cnn. we are for and about washington. period. we use video to the help -- to extend the helps illustrate a story. people can find headlines anywhere, right? our value is really explaining to people. what does this mean to me, what should i be thinking about, what is coming out? we did in amazing story last year on a series about women in developing countries and their stories . we got a flood of response that it was an incredible story. it is the kind of thing we would have done anyway, but now we had the ability to illustrated in a new way.

>> i am the president of chainlink working solutions. i'm wondering how your using technology to dave to give your mother is in the work force mark flexibility to take, their jobs they have to choose between motherhood and work? >> i do not think of technology as a substitute. as we all know, those of us who have a iphone, and you -- it makes you not available to check your e-mail and it makes it easier to be available. as i said, that is in big ways and in bad for your tie in at all times. it enhances our ability to be connected, but it is not changing hands "the washington post -- it is not changing at

"the washington post." >> hello. with the elimination of the business section in "the washington post" we now have two or three pages if we're lucky of business coverage. one, what does that say about respectful business in this town that is devoted to government? and two, is the expectation that we will not see business news, by and large, from your newspaper but we will get it from "the journal." >> we did not eliminate the business content, we eliminated the stock tables which most newspapers had already eliminated. we waited to do that because we knew that their readers to still cared about every week -- when we eliminated the tables, we needed to put the rest of the pages and another section.

we decided to put them in maine news because business is such a part of the main news. it is a government town, but there are also a lot of stories about local business, the economy. we felt like it was a natural fit to be in the main section. we got very little outcry about it. we got a letter then the president of the washington greater board of trade who actually like it. it is part of our allies and part of the main news. -- is part of our content and part of the main news. we have never tried to be "the wall street journal." we provide is about the economy from a local standpoint and also about washington d.c. >> we have time for about one or two more. >> since we are on the topic of economic development, i wanted

to ask you about a business model. is it possible that with .com's you are aware of a posting site that budding journalists who are developing their own sense of resources started becoming a hub for washington area news for young urban journalism standpoint? it does not currently exist, would you consider being at home posting site? the reason that i ask is because there is so much activity going on online that the market share seems to be really difficult to get into for people who really have quite a bit to say. the problem is where to go to find them. if there was some place that was safe and was almost stoic that

had the capability of harnessing all of it, and gives them credibility but it also gives you a sense of control. >> i am not sure i completely understand your question, but let me take a crack at it. where the great things about the internet is that it allows you to enable your readers to interacting with iran never able to do before. obviously, it sort of broke down the barriers to people being able to write their own opinions. there are buckets of it all over the internet. some is great, some as not to agree. what we're starting to more and more of is abrogating content when we think it is helpful to link to it. -- aggregating con catent. at the same time, we need to

maintain our standards of journalism and integrity to make sure that we know the journalists we would be looking to maintain the same kind of standards we have in terms of checking sources, developing stories, checking facts. we are more and more linking to other content that we think is worthwhile and that our readers would want to know about. we just need to maintain our standards. >> one more question. >> good morning. i work for the federal government. i'm unoriginal washingtonian -- i'm an original washingtonian. i wonder how you can give is the express news on the metro, please do not take it away. as you adjust your business mark, how does that work for you? >> we're not going to take away. the express has a loyal audience and has been a great product for us. it sustains itself. it is a separate business within

the business. we set it up as a wave to beam -- a way to be good and worthwhile, a 20 minute read. it bought us your readers and a new advertisers. i think at first people were worried that we would cannibalize our audience and we really have not seen that. it has been great. we're going to keep around. thank you. >> thank you very much for joining us this morning. [applause] >> our look at the future of journalism continues ofdavid simon, writer and producer of hbo's "the wire." this is about one hour.

i am never should secretary year the national press club. -- i am the membership secretary this year at the national press club. we're focused on a journalism education and free press around the globe. his visit the web site at www.press.org. on behalf of our 3500 members around the world, i would like to welcome our speaker and a guest in the audience today. i like to welcome those of you watching live on c-span. we also provide our broadcast over itunes. we will take as many questions from the audience as time permits. i would ask kindly that you please hold your applause during his speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, if you do your positives from guests and members of the general public to attend our

luncheons and not necessarily from neutral, working journalists. i would like to first introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand briefly when their names are called. beginning on this end, the communications director with the institute for public accuracy. he assured me that i got his name right. which is important when you're with the institute. the associate editor and a chair for the npc and other committee. this is the executive director for the fun for investigative journalism. here's a russian the bureau chief. this is our senior business editor with the national public radio. on the other side of the podium, and she is with a bloomberg news. this is the organizer of today's luncheon. she is the new managing director

of stanton medications. ira, public affairs specialist with fogerty center. this is an event writer and author of "letters from washing ton." here is one of our former presidents with hearst newspapers. finally, the editor and publisher of the american journalism review. now you can do your applause. [applause] >> it may come as a surprise to some of you here today as you watch our legends over the years that we do not tend to and by members of the press to speak at the podium. we get way out of control. we do have a special cause it to do that today because our speak er strip is special individual.

generally, we think journalists cover the news and we try not to put them in the spotlight that they might otherwise feel uncomfortable with. a longtime journalist of "the baltimore sun" reported the allies -- reported the lives of inner-city baltimore. he laughed and told the baltimore city newspaper in 2003 because "some sons of bitches bought my newspaper and it stopped being fun." is that an accurate quotation? >> it is, indeed. >> he took an absence and shadow detectives of baltimore's homicide unit. the result was the edgar award winning book "homicide -- you're

on the killing streets." he worked as a writer and later as a producer on that award winning drama. he went on to take the second leave of absence from "the sun" research and write "the coroner." it was a book about baltimore's drug trade. that inspired an emmy award winning miniseries. that paved the way for "the wire," is ms. critically acclaimed adventure. the drama which ran for five seasons depicted baltimore's struggle with drugs, corruption, family, and back to where we started, the media. he continues to vocally criticize the state of contemporary american journalism taking aim at the producers and consumers of the news. last month before the senate panel, he said that he believes nothing can save high and,

professional journalism. despite all that, he is doing all that he can and continues to work as a freelance journalist and author writing for "the washington post," among others i am told. please give a nice national press club welcome to david simon. [applause] >> thank you. i do not know if it is going to be clear on the c-span channel, but i managed to get some salad dressing on my shirt. i had been out of the profession since 1995, but i felt if i could leave a little of much where it could be seen, whether which chinese food, it would be perfect. this is for you. right here. [laughter] think you for inviting me. i am flattered. it is funny. i feel better knowing now that

journalists are not invited to do this. the body part about my critique of journalism, such as it is, when you are an expert in this country, meaning when you are in the game, dealing with it every day, living and breathing in, you are not an expert. when you are away for a few years and you have a television show, i am an expert in television production now but all this and i'm an expert in the media. there is in the strange about that. burns, my partner, asking him about education, he was a former schoolteacher in baltimore, he said the same thing. when i wasn't -- when i was an expert and teaching, no 11 in my opinion. and now have all the opinions in the world and a run wants to hear them. i am suspicious of my own voice in this. i did agree to speak. i have written on this, and i do care about where newspapers have

gone and where there are going. i will correct the introduction in only one way. i did say that i worried that it was too late for high and journalism. i'm a little more open and about it and to say i do not see a future for credit do not see a future for its in the current economic model. and certainly do not see any future for it as long as the journalism community continues to pretend. pretend that we were out here clearing the way for the path of democracy and then technology shifted and the paradigm changed and now we are stuck. it is not run any fault of our own. i would believe that if i was not a journalism for 15 years probe -- prior.

i saba we did to our own product. i come from that portion of journalism that was affected first and most by journalisms abdication of its own ambitions. i worked at a chain is bigger. when i worked for "the baltimore sun"," we were bought out by "te good chain." thank god, we're going to be all right. then we were a tribune co.. i left journalism in 1995 after 13 years. i was the third -- i was in the month third buyout. i was maybe reporter no. 100 to leave as the royals went down to 400. for those you keeping score, the

internet was not even a whisper in 1995. they were a monopoly paper the profit margins, now we note because of the tribune files, were 37.5%. it wanted to run news america into the ground. to sustain its evening edition of the paper long enough to get all of the viewers. i'm sorry. readers. enough of those readers to get over to an evening paper, but then the folded that too. they even started zone editions for the surrounding areas to get as much growth as they could. the easier thing to do would be to buy at the regional papers. -- buy up the regional papers.

the greek -- they're willing to have 400 reporters, but that was a monopoly. there were not willing to do that to make a great product. that is what our industry discovered. this covered that in the 1980's. the went to wall street and wall street rewarded handsomely. they basically said they could make a lot more money and putting up with a good newspaper. the reporters, less coverage. that was the bargain that was made. only, the people that were making the decision had less and less to do the news room and board to with the border. -- and more to do t tohe board -- and more to do with the board room. one guy gave a speech and talk

for 45 minutes about cost centers and never once mentioned in news. he never talked about the mission of the "the baltimore sun." he talked about product. before he was selling newspapers, he was selling cereal for general mills. he had then leaving a job improving their standing in its price per share in the market. now he was given brains of a newspaper chain. our river walking away from that sock which concluded with him -- from that talk to included if we saw a story that had been central -- that have potential for advertising to the advertisers a call. the first two floors worked in silence.

mike said this is over. this is over. i was in the early 1990's. two years later, i was taking the buyout. we cheated ourselves. we destroy ourselves. we did it at the behest of wall street and did it for cash. the people who did it are now on the golf course down at hilton head demoting happened to the wonderful industry that once formed. on the editorial side, the same editors that when their stand up -- that would later stand up and sacrifice themselves rather than make cutbacks did not stand up at "the baltimore sun" because there were still places to go within the chain. there were still personal emissions.

all donnelley, we did not stand up at the newspaper and screaming bloody mess -- bloody murder. she is a historical phrase, or misused, when they came for her the gannett papers, i said nothing. eventually they came for the to be in rivers, and now the only people left -- initially they came for the tribune papers. it has made incredible profits. what has happened was a pure, unencumbered, raw capitalism. it is never the answer for anything that involves a public mission. if you look at the wall street and its analysts and big many investors have played with american industries and have appreciated the actual mission of those industries in order to

achieve profit, there will be someone making money until they chose -- until the close the doors at "the sun." they will be doing less and less journalism. that would be my critique. we did this to ourselves. when the internet came along, all of the r &d money that was supposed to be spent in the 1980 party in a 1990 proxy -- in the 1980's and the 1990's, the wanted to figure out how to justify how to charge more. that money went to wall street greeted did not go back into the newsrooms. it made for an inferior product. they now have 160 reporters covering and -- a metro area that is only growing.

they think they're going to do more with less. no, you do less with less. that is why they call it less. [laughter] many internet landed, the head editors at my paper, five years after i left, it was clearly affecting american life in every framework. the editors still regarded it as advertising for the product rather than the product. they made that mistake. these youngsters will surf the web and will see our products and will realize they really want to subscribe to the doorstep version of the paper. there were saying that until just a few years ago. i do think there is one last hope for journalism and it is this. we must find a way. i use "we" even if i'm not entitled. we must create new revenue

streams for the product. we must find out how to chart online. would this be easier before we made it mediocre? yes, it would have been a lot easier when the product was something substantial and something you could not have gotten anywhere else. it now does not resemble that in many markets. it will be easy, i believe, relatively easy for the national papers to do so. my prediction is within the next year, you're going to see "the washington post" and "the times" going to an on-line subscription model. we're going to see rupert murdoch do it in some of the regional papers do it. some of them might have some substance to squeeze in the hole and create a new dynamic. with every day you delay this and reporters are bought out or lay off, another newspaper and

thinks they can do without a copy desk or a city editor, every newspaper is closer to the abyss. finally, the big boys are getting a parade would have been nice if they got it -- finally, the big boys are getting it. it would have been nice if the big boys got it five years ago. the scary part, i think, is this. this "the times" and "post" wait long enough, you're going to see "the washington post -- st. louis edition" and they're going to hire 10-12 people to create an advanced usa today version of a local, is on paper -- local, zoned paper. it will give you a page of local metro coverage.

because they're offering you their international and national coverage and you cannot get that on line anymore for free, because they're going to back up on that, you are going to see this sort of modern version of the the zoned papers which were previously regional or metro news. that is the worst case scenario. i would rather see locally owned papers survive. i do not know if that is going to happen. i do think that journalism has a value and eventually that value will restore itself. it is bigger cannot make it through the transition, we're going to see new start-ups. they're going to pay for with online subscriptions for these new start-ups.

here's the thing we also missed. in my time as a journalist, we lost a lot of subscriptions. the gas, the trucks, the wood pulp, the lost money there. it made it harder is forced to see the future -- it made it harder for us to see the future. it is $20 per month to get "the baltimore sun." if you paid $8 a month to get that on my, there are no trucks, no gas. that is a revenue structure. you can generate $300,000 a month if you get 10% of their subscriptions online to commit to you. with that, you can handle 30

reporters. the scary part of that is a lot of our citizens are not going to get it because they are not online. the delivery model is not as a democratic. that is something to contend with going forward. i do think there is a future but it begins with content 3 we to believe in contents again. we're going to have to pay for content to provide, hire back the talent we have leeched out, and make other people pay for. if we do not do that -- to put out a product and no one is willing to pay for it, and the freshman business major will tell you if you do not have a product is time to stop attending. i the that is where we're going. i think, finally, some people are going to get there but it is way late in the game. on that happy note, my shirt is dry. >> if you do not mind, we will shift back and forth.

it becomes a bizarre square dance. we have several questions essentially survival skills for those who are still working in daily journalism. people want to know about young people. should they continue to strive for a career in journalism? what about those of us who still work in newsrooms? all of these dynamics that have to do with shifting sands and the pressure in many people having to work more with your resources in the newsroom? a little practical advice for people who are still in the trade or thinking about working here. >> i really do not consider myself an expert on what to do if you're still in the game. one thing that worked for me in a multimedia cents where i have a marketable skill and i did not know i