it was at odds with his, he might elsewhere have gone elsewhere to do it, and i wouldn't have blamed him. for a piece like that, you not only -- after you have satisfied yourself that the facts are there and that this person, you know, is motivated for the right reasons, you know, you very well a -- an identity with the source in this way. that you don't want to do anything that is going to hurt him. you know, ultimately he or she has to make their own decision. if we don't see eye to eye on a piece, i don't want him to do it with me. then he should go and maybe somebody at the "the washington post" or abc will frame it in a way that he did. but that was not an ureb with us.

so there was a lot of off-camera stuff in which this was discussed and he came to know intrinsically -- intrinsically how i saw the story, and therefore the way he saw it is the way i saw it after a thorough investigation, and we went forward. a thorough investigation and we will forward. and so that's how he was able to frame it. >> this is not strictly relevant to the question about framing, the rich just brought up an interesting point. i often found that when you engage in this relationship and you go through georgiou diligence, at a certain point you really do become very closely associated with a whistleblower if you've than a story. and your credibility is on the

line at the same time. i found in my own case, you know, the organizations that i worked for like the stories, that they wanted to make sure they were airtight. and if a serious challenge came to the story, i had to defend its almost as strongly as the whistleblower did. so that's why it was so important to that work up front. you can intrinsically linked with your own whistleblower when you do the stories. >> so elaborate on that. i'm sure the lawyers go through this with their clients. i mean, when you meet somebody who is sharing all of this with you, like john said your domain, you know, you almost become a married couple. and, you know, if they're taking -- if they're acting bravely and their team in the interest of a higher principle,

you can't help but like them often. but at the same time, at the end of the day, you're a journalist and you have a devotion to truth and you have, quite honestly, every card for your own career. and so you have to have this parallel set of relationships going on where you may have liked the guy and you may have wanted and you'll never want to do anything to hurt them, but you have to be ruthless about your pursuit of the facts and the truth. and when push comes to shove, for reasons of self-interest and there's reasons of what got you into journalism in the first race. you go with the facts. and i mean, one of the classic examples before my time at "60 minutes." i forgot his name now, some

vietnam era colonel. i want to say herbert -- i don't know. he came to "60 minutes" with this unbelievable story. mike wallace and barry landrieu was the producer. and they went weeks and months going down one afternoon about what the story would be in at the end of the day, barry landrieu, the producer, realized that this guy who it got was actually a fraud and was perpetrating a major fraud on the u.s. government and on "60 minutes" and the news media and barry turned the tables and in the end, you know, his devotion was to the facts, to the truth. and so, so that -- i guess the point is, you know, you can like somebody, you can identify with somebody, but at the end of the day, it's got to check out and

we check it out ruthlessly. our devotion to the truth is the matter. so, that's my elaboration. >> i think you summed it up perfectly. i remember one little incident of a guide with stories about and buy a waste since there was something he hadn't told her they couldn't get it from anyone. finally i found the flaw in his background and i put it out there and i remember he said how could she do that? that's what we are. we're not friends at the end of the day. worldly professionals and we trusted with the public trust of getting the story completely and if you didn't tell me and it's essential to the american public, we're going to report it. or not there should be our advocate. i remember how angry was. does a very powerful moment of screaming and learning and calling me names. but that's what were entrusted with and we really have to stay true to. it's hard not to get a touch of these whistleblowers and you have to pull yourself back him up and remind yourself that even

though what they're going through, your job is to stay as neutral as honest an arbitrary to the facts as you can possibly be. >> i'm going to try to question to the panelists. i hope it's appropriate. i would just like each of them to it respond to their view of protecting sources, even though under the u.s. constitution, there is no first amendment right to keep a source confidential. so therefore you can be compelled the recipient a comic grand jury or civil subpoena to reveal a source. what's your personal view on that as a journalist, not just politically, like how you deal with that in dealing with sources is what i would like to know. i'm not looking for your -- we understand what the news media comes from as a matter of ideology, but i'm just looking forward to you personally deal that when you're dealing with confidential services. >> i'll jump in here. my view on this changeover, you

know, the 25 years i was reporter, i used to think that that was kind of sacrosanct and you -- i'm not speaking from a personal point of view, but in terms of the law that sources really would have conjecture. i saw that been abridged over the years and obviously you look at coming in now, during the bush administration what happened in a lot of reporters, john, that's a good example and that's actually became come you know, all most typical in a way. the other thing i saw is that corporations, these big corporations, especially when the economy started to go south, there was a lot of pressure. no one wanted a big lawsuit like that. and i saw the legal departments kind of way for a little bit good they want us dead fast as i wanted them to be. and so i would enter into a

relationship to a source with a whistleblower and i kind of pepper that first conversation with a lot of caveats. towards the end of my career, journalism career i wouldn't go in and sit your protected and backward to go to jail if we all died before it turned you over. i'd be more realistic about it same i will do everything in my power to protect you. however, there maybe circumstances that come up with out of myd you know, i thought t what would happen if in my case at nbc said, we're not going to back you. this wasn't contractual. and no, i became much more guarded and careful about how i laid that out with my sources. i'm curious to hear what you guys have to say. >> jim is exactly right.

in fact, i'm reminded of the men couldn't case where the ultimate day time warner made the decision to violate his source relationship when he was wanting to go to prison for appears with a competent circumstance. i changed my practices in the last decade and limiting the number of people that you always end with your immediate thoughts coming your sources so they can ascertain that a non-source. i've limited the number of people as to what to to decrease witnesses in an effort to find that my sources are into aborted try to avoid the circumstances were looking at the bottom line what to say heck with that, and giving up a source because we don't have any more money. when i became executive editor of the "washington times," i inherited a very sensitive case involving national security on the board of bill gertz and they fed two and half years trying to get his confidential source on a story involving chinese espionage and you know, there were all these financial in the paper. we fought that to a nail at

enormous cost. i spent more defending bill bennett did on the entire rest of the news coverage. and of course to national news coverage. and we it's the only decision left tenures which fit taunt. he came at enormous cost of newspaper and we spend enormous amounts of money, unbelievable amounts of my defending him. but it's worth it and i hope as we get back to the basics of our journalism that we don't lose sight with remake that obligation we really have to stick to it from the corporate titans all the way down to the regional reporter. >> yeah, i mean, the question is that what point are you going to go to jail for a source. and you know, i rarely let it get to that because i've been able to usually take somebody's information and get it verified

elsewhere. so it doesn't -- so then my original tipster who absolutely wants to remain anonymous, you know, becomes marginal or irrelevant to what we ultimately put on the air. and you know, at the same time, i will not put that person's name anywhere on my computer. i will put it on notes, anything like the so that there's no way of it ever getting traced, should the government come an attempt to seize my records. the only other thing i would add to it is sort of a twist on confidential sources. they came up once when i was doing a story about medical researcher, a whistleblower who blew the whistle on the company that killed her research because it proved that the drug is pharmaceutical company with

bankrolling was ineffectual, in effect this. and the company, you know, i try to be evenhanded. i talked to the whistleblower and she was on the record for some and she was off the record for other stuff and i felt like i didn't know what the facts or because whistleblowers are complicated people and you never know and you want to hear the worst thing the other side has to say. so you can then backtracking figure it out. and at some point i came -- so i went on background and off the record with corporate executives and at some point i realized what they were doing was completely trashing her in such a way that they have no obligation, no responsibility for anything they were telling me. but i was obligated to check it out and ask her about it, you know, or collar people and get the rumor mill going.

and so, at a certain point i realized what they were doing and i just said, nothing is off the record, no more. and we just let forward. if you're not willing to sit on the record, then i'm not interested in hearing about it. so that was just sort of a twist, sort of the kind of corporate version of the scooter libby use of confidential sources. so anyway, okay. >> that actually reminds me in the context of whistleblowers, it is common for the employer to then use off the record or background information to trash on the whistleblower, to try to get some traction against an employee. there are famous cases, for example, the linda tripp case where they went into her security file. ..

>> next, president obama speaks in north carolina on the economy and the health care. >> then the student cam winner max benning. then your calls and comments on wurnl.

-- "washington journal." >> this week, a moot court on whether zens with be denied a life-saving vaccine. among those attending, ken star, dean of pep dine university. "america and the courts" today on c-span. >> this weeked on c-span2's booktv, rebecca skloot on "the immortal life of henrietta lacks." also, "stuper-power illusions" by jack matlock.

also, "the history of white people." >> the minute the wall street firms were in the business of harvesting middle class americans for their home equity value and making loans against it, there was a natural risk of abuse. >> sunday, michael lewis. his latest is "the big short." also, is moan ball -- also, "liar's poker." >> president obama told workers at a north carolina manufacturing plant that the economy is, in his worts, beginning to turn the corner. labor department employers show 152,000 jobs added last month.

the president was in shardt, north carolina, -- was in charlotte, north carolina. >> today the charlotte region

remains an important part of our future. as you can see, we are currently expanding operations with our investments supported by the $49 million matching grant that we received from the department of energy last year. the expansion includes this facility in charlotte as well as construction of a new facility in concord, north carolina. both of which are aimed at enhancing our position in the market leader for electric drive vehicle applications. when completed, these expansions in north carolina will more than double our global capacity for lithium battery separateors. the opportunities we have in the market are developing quickly. i would like to that ta people around the world and for those here in charlotte today for contributing to our success and positioning our company for continued growth. [applause]

thank you. on that note, i would like to introduce to you the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] applause >> thank you, everybody. have a seat.

bob, fa you -- thank you very much for the terrific introduction. i would like to thank you for trying to explain to me what was going on here. [laughter] we have beverly purdue doing a great job. thank you very much. [applause] it is important to note that the state of north carolina has been supporting your company here. i didn't want to leave the state out. lieutenant governor walton is here. please stand up. applause the hot-shot young up

and coming mayor from charlotte is here. [applause] some joun outstanding members of congress, com -- congressman mel watt. and even though he is from across the border, we love him, congressman john separate of south carolina. -- spratt. [applause] so it is good be here at your company and good to be back in north carolina. we just concluded our tour where we saw some of the workings of this facility where your manufacturing components for the state-of-the-art batteries. you are building separators to

make sure diometrically opposed forces can work successfully together, and i couldn't help but think we could use your help in congress. [applause] we could get one of those tri-part films and put it between the democrats and the republicans. it would improve conductivity. right? did i get that right? ok. the truth is, these are been a tough two years for north carolina and they have been a tough two years for the urks. -- united states states of america. we have been through the wofert turmoil since the great depression. when i first took the oath of office we were already moving

toward what some thought was a great depression. we were losing 8,000 jobs a month. the economy was contracting that first quarter when i first took office. and i have often had to report bad news during the course of this year as the recession wreaked havok on people's lives. but today is an encouraging day. we learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs sflead of losing -- instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. we are beginning to turn the corner. [applause] this month more americans got up, headed to work at an office, factory, storefront.

more folks are feeling the sense of pride and satisfaction that comes with a hard-earned and well deserved pay check at the end of a long week of work. as i said, one week ago we were losing an average of more than 700,000 jobs each month. but the tough measures that we took, measures that were necessary, even though sometimes they were unpopular, that broken this and are helping us to complime out of this recession. we have now added more than 150,000 jobs each month over the first quarter of this year. and this month's increase of 152,000 jobs was the best news we've seen on the job front in more than two years. [applause] at the same time, it is important to emphasize, while we have come a long way, we have a

long way to go. we shouldn't understiment the hard choices that confront millions of our citizens. some of our friends, relatives, and neighbors you know are still going through a tough time. eight million people have lost jobs over the last two years. that's a staggering sum. economic sticks don't do juss -- economic sta activityics don't do justice to the pain. unemployment takes a toll on families, takes a toll on marriages, takes a toll on children. it is sad for the vitality of communities, especially in places that have seen fact rizz and other businesses shut their doors. and being unable to provide work or able to provide for your family, that doesn't just affect your economic ability, that affects your heart and soul. it beats you up. it is hard.

we have to be mindful that today's job numbers leaves us with a lot more to do. it will take time to achieve the strong and sustained job growth that we need. long before this recession hits, for a decade, middle class families had already been experiencing a sense of declining economic security. the paychecks were flatlining, even though the cost for everything from groceries to education and health care were all going up. this means that even as we pull out of this immediate crisis, we have got to taffle some of the long-term problems that have been a drag on our economy. that's why we have been working so hard to turn this economy around. it is not quick, and it is not easy. and the truth is, there are some limits to what government can do. government can't reverse the toll of this recession overnight. and government on its own can't replace the eight million jobs

that have been lost. the true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector. what government can do is create a condition for companies to succeed. it can't help to create the conditions for companies to hire again. what it can be is build the infrastructure and create the incentives that will allow small businesses to add workers. it will help entrepreneurs to take a chance on an idea. it will lead manufacture -- manufacture ourers to set up shob. that's what we did with the smuss bill. a lot of folks got this mixed up with the steps we had to take to avoid the baing system melting down. i know that wasn't popular. it wasn't popular with me.

but here's what the recovery act did -- we cut teaks for small businesses -- taxes for mall businesses. that's what the recovery act did, cut taxes for small businesses. [applause] we are also making changes in our interstate highways. that not only creates more jobs it creates a platform in which businesses can prosper. it is also what we did through the jobs bill that i signed into law recently. a bill that cugs taxes for small businesses that hire unemployed workers and allows companies to write off investment and equipment, like some of the equipment we saw here today and encourages job creation by spurring investments to school rennovation, all of which builds on the investments that we put into place last year through the recovery act.

so as a consequence of these investments we promoted innovation to help america lead in the growth industrials in the 21st century. i want to improve the short-term jobs situation, but i also want to improve the long-term jobs prospects for our economy. in no where is america more primed to lead them than in clean energy. through the recovery act, this company has received a $50 million matching grant to expand the facility on this site, and then they have another facility in concord, north carolina. i know this bill is on the work that governor purdue did to bring clean energy jobs to this state. so here's the bottom line. this investment is expected