criticizing benjamin netanyahu over the settlement issue. there's a lot of politics at play. one thing that is good to be very interesting to watch is the star treaty. the past and with russia -- the last one with russia has passed. it needs 67 votes to pass the treaty in the senate. there has been this sense that almost every issue has become a partisan issue, whether it be a nuclear power reduction treat or anything else. is going to be interesting to see if that happens on this as well. -- it is going to be interesting to see if that happens on this as well. >> there's an article that says that israel is the only nuclear-

armed power in the middle east. the reason why they're putting some pressure on israel is not that they're not concerned with iran, but that they think that the whole region needs to be nuclear-free in order to have peace in that area. where you hearing from the white house about what is next when it comes to it -- what are you hearing from the white house about what is next when it comes to israel? >> they consider a red herring in the upcoming summit. the summit really is about what the countries that are dissipating can agree to do within four years. what they are trying to do on monday and tuesday is come up with agreements were nations can decide what will sovereign powers decided what can they do

internationally. the white house will work very hard to make sure that that does not become with the summit is about. i think that most of the country's interest is also to that end. many countries are concerned with non-proliferation. many countries would like financial assistance from the u.s. for their materials. this is not entirely political summit. there are actual policy interests by varying degrees by most countries. they share a genuine interest in tackling this issue. >> think you both. we appreciated. >> it was good to be here. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal ," the nuclear security

summit. there is a historic perspective on what will be discussed at the summit. there's also a discussion on patient safety. dennis quaid, actor and patient safety advocate. >> rupert murdoch is interviewed next. it is about the future of journalism and the state of the media. this is one hour and 15 minutes.

>> he has been described does the most powerful men in the world. everything is affected from economics to culture. rupert murdoch is in the middle of that. his corporation owns and runs in the movie company -- you have heard of "avatar" i am sure. the have fox news on cable with ratings higher than any other cable operation, "the wall street journal," and that is all just in the united states.

there's a lot more overseas in england, europe, and asia. rupert murdoch is indeed a modern media mogul. we are honored to have them as our guest today. .com. >> thank you very much. >> i want to start -- welcome. >> thank you very much. >> described as the most powerful man in the world, how you take that description? >> i do not litigate to me. >> -- i do not let it get to me. >> there are three quotes. the first is from an australian clergymen in the late 19th century who believe that, "a free press is probably the strongest form of tyranny. no autocrat can tolerate the widespread dissemination among its people of a free discussion

of its conduct." do you remember it? >> no. >> your grandfather? >> yes. >> that was patrick murdoch. he seems to a been a passionate fan of the first amendment. i am wondering what your own view would be. do you share that total commitment to the first amendment? >> absolutely. i think it is fundamental to this country and its strengths. its lack of presence in other countries is their weakness. >> the second quote is from a newspaper publisher who explained, "a newspaper is to be made to pay. let it deal with what interests the mass of people.

let it give the public what it wants." do you remember who said that? >> you're going to say my father or northcliffe. >> lord northcliffe was the mentor of your father, who was a great journalist in his own right. do you share that view? >> yes. yes, i do believe that the public wants duke, ethical journalism, factual journalism, but they also want to be in the times. >> it seems that would northcliffe was saying is that you give the public what it wants. the good part of the 20th- century, there was the philosophical argument among american journalists that the american public certainly should

have what it wants. but glickman also added that it ought to be given what it needs in a very complex society. would you buy into both elements? >> absolutely. media should provide great issues of the day with inform comment on both sides of the issue. that is an additional thing. i think it is also part of the attraction of the media. >> but what i think northwood was saying is that the most important thing is to give them what they want. litman was getting a whole new dimension to that, what they need. but you are buying into both. >> northcliffe was not above expressing opinions. of course, he was the founder of "the daily mail, clos" the first

penny press in england. >> but in the u.s., a tabloid is what you're selling. >> i think tabloid is a misunderstood word in this country. in britain and australia, it means a compact-sized paper. the public here is often thought to be -- tabloid here is often tobelieved to be a cheap and pour paper. >> the third quote is from a very modern mobile. "my past consists of a series of interlocking words."

do you remember that? >> no. it sounds like me. [laughter] >> i wonder what you meant by interlocking wars. >> i have had to battle my way up in a very competitive situation. i have created very competitive situations by starting new enterprises. we have been involved in newspaper wars, television wars, and all types of media wars, i guess. i have enjoyed them. we have lost a few, but one enough to still be here. >> -- but won enough to still be here. >> you're using the word wars to

express extreme competition. >> yes, particularly in the early days in australia. not so much sense. >> what about in england? >> they are pretty sleepy there. you. or give hours every day, your head of the -- it he went to work eight hours every day, you were ahead of the competition. [laughter] >> what about the trade unions? >> that was harry tough. -- that was very tough. the unions and the different crowds were all lot of control. the newspapers were full of mistakes that could not be fixed in time. i thought i was big enough to

take a strike and come back at the end of it. it could be one week or two weeks or three weeks. i would come back and the readers would still be there. there were enough of them not to run the business. >> but it was said that you broke the back of the trade unions. >> that was tough and unpleasant fight. >> when it was over, the the unions continue to work in your newspapers? >> no. >> they were union-free newspapers. >> yes. we have an association that we deal with. >> do you feel that it was a better paper after the union wars? >> absolutely. incidently, since that date, not one of our competitors has lost a concession to the unions

because they lost their lesson. it was very interesting. it allowed computerization to come in after 20 years. people are better paid there now. but we can change jobs. people's many skills are different. people are happy. they're making good salaries, all of them. but they are extraordinarily automated. >> i want to go back to the interlocking wars. the1vz reason i asked that quen is that someone who works for you, bill o'reilly, was sitting in this seated couple of years ago. >> really? >> yes. [laughter] he was a very good guess. he was a very interesting guest. he was describing his relationship to the world

almost as "me against them" terms. do you see yourself in conflict with the rest of the world or uc moments when you are in a state of tranquillity? -- court do you see moments when you are in the state of tranquillity? -- or do you see moments when yioour are in a state of tranquillity? >> i don't see myself against the world. in australia, we had very little money and we worry small company and we have to buy those that were failing and get them on their feet and fighting. in britain, it was fun there. part of my australianism wanted me to take them on.

>> [unintelligible] >> to take on england. [laughter] >> let me talk about your father, who was a small media mogul and an outstanding journalist. he was the reporter who literally broke the story on the battle of the locally in 1915 -- the battle of politicallgolipol. >> australians and new zealanders and canadians and some british were mowed down. >> your father was allowed to cover it, but there was an arrangement.

keith murdoch would not write what he was seeing. but what he saw was so awful that he felt he had to write. of course, a couple of generals lost their position as a result. do you feel that any reporter is doing his job -- in doing his or her job should strike a deal with the government to cover the war? >> i think there are times of national security, yes. in fact, my father -- that is not an accurate story totally. he was allowed into it and there was strict censorship. he was on his way to london to take charge were set up a bureau for -- to take charge or

set up a bureau for reporters and australia. he had an office and he was typing away a letter to the australian prime minister. and someone asked to see the letter and asked to share it with the boss. he agreed. northcliffe immediately to get down to the prime minister, lord george, who made the cabinet paper. the commission was set up that suggested the closure of the campaign because of the letter. indeed, they recall the commander while the commission investigated the allegations. xfdx>> what i am getting at is a broader issue. if you're involved in a war, as

the united states is now involved in two wars, do you believe that your reporters were people that work for you should make a deal with the government in order to cover a conflict? should they allow themselves to be indented with the forces? -- to be in bed with the forces? >> being in bed with -- to be imbedded with the forces? >> it is very different from something like, say, the second world war. there were stories that never made it into the press. but the non changed all that. -- but vietnam changed all that. as a rule, journalists should be free to report everything.

unfortunate, the war in iraq and afghanistan, the journalists were holed up in a hotel most of the time because it was to dangerous to move out. i do not think there was enough coverage. >> but the idea being imbedded -- you do not have a problem with it at this point? >> no, i think that would compromise the journalists. >> one of your photographers, in trying to explain what makes rupert tick, said the following, "is what appears as a series of psychic leaps, in perpetual acceleration and unless acquisition, with no step far enough, no properly and adequate reward." >> wow.

i think this is a pretty big and heavy statement. [laughter] it is true, when i was young and ambitious, i took risks. by that the company a few times. -- i bet the company a few times. the strike we took in london, that was a betting. when i started sky television as a part operation, which was legal in europe. they liked the idea of someone competing with the bbc. that nearly sent me broke. we were losing a fortune. we had opposition that they have a license and we did not. they were losing twice as much money.

they finally came to us, but they had three times as much in reserves. the family came to us and said, "let's merge into one." and now here we are with 10 billion customers. -- with 10 million customers. >> is that when your fortune turnaround and went positive? what was the big moment? >> we have had up sundowns. >> what was -- we had ups and downs. >> what was the big one? >> we have had our money back several times. you have your breaks in locuck d you do things that people think are crazy -.

people thought that ted turner was crazy when he started cnn. >> how do you get your news in the course of the date? [laughter] >> i spend more times -- i spend more time than most people reading newspapers. i read "the new york post." >> by you on that. /[2-- but you own that. [laughter] do you read "the times?" >> i read through it and stop in several places. [laughter] >> do you read "the washington

post?" >> i should, but i do not. >> to you walk around with one of those blackberrieys? >> no. i have to screens behind me. >> content, a big risk become even bigger in your own vocabulary -- content, big words become even bigger in your own vocabulary. "content is not just king, but the emperor of all things electronic. we are on the cusp of a digital dynasty from which our company and our shareholders will profit greatly." >> i want -- i want to hear about content. i want to hear what your definition is.

in reviewing everything under your sway, i am not absolutely clear what you, as the boss, consider content. >> well, it is what we print, the words, ethical and strong journalism. it is television, everything from entertainment to news channels. of course, we try to make better and better films. last year, we made the alltime world record. not many people would have made that rest of spending $4 billion on a film. >> but you have made almost $3 billion. >> no. i wish. [laughter] we brought in partners. but we have done very nicely. i am not complaining.

they have made $7 billion at the box office. but for a film like that, you get 15% from china. that is state-controlled. >> reichert >> we -- right. >> we do not get anything like two $0.7 billion. -- like $2.7 billion. we get dragged into technical things sometimes when necessary. but we are not a technical company and we do not compete in making technical objects. we are all about words and pictures. >> good. when you talk about content, i assume you mean substantive content.

>> indeed. >> so is "avatar" the same as in all editorial in "the wall street journal?" >> they're both content. >> but they're quite different. >> yes. it is also a question of quality. let me tell you how i got into the film business. i got a license for a television station. there were just issuing the first television licenses there. i found out pretty quickly that you could not afford to make a lot of programs. you had to take what was bought by the stations in sydney and milbourne. i hated that. that was until we could family put together a network. that took many years.

we had to wait for this to fail and get in. then i found that the cheapest way to run was to take a lot of american content. the studios said that, if you want to buy from us, you have to buy everything we make. we fought that unsuccessfully. at the back of my mind, i wanted to get to where it all started. so when it became possible to buy 20 century fox, i jumped at its. -- at it. that was the last risible exchange. -- that was the last reasonable exchange. >> i want to get back to content. we are obviously missing something. for you, substantive content can

be anything from the avatar movie to "hannity" ed 9:00 on fox sounding of his own opinions. >> yes. >> those opinions you put into substantive content, into that category. >> i think kennedy is very good. i think he is extremely sincere -- i think hannity is very good. i think he is extremely sincere. he is a very nice man and he has a huge audience. that is fine. but it is comment from one man. >> to understand what is content, what fox puts out -- i do occasional commentary for fox. let me put that on the record.

there has to be two foxes. there is one in the evening with highly opinionated bankers and then there's fox used during the day which is pretty much would be in almost any other network. >> know, we think it is different. -- no, we think it is different. we have both sides. we have our new shows and politics and whenever. we have democrats and republicans, libertarians, whenevewhatever. >> but the other networks have both sides it's well. >> but they tend to be democrats. [laughter] let's be honest about it. >> but is that a bad thing? >> no, but we're not republicans. >> your not? >> no.

>> your conservative. >>no. -- you are conservative. >> no. we are radicals. >> why are your radical leaves seem to be leaning more to one side? [laughter] >> said in a want to say that i agree with hannity or even bill already -- i do not want to say that i agree with hannity or even bill o'reilly. .

april, 1945, edward murrow visited the concentration camp. he did not go back to his hotel room and right immediately. he was so overwhelmed by the war that he saw -- the horror that

he saw that he spent three days thinking about it before he actually wrote it. when he did write it, it became one of the classics in american broadcast history. your own sense of that, would you think that is good journalism to wait before you share that which you experience? this incredible experience? >> i did not know you could do it today because you have competitors racing to tell the story. >> right. >> the race to be first family to corners being cut when we have to be careful about that. that is where editing comes in, but i think if it was

buchenwald and the three networks were discovered at the same moment, i would imagine they would have raced to get on the air. >> absolutely, so given the very nature of journalism and competition, that kind of reporting would not fit in. it would not be acceptable. >> i think the first breaking of the news, it would not be possible. it is still possible to make a major statement for a major reporter. >> deep down, you do not have a problem with the reporter going beyond the facts and providing as well as the facts his or her own interpretation were political views would enter the telling of a story?

>> it has got to be very clear. it has got to be clear he is writing his opinion, but of course, something like that, you cannot avoid subjective reporting. >> i want to take a moment to tell our radio and television audiences in th-- this is "the kalb report" and we are here talking to rupert murdoch. you have said the old business model based on advertising is dead. in the new business model we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our internet sites. there have been critics who say that model will not fly. you argue it will in fact fly, so again, help me understand so

of this. when you took over "the wall street journal" a couple years ago, the journal was charging for the information it provided online. when you came in, you said, stop that. it is going to be free. now you have changed your mind. what made you change your mind? where are you now? >> i if was certainly musing about it before we walked in, and i listen to the executives and looked of the revenue involved and the success of it. they had all along about a million people paying. some also buy the paper, and they use it to keep up-to-date throughout the day on breaking

news, market and so forth, and others only rely on it. i think about 400,000, and we are very happy with that, and we are going to keep that and extende it to london and any other papers we have. >> all of your papers are going to stop people like google or microsoft from taking our stories for nothing. and you can do that technically? >> with a copyright. they recognize it. if you call them up, you hardly need to write him a letter. >> have you already done that? >> absolutely. as far as the wall street website, that has always been the rule. they did not touch that. >> as well as the papers.

>> the papers themselves, they do, and they will be stopping that very shortly. >> stopping what exactly? >> if you go to google news and see stories that say "the wall street journal" the new suddenly gives the page or story insisted "the wall street journal," and it is for free. they have this very clever business model, and they have invented almost a new type of advertisement, so if they just tore out tens of millions -- pour out tens of millions of words a day, they have keywords tied to advertising, and it has produced a river of gold. those words are being taken

from the newspapers, and i think they ought to stop it. the newspapers ought to stand up and let them do their own reporting or whatever. >> in an ideal world, google and the others will pay if they want to take anything from "the wall street journal" or "the new york post." >> yes. >> they are not doing that as yet. >> no. >> but you intend for that to happen. >> we will be very happy if they just published our headline and maybe a sentence or two, and that is it. followed by a subscription. [laughter] that brings you to so-called -- the so-called traffic to your

sites. >> according to a recent survey , 16% of the people who get their news on the internet on the various web sites say they are prepared to pay for it, but if my arithmetic is right, that is 84% to get their news from the website but say they are not going to pay for it. what does the do for you, if that is true? >> i think when they have nowhere else to go they will start paying if it is reasonable. we are now selling an electronic division for $3.99 a week, which is a lot cheaper than a new stand.

it is about the same as the average subscription, but there is no paper involved. no print, no trucks. as far as i am concerned, i like what we have done, but i am old. i like the tactile experience. >> you're also businessman, and you're saying you support and operation, a new technological operation that may very well be the end of the printed newspaper. >> i think it will take a long time, but it might. that does not destroy the traditional newspaper. it just comes in a different form. >> but you said you do not have the thing you can pick up with your race christie's. >> the fact is it is very hard in this -- with your rice christie'krispies.

>> the fact is it is a very hard these days to find people under 30 who ever by a newspaper. i did not know how many of these students actually read one. >> i think you're right. they do not. >> they pick up a little bit on television. >> you have implied you are in a tough competition with quoted in your funds -- with "the new york times." >> not really. >> and you would not lose a moment of sleep if it went under and you consider "the times" to liberal and you would like to do away with it. >> that is not true. i have great respect for "the times," except it does have an agenda, and you can see it in the way they choose their stories.

i think anything obama once. >> anything obama wants? >> this morning you see it. a very tense story, -- very good story, which we would have liked. that is ok. i think people know where they are. sometimes people get irritated. certainly in new york there is a vague jewish population the field -- of being jewish population that feel it is too critical of israel. "the times" certainly has a cutting edge, but it has a lot of very good work. i really think it is formidable, but there is no harm. we are still looked upon as a financial paper, but they sell

about two to one. the rest of the country, we sell about three times as many as they do. we are really only a national newspaper -- the leading national newspaper. >> how you get on with the publisher of "the times"? >> ok. i do not see him much. >> what do you think about the story a weekend ago that seemed to compare him to a effeminate -- >> that is nonsense. now there's a whole group of pictures that have been changed.

someone had written a book about men with slightly of samanid shaved faces were more attractive -- slightly of feminine shape faces were more attractive to women today, and i never noticed it. he did. i think 99.9% of the readers did not notice it until someone did, and it got written about and so on, and i know who did it, and it was done as a joke. houston have alive. -- you should have all life. come on. [laughter] >> you're happy with the competition now. you do not want to do it in? >> no, but we fight for every inch of advertising, and when

we set our own big new york addition in three weeks, we will fighting for other advertising with the big department stores and so on, but in national advertising, people trying to reach the whole country, we go right after it, and we're doing very well. we are up from a year ago, and that goes for newspapers across the country. we are you need -- are unique in having increased our advertising, but we are competing with pretty terrible cuts. newspapers on vulnerable -- on all hold our semi-monopolies, --

on the whole are semi- monopolies. we have just been through a recession were a lot of them have disappeared, but at the same time it is being attacked all the time a different cipher -- different sides in a way that is apparently affective. "the wall street journal" never had that body of advertising to lose, so in a sense we were lucky about that. >> you have said, i am not a knee-jerk conservative. that is the way you described yourself, and you said before radical. i am not quite sure what you mean by that. >> issing sometimes a strong change can be good -- i think sometimes a strong change can be good.

if you see something is bad, make it good. you may have to go through a lot of vested interests. >> let me tick off a couple of names. give me a quick rupert murdoch editorial on each one. president obama. >> i am like the rest of the country. i hope he does well. we are being critical. i think he is missing a great opportunity for a wonderful legacy by not tackling the education system in this country. he has made very good speeches about it, he has not really faced the unions. >> would you support him if he moves in that direction? >> absolutely. very strongly. i think what he has said in speeches he would like to see, he has been absolutely right.

merit pay for teachers, less tenure, open go for charter schools is absolutely what is needed. we are criminal in this country and returning a new generation of people worse than their parents, and i think it is going to have long-term effects that are very serious, and he has said that himself. >> what about john mccain? >> i find him personally liable. he is hard to read. -- perfectly likable. he is hard to read. it depends what side of the bed

he got out of, but he is a patriot. >> you strike me as someone with 1 foot in today and 1 foot in tomorrow, and i would like to ask your opinion about the internet, the wheeb. do you think is going? is that really an indicator of the future emma -- an indicator of the future? >> yes, i think the internet is a fantastic inventions. i think it is in its early stages of development through broadbent -- broadbent and so on -- broadband and so on, but we worry about newspapers. can i talk about this now for a minute? >> go ahead.

>> and young people and so on, but the advertising base being eroded, and i think -- i got a glimpse of the future this last weekend with the apple ipad. it is a wonderful thing. it is not a new invention, but it brought together all forms of media -- music, books, newspapers, whatever, plus a lot of other things. that is the wall street side, which we're very proud of, and everybody is as the best newspaper site at the moment. >> it is a good illustration of what we are moving toward. >> we could go back to seven days if you want to see something in the paper last

saturday or friday, you can find it. the whole paper is restored in memory disks in this beautiful- looking machine. you can play games with it. here we are. we updated every half hour through the day, so if something big happens, it is there, and we have every word of "the wall street journal" is there. it is easy to navigate, easy to find. you can pick the stories you want to read, and you touch a picture, and it becomes a video. you actually see an illustrated the story rather than just a

still picture. that is an advancement. >> you know now of the people who own this particular instrument how many would turn to "the wall street journal" and find out what the side hamas? region what the site has? >> tens of thousands did click on "the wall street journal" site and visit it. what we are doing with it is, anybody today who buys the journal or of the full price can have it for free. if you would like it and you do not read the journal, it is nearly $4 a week, which is

ritchie, and we hope to expand our circulation. -- which is very cheap, and we hope to expand our circulation. if there is going to be a transition, it has to be managed carefully. >> if there is going to be that transition. >> if you say it is the end of the tactile newspaper. >> is that what you think? >> i do not know. i just do not know. this is going to be improved on by of all. there will have eight or nine competitors within 12 months in the electronic industry, and they're going to be tens of millions being sold all over the world. >> you're saying that is your vision of the future of newspapers, but what i and trying to understand is -- >> i think it is a possibility i have to provide for, and it may be the saving of newspapers. you do not have the cost of paper, ink, printing.

>> perhaps the end of the newspaper you pick up. >> that is when you come to the end of it. if you have less newspapers, that is ok. it will be more economic. it may well be the saving of the newspaper industry. there will be a lot of things available -- what they call applications, and a lot of them will just be blogs and irresponsible stuff. we believe if you have a great name and trust from your readers and keep earning it every day, people will come to you. to be associated with your brand. >> that if you maintain that quality brand, that will draw people, attract people to that same brand? >> yes. >> and even if the cost is the end of newspapers as we know it, that appears to be where it is we may be going?

>> it is better than going out of business altogether. >> and a lot of them are. >> a lot of them are planning very hard at the moment. >> you do an awful lot of traveling around the world, and if the 20th century was the american century common -- the american century, commwhat couny do you think is going to become the america of the 21st century? >> i think america again, at least the first half of it. i do not pretend to be a seizureer, but we have to put aw things right. we have a drain so people want to come here.

whee of a higher reproduction rate than other countries. we have a lot of things going in the long term commonly -- in the long term, and it is almost in our dna to be entrepreneurial, and creative. and to attract creative people we have got no monopoly on that, but i think we are going to be very strong in the long term. we will have some bumps on the way. we are just coming out of a serious bomump. i am a little bearish we will have another one soon, but if you go beyond that. >> what country today is the most progressive in terms of economic and technological advances gunman -- technological advances?

>> this country. in high-tech, not on the same scale, but it has been challenged by israel, which has got an explosion of high-tech industries and growth in gdp. again, very clever immigrants from all over the world. >> a concluding question. >> i would say europe, no. >> china, india? >> i think china has a real problem until it frees itself up. i have just been reading a book called "the party," recent book and how it is not about capitalism. it is about control. until those controls, off and it is freed up, -- control comes off and it is freed up, i think

that as long way away. >> we have about a minute to go, and i want to ask a concluding question. in this room, there are many journalism students, and there may be someone who would love to be a media mogul just like rupert murdoch. >> good. >> what did vice would you give that person -- what advice would you give that person? >> choose the area you want to be en, and get some experience and training in, come to us or a local television station or a local newspaper, get some real grounding i -- real grounding, and if you still feel like it and are prepared to take our recess, with whatever you have raise or save to buy something and see if you can make a success and build on it. >> build on the beginning, which

would be as a reporter, as a journalist, as opposed to going into management? >> absolutely. >> why? why is a reporter so important? >> you have got to understand, if you do not produce companies people want to buy, you can have all the managers in the world. editor is the most important person in the building. >> and the reporter who goes out and does the story. >> yes, but the editor of 0.7 finds them and trains them, whatever. -- editor appoints them and finds them and trains them, whatever. >> we're out of time. i want to thank our audience, which has been terrific, but most especially, i want to thank rupert murdoch for taking the time to answer our questions and for sharing all those insights accumulated over many years, but that is it for now.

as edward murrow used to say, good night, and good luck. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> ok, now we have got 20 minutes when you can ask questions, and all i would ask the to do -- i concede there. i beg of you, ask a question. do not make a speech. identify yourself, and we will start right over here. >> my name is ari, and i am from a group called "media matters." fox news aired 73 in show promotions for the event. they told viewers they need to visit -- >> we are missing some of what

you're saying. >> speak a little more slowly. >> your business network host told viewers they need to visit the tea party website to buy merchandise, and your network had graphics saying fox tea parties. is it appropriate for a network to engage in so many politics? >> i do not think we should be supporting the tea party or any other party, but i would like to investigate what i am saying greece -- what you are saying before i condemn anyone. sphen>> i am a student at george washington university. it is said you like to view yourself as a modern-day hearst, a true newsman. i wonder how much of your day is spent reading your newspapers and dealing with newspapers as compared to the movie business and tv business? >> at least half.

of course, being chief executive of a big company, one has to deal with a lot of issues in a lot of areas, which you try to pass down to other people, but you're still there and still responsible, so it is not just reading newspapers or criticizing them were talking to editors. >> you must really love newspapers, because you own "the new york post," and year after year, it loses money. you're laying out extra money for them to pursue, so that is a hobby? >> that is not at all. we think it does a lot of good. if newspapers are going to shrink in new york, we want to be the last one. >> yes, please? >> i had the pleasure of sitting next to you at all things

digital conference, when i was fascinated by your responses. mark tucker byrd and others talked of user-generated -- mark zuckerman and other stock drug user-generated content. ken -- and others talked about user-generated content. can you talk about that? >> before we want to see how they write and do we want to know them before we higher than -- hire them. these social networks are an interesting phenomenon, but i do not think they are changing the world. >> thank you for doing this. i am a reporter with politico, but i am not reporting on this

event. i wonder what your prediction is for the new york times pay wall for their web site which is stored to go into effect next year -- which is going to go into effect next year. >> i do not know. they do not seem willing to make up their minds they will have opposition internally from some of their journalists, particularly columnists who are very jealous of their wider audience, but i think to really make it work, they have to put a paid wall of. i think most newspapers are going to put up a paid wall. how high the citgo? it allows them to have the first couple paragraphs or certain -- how high does it go? if it allows them to of the first couple are cross or

certain articles, we will see. not everything in the journal has a paid wall around it. for instance, the personal journal does not. the finance those in the front section dose -- the finance does in the front section does. >> my name is timothy. i was wondering if you would be willing to share your definition of ethical journalism. >> honesty. the facts have got to be told honestly and investigated properly. that is not to say mistakes do not get made, but to be ethical, you have to consciously tried to get to the truth of the matter. >> my name is jason. i am an editor in washington, d.c., and i want to ask you

about the and mission there are democrats as well as republicans at fox news. do you mean democrats employed by fox news, and if so, who would that be? [laughter] >> i wish i could tell you a couple names, but they are certainly there. i think every night greta van susteren is close to the democratic party. she does not too many political stories. she is just a great journalist who goes after in the story she can get, -- goes after any story she can get, but people who have been involved in democratic politics -- we have people. i am trying to think of the name of the lady in california who has been with us from day one who use a lot.

>> [no audio] >> you are right. i apologize. >> i am a reporter from denmark. thank you for taking my question. you touched on that the technical side is not your focus, but what are your thoughts about innovating content format interaction with uses? >> i think technology is a great use and a great help, and we should be watching it all the time and ready to use it any way that can help us, but only to improve the content. without the content, all these things are nothing. >> my name as nathan martin.

mr. murdoch, you talk a little bit about the difference between commentary and reporting, and as young journalists prepared to go out into the workforce, which you encourage them to go out and i shall report on stories rather than going into management? -- go out and actually report on stories rather than going into management? what would you tell them about somebody who actually wants to report rather than regurgitate other news stories. >> i would encourage them. that is what we want. we want the facts. if they become great experts later on and we think they have got the wisdom, they can of a column and go on the opinion pages. -- they can have a column and go on the opinion pages. >> i am from outside of dallas, and one other breed of journalism that is dying is the evening news telecast. what would you do to fix it and

make it viable once again >> -- once again? >> better minds than mine are working on that. the real problem is local television stations, a lot of which the big network owns, have triggered news services from 6:00 until 6:34 from 5:00 -- have a pretty good news services from 6:00 until 6:30 or from 5:00 until 5:30, which makes local news with national news, and people feel they have heard all the news. they love their local news. they want to know what is happening and what the weather will be like tomorrow, and that is all there is too rich. i think it is very hard -- all there is to it.

i think it is very hard to the national region and to be purely national, and -- it is very hard to be purely national. you have seen less hard news and more stories off the news. interesting, but with all three of them there, it is very interesting. different parts of the country, how they do it. in new york, the east coast, they still get reasonable audiences. in california, many days, none of them achieved 1% of the audience, but maybe that is california. >> we saw recently the three evening newscasts still get 24 million households, which is the lot. >> my name is david earle. i am a grad student at george

washington, and in the event of a major news event, is your priority to best informed of your with your best journalists, or would you prefer to bring the best ratings and your best commentators, such as sara palance -- or sarah palin? >> if you do the best job reporting five, we will get the best ratings. -- reporting the facts, we will get the best ratings. up until a few years ago, is something very big happened, people turn to cnn. now they automatically go to fox. big news events fox add more to its audience then does cnn, because they trust us. >> i attended george washington university. about half way through your discussion you said "the new

york times" set a liberal agenda, but there has been a lot of discussion that fox news said some very conservative agenda. the you believe fox news has any kind of agenda, and if so, what do you think that is? >> i sing there are a lot of conservative commentary. -- i think there is a lot of conservative commentary. it is interesting when they made a move against the white house, all the other networks immediately came to our defense , and they do not like it. they grow paranoid, and that is life. >> what about the time president

bush was in office? i do not believe the president felt the white house was in of war with fox. they were quite happy. >> they got criticized pretty hard quite a few times. bill o'reilly when after the president many times. >> go ahead. >> my name is lynn c. verio -- is lindsay. i am one of the one-man band reporters in washington. journalists are taught not to have an opinion. often it is in our contracts that we are not allowed to sign a petition. do you believe it is time for journalists to have their own opinions and to be forthcoming with those? >> absolutely, buckner if they

only write opinion in the media that employs them, -- but if they only read opinion in the media that employs them, they are less valuable, but should a journalist have opinions? of course. they are all citizens. they all vote. there is nothing wrong with that, but how they do their jobs has everything to do with it. >> i am from the graduate school political management, and i want to ask a question about a show that appeared on fox news briefly a couple years back called a half hour news hour, and maybe this is a question someone else would be more knowledgeable about entering, but it failed with in a season, and i am wondering, compared to "the colbert report," any chance

that a satirical politically charged show could last on fox news bowman -- on fox news? >> i think there is room for a fun hour or half hour or satire, but i do not remember that show. i am sorry. obviously, we do not do it very well. [laughter] >> my name is anton. i run a new media startup, and we talked a lot about journalism and video coming from the internet, etc., but we do not generally mention the amount of high-quality or free- lance video from around the world. do you have an opinion on high- quality professional content being generated? >> there is a lot of high

quality material appearing outside the main media. i do not know how much, but i do not deny that, and i think we should be watching it and going out and finding those people and try to employ them. >> the plan to bring it in from around the world into your network's face? >> do you -- into your network's face? >> do you plan to bring that into your groups? >> where there is good work to be had, we would like to accommodate it. but we only have two more questions, so go ahead. >> we are desperate for good shows and suffered for driven content. -- desperate for good content. we are number one and have been for four years, but we depend on one or two shows, and when someone comes with a great idea

and a great show, we go as fast as weekend. >> my name is corny, and i am from the d.c. area, and it -- my name is courtney, and i am from the d.c. area. what is your favorite non-news television program? the you watch television? >> yes, i am a great admirer of "house." i think it is pretty good. we do not make it, unfortunately, and there is a great new show called " justified." i do not know who has seen it. only a couple of episodes. >> last question. >> i am a senior adviser. i would like to ask you whether fox news or "the new york post" ever investigates corporate misdeeds. as an example, they did not test

of pain killer for heartless in some 50,000 heart attacks. >> i did not remember as investigating that, but we reported on any other investigation. do we have reporters investigating corporations? absolutely. look at our business pages. >> ok, friends and neighbors, the time is up, and thank you all very much for being here. [applause] ♪

>> what in the world is more ridiculous than american politics? >> using clips from various media outlets, the gregory brothers have become viral hit makers. we will talk to them tonight. >> let's meet another winner in the studentcam documentary competition. we asked students about one of our country's greatest strength or a challenge our country is facing. we are talking with the third prize winner, a seventh grader in powder springs, georgia. maxwell, welcome to c-span. what is human trafficking? >> human trafficking is the selling of people or a legal active -- or illegal activities on the streets of urban america. >> why did you think to focus on this in your documentary? >> i think it is an important question people need to

understand, that it is a big problem in america. >> let's set about what you knew about human trafficking before you started the documentary. >> i did not know much about it. it was a topic a lot of people did not want to talk about and something very prominent in america alone, and we really need to see what is going on behind the wall nobody ever wants to climb. >> you interviewed angel vicar. what did you learn in this interview? >> she really did open up a lot of points about the world that we really do not see. she told us about how she was able to help a lot of victims that were going around of the streets, how they rescued then common -- how they rescued them, how they were able to rehabilitate those people.

>> what are some problems associated with trying to stop human trafficking? >> there are many federal places that do not understand the problem. they do not know what the entire situation is. they need to understand it completely what they are working for, the profile of people they're trying to give prosecutors. they need to find what these people are doing. they need to understand these are shady characters, and they need to discover exactly who the humans doing this to these young people, and it seems they ignore the problem more than they want to learn about it, and that is a large problem, because if they are not helping, who will? >> how did your knowledge about human trafficking evolves throughout creating this documentary? >> i did not know a lot about it

before i made it. i knew so much of the world's problems, the recession and the war going on in the world, we need to be finding something that we need to really discuss and we need to really find exactly how these people are working, and we need to know these people need help, and i know there are people out there that really do need this, so i want to make a documentary for them. >> and the community is getting ready to target human trafficking, what the advice would you give them? >> they need to find out who is behind this, not the people who are selling these people, but the people they are selling them to, they need to find these people, and they need to help them in any way -- the people

they are selling, they need to find these people and held them in any way they can. then they need to -- help them in any way they can, and then they need to get them to open up about who did this to them, and they need to prosecute the people that are actually doing it. >> maxwell, we thank you for taking the time to talk to us today, and congratulations on your way in. here's a portion of the documentary. >> kids are put through trafficking situation either inside the united states are brought overseas year. half of them end up in the commercial sex industry. of these victims, what is the average age? >> a lot of research has shown the average age of a child prostitutes or child exploitation victim is 14. >> 14, that is the average age of an eighth grader. >> to watch all as well as our winning videos, you can go to

studentcam.org. >> president obama held a series of meetings with foreign leaders in washington for his nuclear security conference that gets under way tomorrow. the president walked across pennsylvania avenue with secretary stay clinton for his first meeting with india's prime minister, manmohan singh. he also met with leaders of pakistan and nigeria. representatives from 47 countries are here to work on an agreement to help keep new nuclear weapons of terrorist hands. the president made some remarks. this is about five minutes.

>> are we all set? good afternoon, everybody. i want to officially welcome the delegation to this nuclear summit and thank him for his extraordinary leadership. now we are meeting with the president of south africa. i will be meeting with the prime minister of pakistan after this meeting. the central focus of this nuclear summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to u.s. security, both short-term, medium-term, and long term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization of attaining a nuclear weapon. this is something that could change the security landscape of

this country around the world for years to come, and there -- if there was ever a detonation in new york city or johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically, and from a security perspective would be devastating. we know organizations like al qaeda are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. now we have a situation in which there is a lot of loose nuclear material throughout the world, so the special focus goal of this summit is getting the international community on a path in which we are locking down that nuclear material and a very specific time frame with the specific work plan, and one thing i am very pleased about is countries have embraced this goal, and they are coming to this some of not just to talk

about general statements of support, but rather, very specific focus on how we solve this national problem. i want to especially singled out south africa, because south africa is singular in having a nuclear weapons program, having moved forward with it, and decided this was not the right path, dismantled it, and has been a strong, effective leader in the international community around non-proliferation, so south africa has special standing in being a moral leader on this issue, and i wanted to publicly comment the president and his administration for the leadership they show as we are working towards the possibility of them helping other countries

down a similar direction of non- proliferation, but i feel very good about the degree of commitment and a sense of urgency that i think the world leaders have so far on this issue. we think we can make an enormous progress, and this becomes part of the broader focus we have had over the last several weeks with the signing of the treaty between the united states and russia, reducing nuclear stockpiles, a nuclear posture review released that such a clear signal that those who abide by the nonproliferation treaty will have no assurances, meaning that if they are abided by the region will have assurances, meaning if they abide by, they will not be targeted for potential nuclear weapons, and this becomes an essential part of the process,

which is a most urgent one and one we're most concerned with in the short term, so thank you for your participation and your leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," joshua logan previews the nuclear security summit. -- josh rogin previews the nuclear security summit. and a discussion on patient safety with dr. charles denham and dennis quaid, actor and patient safety advocates. >> of next on c-