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 couldn't case where the ultimate day tim%á@a2rd i inherited a very sensitive case, and the government had spent 2 1/2 years trying to get his confidential source on a story involving chinese

espionage,, and you know, there were all these financial pressures on the paper, economy shrinking, recession shrinking, we fought that tooth and nail at enormous cost. i spent more defending bill than i did on the entire rest of the news coverage, and, of course, national news coverage, and we ultimately wanted a decision. it's the only decision in the last 10 years in which the judge has ruled the first amendment trumped the government's interest in a national security interest case, but it case at enormous cost to the newspaper. we spent enormous amounts of money, unbelievable amount of money defending him, but it's worth it. and i hope as we get back to the basics of our journal thasme we don't lose sight that have when we make that obligation. we really have to stick to it, from the corporate titans all the way down to the original reporter. li e 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. .. >> question?

>> out of the events so successful in getting into the media? >> that is a question i was going to ask our friends in the media. the question and i haven't i don't know the answer to that, but the question that i have to the panel is it there were two or three things when they whistle-blower comes ford initially to get on first base what are you looking at in a whistle-blower that says this might be something worthy of a full investigation for a few starts investigation and what are the guidepost you are looking at? i don't know the answer. >> it is the thumb rule of let you look at when you whistle-blower has some of the negatives that jim mentioned and may have a lawsuit or issues with their employer.

what do look at it with the initial venting process to determine if this is a real case? >> i think it comes down to what you can consider to be newsworthy. whistle-blowers coming to you with a story that is germane and the news you will be more interested. i look for people with high-level access and, not someone on the lower rungs. i would love to have any kind of documentation. if they come to you with instant corroboration that helps immensely. you may want to look someone in the night and assess how credible they are then go through the whole process of trying to weed out people who are not credible. >> i don't want to give away

"60 minutes" secrets but i was impressed beyond all believe about the effort so one of the colleagues that produces four steve croft we were doing the project and i picked them up at the airport to be day low-level fbi agent that may know something about the case and looking at the associate producer with a gun up and coming journalist it is three and a half for 4 inches thick and we thought we had to ask and what is that? this is everything i dug up on agent acts she had dug up everything to the point* of knowing what the favorite wines he had and he was a wine taster and she knew things about his life and i watched when you get the a gut check meeting the

whistle-blower for the first time and the ability of doing such thorough research you could have an engaging conversation with the person right away. i really know all of these things about you. when i saw that do journalism -- two digits since -- due diligence that is journalism at its best track of the media may have gotten it wrong but not precisely capture what really went on because they had not taken the due diligence "60 minutes" does every time. that is probably the most important thing. way one tip faxed we deal with that. what is great is that he always comes and they know that we need a facts to be validated show me how i will get there that is what builds a level of trust. it is checking facts in has

to be daunted and crossed. >> >> it is all situational. sometimes a whistle blower will come with something that is esoteric or just doesn't reach the threshold. i don't know what that is it does not reach the threshold but generally it is something that is of national consequence may be surprising you did not know that war makes you think about in a different way. and in terms of what the attorneys were whistle-blowers can do, it is like john said we do an amazing amount.

the glory for me is "60 minutes." l. they do four or five stories per year at the end of the day we will shoot 900 minutes and whittle it down at 13 minutes because the amount of information that we know is a breathtaking. and parenthetically it is a way to get out of a threatened lawsuit. this will come out in court if you sue us and the lawsuit was dropped. but what a lawyer can do is to know the story. know the case and present it and then the it is just

meeting fed guy and eyeballing him or her and finding out if it is everything he o.r. she says and if it holds up in terms of the interest bedded is very general. it is so general. it is hard to make a hard and fast rule. >> is there another question? >> but with the decline of newspapers with investigative reporting? [inaudible] it. >> that is the excellent question. >> with diminished resources for investigative reporting is a real problem. >> i have two theories we

have more expensive not just because we are paid a lot of money but spend a lot of money going after things but almost as difficult to deal with so when the big risk that they go to the investigative journalist because they are difficult to deal with but this is closest to my personal interest to have a journalism in the name of saving money abandon one of the greatest obligations to the public. if you think how this country started with thomas paine's pamphlets that rose to fight tyranny and become a country is south the u.s. today so many papers are myopic we analyze what happened yesterday are right about what we think will happen tomorrow and so few people it takes time. you have to spend hours at a dinner table talking to a whistle-blower you may decide was not worth talking to because the one to talk to about their house not

substantive but we need as a profession to get ahold of. if i wrote a book today i would say stop the winding, not the press is. we have convince the public we're not worth that much and have relent ever owned business model. but one of the things we're working on is to come up with a business model to support a robust investigative journalism. i am at a nonprofit center that just spend money to do accountability journalism every day and there is another one out of new york doing the same thing. it has to transfer outside of the profession i am glad people are stepping forward and my goal within the profession is to convince editors and publishers that investigative journalism is essential to the public discourse and it cannot be profitable if done the right

way and >> john, we were chuckling when rich was talking about having months to work on a story, because any news organization, especially want a magazine, there's a constant pressure to churn it out. investigative units are costly, and they're time consuming, and the traditional models probably will go away or really decline significantly. however, i'm not quite as downbeat about it, because there are all these other new models that are starting with the web. i mean, there's a guy he was reading about a while ago who has a notion that he's exploring now where, within local markets, he kind of publicizes an area of inquiry and investigation, and then solicits donations from interested citizens, and it's kind of like a little

microfinancing way on a local level to finance an investigation. it's not traditional, but if it works, fantastic. so i'm a little more optimistic. i think just the forms are going to change over the next couple of years. optimistic. >> out ask our panel listed they have been a concluding remarks they want to share with the audience as we wrap it up? i will go in reverse order and start with john if there's anything you want to say in closing? am i thank you for your time this is such an important aspect of democracy to make sure the government and business leaders are held accountable and the secrets can be brought to light when needed. just the fact we're having this conversation helps a lot to educate the public there's a lot of important

journalism to be done and i hope these member of the public and people here today can help us engage in that and we do some good. >> i will add for any whistle-blower who were wis -- listening i hope they're not discouraged by some of the negatives that we pointed out today we have all agreed it is an incredibly important function and some of the best tories any of us have worked on. >> i would just say that in many ways this kind of journalism is a blending of self-interest and public interest the news organizations need to make a profit but i know a broadcast like "60 minutes" and my colleagues do we really want to to do the right thing?

we are motivated to act in the public interest and sometimes those corporate and journalistic ideals clash but by and large it sheiks out well in the end and it is like health care legislation. the process can be ugly with the sausage making but at the end of the day all are served personally and professionally and whenever it is that drives the whistle-blower and what is best for the country in light of that i invite all of us. [laughter] be the path of "60 minutes" day-care. [laughter] >> i would like to add a message to the attorneys

that will be representing what whistle-blowers and whistle-blowers which is you have heard someone from the journalists today about what they are looking for or what they are wary of in terms of you trying to get a message out that can effectuate change and not lose the opportunity to make positive change because of difficulties of communication i think one important thing for a journalist and lawyers to be very aware of as somebody who has worked with them over to 85 years say whistle-blower is usually to people the person and they were before they blew the whistle which is often and courageous, honest, courageo us superb employee that works the way up and is loyal. just you want on your team than the person you will see on a park bench or climbing

delayed at night frustrating, depressed, upset because what they had believed and and often the value structure was turned topsy-turvy but i will say i have been able to see it i don't know the whistle-blowers before they blew the whistle i can only read it in their performance reviews are letters of commendation they come to be when they are in crisis but i am able to see them after and often they come back to the people they were. it is amazing when you see them again as that loyal, dedicated and incredibly effective employee activist or professional sometimes as an attorney who would have a long-term relationship with the whistle-blower we get to see it. i hope that the crises that

the whistleblower is in when they turn to the journalist will not become an impediment to be misunderstood then is used to four word the public interest. with that i would like to thank everyone for coming. thank you very much on behalf of the national whistle-blower center there will be more information posted at our website [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> next, "q&a" with author michael lewis. then the documentary, "hunger bites." and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> this week, author michael lewis on his latest book, "the big short," inside the doomsday machine. >> michael lewis author of the big short i want to ask you a weird first question. >> why does that not surprise me? >> why is it that throughout

this book almost on every page you have people that youre talking to using the f-word? because they do. and its the profanity of that environment. its just part of describing that environment. you cant write about people and take that out and have the flavor of the thing preserved. so theres a -- i think thats -- you listen to people on wall street, and you listen to the people on the streets of america the level of profanity is high but on wall street it is extremely high. wall street and sports both place. and so if thats the way people talk i just dont change it. i mean in a way it would be manipulating the environment if i changed it. >> have you thought about how often it happens? i mean its almost every page. >> i was -- its probably not almost every page. >> no, but i mean almost every time-- >> theres one character, in particular, who -- in fact, i did think of that. i thought about how they spoke when i was writing them the characters, and theres a character who uses no profanity at all whos a -- michael burry

the doctor doesnt -- he doesnt use profanity. but then theres a character steve eisman who actually exists in the story and in the real world to run around and insult people on wall street. and so hes -- and thats how he sounds. so i couldnt remove it. i just simply couldnt remove it. it was too much a part of him and he is on a lot of pages. when we talk thats what comes out of his mouth. >> but at the end of your back in the last -- its not actually the last chapter but you have lunch with a former leader of a company that you work for how do you pronounce his name? >> john gutfreund who was the ceo of salomon brothers where i worked in my youth, my first job out of graduate school i worked as a bond salesman on the salomon brothers trading floor for a couple of years. >> quote, your f--ing book. why did he say that to you? >> well, he said, your f--ing book it destroyed my career and it made yours. i wrote a book called liars poker about that experience at

salomon brothers. and he thought -- he was really -- he kept repeating that line that -- he was just emphasizing how intensely he felt about it. and it was an awkward moment because i dont completely agree. i think that actually he did make my career. it was a great way to start a literary career. the book was a big success but he could have survived by a book. my book dealt him at most a glancing blow. but i think at that moment he was thinking heres this guy. ive never laid eyes on him as far as i know who wrote this book that has followed me wherever i go and it has caused me some annoyance. im going to say what i think about and so i let him say it. >> pronounce his name again. >> gutfreund. >> gutfreund. because its g-u-t-f-r-- >> it looks like gut-freund. >> yes. so why did you end your book this way? >> well, because i started the

book walking back into my past, walking back into this place wall street that i had left when i was 27 years old and never really come back to as a book writer. and i was drawn back to it because of the experience i had had then. and one of the themes thats teased out in the story is that an awful lot of the crisis weve been living through has its seeds in things that happened in the 80s actually on the trading floor i worked. and so i thought it was appropriate to end the book by going back to sort of the person who was there you know and kind of got it all going. i mean gutfreund, in particular, was a seminal figure in wall street history because he had taken this legendary bond trading partnership salomon brothers and turned it into a public corporation. he had sold -- he had -- when he got control of the place he

went public and this completely changed the relationship of the wall street firm to the rest of the society. it was a very big deal. and i think that was -- i think i say in the book it was like the first pebble -- it was the pebble that was kicked off the top of the cliff that led to the avalanche. so i thought that was an important first act and i wanted to go to the man and talk to him about it and see if he saw the connection between what he had done then and what this story we just lived through now. >> you get one of the biggest send offs you can get on any book tour, 60 minutes two segments. how did that come about? >> you know i still havent seen it. so -- but it came out of the blue. steve kroft, the interviewer, who was fabulous but i never met him before really wanted to do it. and when he showed up at my house in berkeley he said, you know we tried to do you two years or three years when the the blind side came out a book i wrote about football and

other things. and he said, but you said, you told your publisher you wouldnt talk to us because we just steal all of the material and not mention the book. and i think i did. they had called before and i had been so used to these news magazine shows basically appropriating material and helping them do their piece and then you got forgotten. that they forgot where they got all of the material. and i just thought this is a waste of time. and so i think i told 60 minutes no once. and so they came back to the publisher, i guess, and said, no were actually serious were very interested in his book hes doing and we just want to talk to him about his book and so i caved. in a moment of weakness i caved. and i thought it was going to be a small and trivial piece on this book. i didnt know what it was going to be actually and they came and they spent two days. i mean my wife kept asking, are they leaving any time soon? i mean they really planted themselves in the house for two days and we sat and talked. it was great. i mean i had no idea. having not seen the piece i cant really comment on it but

its an interesting experience this business of doing media unlike this experience, but the media that you see like a 60 minutes. you see -- you talk to them for five, six hours and it gets reduced to 20 minutes or whatever it is. it wasnt a very long piece. but you dont because you said so many things in six hours you really dont know whats going to come out of it. and the main sensation one has when one is engaged in this activity is total self boredom. you think oh my god, how could anybody be interested in me. i just bored myself for six straight hours and theyre going to reduce this into an even more boring 20-minute piece. >> i had a reaction, the one to ask you about, they only focused on one of your characters. >> yes. >> mike burry. >> mike burry, the one who doesnt use f-bombs. >> yes. and but i wondered reading the book he was an interesting character but so was steve eisman and so was --