this kind of responsibilities, is to highlight the importance of this relationship, between the president of the presidency, and the media. they are wonderful photos, probably archival materials, that would really lift this up, so that those who visit your site to see how important and how fundamentally important this relationship is, the way in which we function as a democracy, lift up and pick out those things that really at this moment, in which the press is being called the enemy of the people, we need to understand how important this equation is, and the way in

which presidents function, and the way in which we come to understand our history, >> there is criticism, all presidents have had their criticisms, how should that be represented as well? >> fully and fairly. i think some of the great letters, the truman letter, who was it that said, i would otherwise deliver my response to the bridge of my nose and lips to the bridge of your nose if i could. that letter, bill clinton had hanging in the oval office at one point, so there are things like that which highlight some of the tension, some of the adversarial is him in the relationship, and i think putting it in the right context is what is important. >> i think a sense of history makes a big difference. you hear so much about the tamils of the day, the 50th anniversary of 1968, which by

the way was a pretty tumultuous year. i think it's helpful in terms of understanding the data that happened yesterday, i have also been struck by how helpful some of the programs of presidential libraries can be, because presidential libraries have -- and former presidents, they have a kind of credibility, i think presidents are seen as less political after they leave office. presidential libraries are able to pull together presidents from previous administration's, officials who would be reluctant to do some other form, i think that has been a real asset. >> can, what do you have? >> i have had the privilege of doing research for presidential libraries for years, they are fabulous resources, and i am so pleased to be able to do research there. a lot of things you can get from presidential libraries you can get online now, it's easier than it has ever been.

i think one thing in the context of frank's question is, maybe posting the first amendment might be a good idea. and just leave that up there somewhere. as an exhibit. i think that also, programs are helpful, and i think that the presidential libraries do a good job with this already. i'm about to go to the bush library in college station to do a program with white house photographers, dealing with photographers including president ford's own photographer, extraordinary access but he allowed the pictures out there so people could see what he was like as a person, think that helped him and help the country understand him but i think for the presidential library to continue the great programs they do, maybe permanent exhibits and presence in the media, without all the lettuces

shown, demonstrating the importance of the relationship. >> ron, what do you think? >> i have been to the ford library of course in grand rapids, and again, i think one of the effects, that presidential libraries have here is that you can step back from the kind of day-to-day political coverage and so forth, and you know, with the passage of time, you can get a broader view of what was going on, who was saying what, and with the passage of time, you will know, he was right about that, wasn't he? i think that's one of the great things about that presidential library. >> donald rumsfeld famously talked about the snapshot, that's what the media does on a minute by minute basis. >> i think that presidential libraries, and sites to could do more programs or exhibits about the relationship between the press and the presidency.

because it is important. the public is aware of it, they don't think about it in terms of how it is supposed to operate, maybe we don't get enough of it in schools. of that kind of discussion, and that kind of examination, that needs to be done, because it is sort of like the foundation of our democracy. the relationship between public and public official is conducted through the press. and the media. and it's fundamental, for people -- i don't know what they're doing in high schools these days, i don't know, they could be doing a lot more, it is -- all educational institutions could be doing a lot more talking about the relationship especially in these times when the relationship has become so controversial. >> an interesting demand and -- dynamic, is just how the technology has changed so much. there would be those who say we

actually don't need you anymore. >> they would be wrong. >> they would be wrong. independent, trained eyes ears and brain. >> we also need to teach media literacy in our schools. we have to -- beginning at an early age with kids, get them to understand where reliable sources of information are, and what is not reliable, and what the important role of the press is. there are great programs, most of you know alan miller at the la times, that will be fundamentally important. >> thank you everybody for a wonderful panel session, i am reflecting on a comparison between yesterday morning's panel on presidential history, and what richard and frank

talked about today, which is, how the perception of the president changes over the decades after they leave office. and, my question is, if that is true that means the perception of the president, presented by the media currently, is not accurate, whether that is fake news or not, i wonder if, since i don't hear it very often, if there is any reflection you hear among journalists, people who study this issue, as to whether there could be a better job done by journalists, instead of simply always apologizing, on how good journalism is and the president is the one like you were saying that is always just angry over being covered in that way. that history is maybe not doing its job well today. >> we will try to do our job quickly and take as many questions as we can.

>> i would disagree saying that what we covered today is not accurate, it is not complete, it doesn't have the benefit of history. we don't know what the consequences of what a president does until we see those consequences unfold. sometimes they unfold in ways that are more positive than we think sometimes they unfold in ways that are more negative. i think it is important to keep a sense of perspective, we shouldn't declare a presidency a success, we should keep in mind we are a snapshot in time and that may change over time. >> i think there should be -- there needs to be much more humility in the media about what is done and how it is done. there is too much back patting too much, dress up and take our awards. i also think we need to representative -- recognize the media is very big and plural, the wall street journal and breitbart and fox and drudge, all of these are media.

but, especially in the talk radio cable news and online world, where everything is streaming instantly all at once, but also back to your thing about news consumers, the newshour gives people context every day. there are plenty of publications that do that, we will need to help them and news organizations should help them to. i think your question is, you know, an airline company had the level of coverage the media had right now they would be flying at the airplanes. that needs to be addressed. with the george w. bush childhood home, all of you mentioned the impact of the immediacy of social media in which social media perceive

your questions to be -- your news to be real or fake or whatever? >> what response ability do you feel the press should have in allowing the country to use the time of those events to allow themselves to come together at least for a brief period of time, and then, what period of time do you think that should be? >> >> one way of looking ng at this f of view is that i was always brought up in the field that you have an educational function , we are public educators in some ways. we are having entertainment function, too much of what we do is the entertainment function. the lines are blurred, you look at the panels on television,

who is the journalist, who's the commentator, who's the strategist. it's all blended together so i can understand the public not understanding what a journalist is anymore but as far as consensus moments, they are very difficult to even encourage from a media perspective because we are so polarized. even the death of john mccain is an indication for people to beat on each other. this is the nature of where we are now. i hope we come to the point where we can be more unified. there's a limit to what the media can do. we try to do this sort of thing even political conventions used to be unified, for at least the parties but that's hard to see anymore. >> sort of . >> will try to take as many more questions as we can with quick answers from the panel . >> very quickly, i think one of the things that's happened to

journalism that has affected the coverage and what people are getting to know is that, back a couple decades ago, the networks and the major newspapers have full-time reporters assigned to the state department and the pentagon and five reporters on the house side, five reporters on the senate side and so forth. he became an expert on your beat, you got to know all the players, all the sources and so forth. now, for economic reasons, there's been a big cutback and everyone is a general assignment reporter. you go to the office in the morning and you get your assignment and you don't have this expertise of covering a beat . >> yes sir . >> i'm steve gilroy and i have a question. talking about the relationship between the presidency and the press, when president ford pardoned president nixon, will cause you to resign and how did president ford react to that and how did it affect your relationship with him in the future? >> i agree with you that it was

a really big turning point in ford's relationship with the press and, i think there was a feeling among the press that when the vice president, spiro agnew, resigned, ford was appointed vice president by nixon. there was a theory that nixon knew he was in trouble and he thought he would appoint ford who would be more protective of him. so i think that is one of the things that happened. then, about a month after ford became president, nixon resigned, ford became president and then ford pardoned nixon. what he said was, he was spending 25% of his time and the staff was running 25% of its time on leftover nixon matters and he needed to spend 100% of his time because the vietnam war was going on, big

depression in the country and so forth. i think there's always been this view that there was a deal , that if nixon would appoint ford his vice president, then forward promise to stave nixon -- >> and did the question about your resignation -- >> the way that it affected me was -- >> you didn't resign . >> know it's the other way around. >> jerry terroir's resign because he disagreed with the pardoned. i was covering the white house and i covered as vice president . i was one of the five that traveled all over the country with him and his little two engine propeller driven airplane. i wrote a book later called it sure looks different from the inside. the reason i took the

job as i had covered the white house from the outside as a reporter, i wanted to see what it looked like on the inside, so that's why i took the job . >> so were almost out of time, so will be really quick . >> charlie hyde with the presidential site, we haven't touched upon editorial cartoons and how much they act as a synthesis of journalistic assessment, can you touch on that and how much you think define things? >> mike and susan quickly and that's the last question because you have another terrific discussion . >> it's great humor. it's what we need more that the white house and more context. we actually invited a bunch of editorial cartoonists to travel with president clinton from time to time and some of the wonderful images that came out of that are -- one of them is hanging in my own house as a matter of fact. they sometimes capture the essence of what is so improbably insane about some of the things that happened at the

white house, and i think it's an important point . >> cartoonists are amazing. since i've been looking at barbara bush, i don't know if you saw the cartoon that showed barbara bush going to heaven and robin greeting her there, her daughter that died when she was three. cartoonists can hit record, they can make a point, sharp or soft like that one that is beyond words. >> i would like to thank all of you on behalf of all of us, for what you do. i would like to thank this graphic -- this panel for their conversation. will leave you with this thought, accountability is the keyword that it should also and must also and must continue to work both ways, accountability for the white house and for those who are covering it. thank you all very much. [ applause ] >> congress returns after the midterm elections on tuesday,

november 13, the house is back to work on legislation funding the federal government, past the december 7 deadline. the senate returns for vote on coast guard programs a nomination for the federal reserve board. you can see the house live on c- span, watch the senate live on c-span two. c-span's washington journal, live every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, michael cannon of the cato institute and frederick e ceci, i family usa discusses the healthcare in america. peter harold on how the u.s. uses sanctions and how to prevent them from being overused. be sure to watch washington journal, live at seven eastern saturday morning. joined the discussion.

>> this weekend on american history tv, saturday at 8 pm eastern on lectures and history, university of delaware professor tiffany gail on the role of african-american women in the civil rights movement. at 10 pm eastern on real america, the 1968 broadcasts, the nixon answer in michigan. on sunday at 7 p.m. eastern, the 30th anniversary of the tenement museum in new york city, and at 8 p.m. con the presidency, former first lady barbara bush grandchildren and laura bush, reflect on her life and legacy. watch on american history tv. this weekend on cspan-3. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events

in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> historians now talk about how to incorporate the stories of women, african-americans, native americans and other lesser-known historical figures into presidential narrative. the white house historical association hosted this event as part of a presidential site summit held in washington d.c. >> hello, i am gail barry west, i am on the board of the white house historical association. on behalf of the association, the board isea