clark hoyt. then it clegg at the house of commons. and then a discussion on race relations. .

how would i respond? i said, i would be interested in talking about that, and that is where that began. >> why were you interested at the time? what were your thoughts? >> being an ombudsman is a difficult but intriguing job to me, and "the new york times" is kind of the pinnacle of the newspaper profession, so i thought it was an unusual opportunity, and i was definitely interested. >> what happened next? >> there were a couple of phone calls about it, and then my wife and i were literally in an

airport, and i got a call in my cell phone saying, could you come to new york and talk more seriously about it. the job was offered to me, and i took it. >> what about the job? who talked to you most about what was required? >> the executive editor talk to me the about that. >> what about what he wanted intrigue year -- intrigues you? >> there is no written description. each of us has approached it in a different way, just as i am sure my successor will approach it in yet a different way, and all he asked is that i hope the times uphold their high standard for journalism, and there's

really no better description. i had no boss. i did not report to the publisher or the editorial page editor. i have complete independence to look into anything i chose to look into. i could not be fired unless i simply sat down and failed to perform in any way or unless i violated the written ethics policy of "the new york times." otherwise i was there in an independent fashion, able to poke my nose into what i chose to poke it into very good >> i read your column almost every sunday. how many words did you write, and did they have to publish what you wrote?

>> they did have to publish what i wrote. my columns were about 1100 words each. i originally tried to hold them at 800 words, but i captive at 1100 words. -- i have to if at 1100 words. >> when you saw the amount of money they were going to pay zero, and if they knew what that was, would they say, that is what i expect, or she is doing this for nothing? >> i do not know what people would expect. the pay was there. i was satisfied with it. it was not a tremendously large serious amount for me, because my wife is an editor at "usa today," which is headquartered in the washington area.

our home is here, so i commuted regularly to york. i would go to new york monday morning and come home wednesday night, and all the expenses associated with that came out of my compensation to reagan >> you are not there at all? -- came out of my compensation. >> you are not there at all? >> i could not have worked for "the new york times" at all before i became public editor, and i cannot work for it now that i am finished being public editor. the purpose is to make sure we're not trying to even scores and to make sure there is an angling for some future. >> where would you put "the new york times" in american journalism? how many times did you work for knight-ridder?

>> i work for them for eight years. it was sold in 2006, and they get some of them and immediately resold others. i think journalistic standards were high, and i was very proud of my career, but what did in your times occupies a special place in american journalism and has for decades, partly because of the investment the company has made over many years and high-quality journalism, partly because it is located in new york, the media center of the country, and i think i said a moment ago that it is the pinnacle, and it really is. >> as you know more than anybody, there are people who watched the news saying, you are full of baloney.

talk shows every day excoriates the new york times for being a socialist or communist or whatever. >> i am sure they do. i certainly received my share of male like that. they also complain about it being a defender of the right wing status quo. it is not only accused of being a left-wing newspaper. it is accused of whatever a particular person with an ax to grind, from whatever vantage point they are coming from. if the new york times does not come for them, it is subject to attack, and "the new york times" does not comfort anyone. >> who owns it? >> it is a publicly traded company, but it has the

sulzberger family, which has controlled it since the late 19th century and remains in control. >> you quoted arthur sulzberger jr. saying, you are dumber than you look. what was that like? >> that was a joke more than anything else, but i laughed about it. on my first day at "the new york times" at west 43rd street, i was taken into his office and ushered into an anteroom of the office to meet him. i met him before, but he said down opposite me, and he slapped his hand down on both of his knees, and he looked at me and said, you must be dumber than

you look. his point being the public editor is a person who is going to take it on all sides and is going to take it from inside as well, and there is always a certain gallows humor about why would anybody want to put themselves in that position. >> where is your home town originally? >> i was raised and a military family. i was born in providence, rhode island. my father was stationed at the naval station. he was sent on an aircraft carrier to the pacific for the duration of world war ii, and we live in succession in los gatos, calif., philadelphia after the war, pearl harbor, honolulu, new york, key west, and the family finally settled after he retired in miami, florida. >> is there a particular moment

when journalism from up in front of you? >> journalism jumped up at me when i was 9 years old, and we live in a neighborhood in honolulu, fan my brother and i founded a neighborhood newspaper, and it was extremely high tech. a gooyou did a master and put ia gelatin, and we circulated it to the nine or 10 houses in our immediate neighborhood and had such riveted news such as who's dog was jumping on whose yard . i went to columbia. >> where were your parents before columbia? >> they went to key west. i chose columbia because it was

in new york, and i confess i was and didn't, but i was not a great student, because i majored in new york. >> what do you mean by that? >> i took the advantage of everything that was fair. this was the 1960's and the invasion of foreign films. i took a advantage of everything i could, and i have a great time there. >> let me read a little bit something and see where you come down on this. if you talk to people your age and mines, in the journalism movement, is it reaching a bid to save their hearts are broken about what has happened to institutions like "the new york times", not at this very moment, but the institution, whether it happens at newsweek, all of these publications?

i hear it time and time again, and i wonder if you feel it. >> i think there are a two ways to look at what is happening. you can look at it and lament the passing of some great institutions, great newspapers that are being hollowed out in the face of tremendous economic pressure, and you can have your heart broken and say, there go the go old days. i choose to look at it a bit differently. i lament some of it and worry about the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another, but i think in many ways, this is an extremely exciting time. the entire world of news and

information is being reinvented. i do not think if we know yet what the business models are. i do not think we know yet what the platforms are going to be, but this is an extremely exciting time. >> you gave a speech, and the report on it from a knight- ridder lecture you gave -- the bureau chief painted a dim picture of the state of american journalism, asserting the mainstream media must remain vigilant to remain relevant, and since that speech, there is no more knight-ridder. >> that is true. that is his word. i did not know if i would use that myself. >> give us the major papers. knight-ridder owned 32 newspapers in the united states.

"miami herald," "the kansas city star," "the detroit free press," and i am leaving many out. they have a foothold on american newspapers. >> what is going on in these communities. let's pick washington, d.c. they have lost 200,000 subscribers. >> it is absolutely challenging and difficult for newspapers, and i gave that speech in 2006, immediately after the demise of my company, and i was probably in a gloomier mood then i am today. it is painful to see newsroom jobs go away. there are thousands fewer journalists in this country than there were. i think that this a problem. right here in washington, d.c.,

there are hundreds of journalists keeping tabs on what is happening in our federal government. i think that is a serious problem. i think all of these open up opportunities. there are ways to create new channels of information, ways of delivering it, ways to pay for it, and it is of bubbling ferment right now of invention. several years ago something did not exist. it won a pulitzer prize this year and was a finalist for another this was a nonprofit newsroom that does not own heavy prices for camera equipment or anything else but partners with others across the country, other kinds of media from television networks to "the new york times" 2 "the washington post" to revive high quality

reporting. >> it is funded by it mary anne herbert sandler. they are heavy into the democratic party. why would they give $10 million a year to this enterprise? >> sanders believed in journalism, and they and the leadership embarked on an effort to expand the funding base so it is not dependent on anyone. you mentioned they are active democrats, which is true, but i defy you to identify a partisan agenda. >> why do so many conservatives look at "the new york times" and say -- that is where it started -- it is a liberal newspaper, because i know you have dealt with it probably every day. >> i think there are a number of

reasons. first of all, "the new york times" on its editorials is unabashedly a liberal newspaper. it takes liberal editorial stance. its lineup of: this is a liberal, -- why not of columnists is liberal. bruxism iconoclast who does not hit -- brooks is an icon of close to who does not fit into a category, -- is an iconoclast who does not fit into a category. i think the impact of the editorial and op-ed pages tends to create an aura that can spread over the rest of the paper, and i think it is also true, it is published in new york, where more than half its readership is in the new york

metropolitan or tristate area. it is a national newspaper, and it is coming out of that world. it is socially more liberal than other parts of the country for sure. on the wedding's pages, there are same-sex couples placed right next to heterosexual marriages and have been for a number of years. the paper does not give serious credence to intelligent design, and i think there is a view of the world the some on the right or the far right do not even share. >> you said on one column it is

not the fox news of the left. what did you mean by that? >> what i meant is fox news is designed to appeal to and comfort a cohort with a certain political point of. >> is that good or bad? >> it just is. i watch fox news sometimes. i am always fascinated watching it. the stories they choose to highlight, the way they are described, and i am not even getting to some of the unabashedly opinionated parts of fox news. i do not believe "the new york times" is close to that. >> conservatives would say you went to columbia, and you may be

a liberal, and you like the york city, and you think new york times is where it begins and ends, but we like fox because they look at the world differently, and they are journalists themselves. are we healthier because of femme or less healthy? region because of them or less healthy? -- are we healthier because of them for less healthy? >> you and i are roughly the same age, and we grew up in a very different world. there were three broadcast networks, and walter cronkite became the most trusted man in america, who nightly told us what the news was an haute -- helped shape that to a great extent. there were two national

newspapers. it was the most influential and then " if the wall street journal -- and then "the wall street journal." it was very different from today. there were five networks. "usa today" did not exist. "life" magazine and millions no longer exists. the media world is quite different. fair are many new voices. in many respects, i think that is healthy, but the danger for any society is if you do not have a core of shared facts and values, i think there is a great danger for the society, and i do worry about that.

>> in a speech, the writer said hoyt defended the sources for a necessary evil, and i have some stuff. would you feel about anonymous sources? >> i would defend the use of anonymous sources in certain circumstances, and i think they are necessary. they are necessary -- for example, a couple years ago, a story revealed the bush administration's extralegal system of eavesdropping on american citizens, of electronic eavesdropping, and i know many people regarded that story as traitorous. i believe it was an important story and led to a lot of changes. that story could not have been written without anonymous sources. i probably wrote about this

subject more than any other. journalists think this is a journalism conversation, the people in an ivory tower do not believe an anonymous sources. i can tell you readers do not like them. they wonder if they are made up. they wonder what is going on here that is being hidden behind a curtain, and when the newspaper uses an anonymous source in an article about the decor of the apartment building lobbies and in new york city or in a fashion review in which a person anonymously says some

designers close look on where a ball, this is ridiculous and needs to be stamped out -- some designer's close look on wearable -- clothes look unwearable and need to be stamped out, that ineeds to end. >> i have a quote. the story had to do with tommy lee and how the story came out in the first place. give us the overview. >> in 1972, george mcgovern was nominated as the presidential nominee, and he chose as his nominee a relatively unknown senator named tom eagleton. i was a junior reporter covering the convention, and a

thin jr. most person on the team, -- as the junior most person on the team, it was a different world then -- things sort of stopped in the fall. i was assigned to go to missouri and write a profile on a tom eagleton. while i was in the airplane on the way to st. louis, and known to me, an anonymous caller telephoned and asked to speak to john knight, the founding patriarch of our company. the operator put him through to the grandson, and young jack night heard this caller say eagleton had a history of severe depression that had been treated with electroshock therapy on more than one

occasion and the republicans knew about this and were going to use this as a dirty trick late in the campaign and that it needed to get out because something needed to be done. he urged the caller to call back with more detail. he had the presence of mind to realize there was not enough to do something with, and the caller is agreed to do so. i ended up not knowing this had taken place. i went to the dispatch and asked to look in the library at the clips, and i began reading through them. i saw there were gaps in his public life. this was a fellow who held public office for many years and was attorney general before he was elected, and there would be gaps of two months or three months when there is absolutely

nothing, and in the gaps there were a little things like senator eagleton check in for a physical and he is suffering from exhaustion -- stuff like that, and there was one article that made the suggestion about the drinking issue. these were just clues, and then when i got to my hotel, i made a call -- i got a call saying the anonymous caller called, so i went to the doctor's home and not on the door -- knocked on the door and said, i was here to talk about it. you were present when the senator was treated with electroshock therapy. if i knocked on your door, you would say you need some help. instead, the other went out of

the doctor's face, and as the door was being slammed, he said, i cannot talk about that. i knew it was true at that moment. we did a lot of other reporting. we ultimately went to south dakota, where senator mcgovern and his campaign staff were vacationing. we presented a memo about what we have found, and they promised they would produce enter eagleton for an interview -- senator eagleton for an interview. they knew they had trouble. eagleton was on his way to discuss what they were going to do, and they ultimately decided they could not have reporters make this story, so he held a press conference and announce it. >> before you had written it. >> and we received the prize of

an interview after his announcement -- i am sorry that was not of a breeze. -- not tahhat brief. >> he was of such "the new york times" portrayed it. most people do not care about this, but of old thing is you got a pulitzer for discovering he had a mental illness and said of the story itself. >> i think people were saying -- instead of the story itself. >> i think people were saying -- we felt strongly we could not publish it without getting a lot more information, and it would be irresponsible to do

something in completely. >> what would happen? >> i think that had more to do with the price than anything else. >> what would happen today? the same situation exists -- there are lots of journalists who would do what we did. take a look at new york at the recent case involving david paterson, and an aide of his. the top aide was accused of abusing women. goss of websites began saying -- gossip websites began saying,

he was going to knock him out of office. part of this proliferation of voices -- there is a lot of good about it, but the bad is that it creates this baa's that sometimes makes -- this buzz that sometimes makes investigative journalism difficult, because you are under a spotlight. >> what did you think about the thing on john edwards? some people would say they were so successful they deserve the pulitzer, and i do not know about you, but i suspect the. >> i have no idea whether they did or not. >> has his -- historically, has

any institution like that ever gotten a pulitzer? >> "the national enquirer" has never gotten a pulitzer, and one issue is paying sources for stories. i wrote a column about it at the time. i felt "the new york times" in particular and mainstream media was slow and showed poor reflexes on the story. the national enquirer driveled that out over a long time, and i can understand why some of the initial stories did not provoke more of response, but later on, by the time there were photographed with the senator holding a baby with the woman, i think everybody should have been asking much harder questions in pursuing the story. he was no longer a presidential

candidate, but he was still a major player, and he was being talked about as the possible member of the prospective obama administration. >> you say, washington were i have named my sources, is a city steve in anonymity. we talked about this earlier -- a citi steeped in an immensely -- anonymity. we talk about this earlier were people are afraid but will not get access. how big a problem is that? have you ever pull something back because you thought, we would never get into the white house again? how much of that is intimidation? >> i do not recall an instance. there was no new york or

washington of its, so we did not always have the visibility, so the issue of the secretary of state who will not return my call if i say this in an article did not necessarily a rise in the same way it might for "the new york times" or "the washington post." i would say it can be a problem. it seems to me " the the new york times and "the washington post" both missed the skepticism that did exist about the need to go to iraq, and i am proud to say knight-ridder and journalist

really dug into the story and went against the grain. people of the term felt if they did that they might be selling themselves, but i have always wondered if they played some role in that. >> when were they the maddest at you? >> different individuals were mad at different times. there was a story that one of praia's that i have some difficulty with, and i would say there is a good deal of anger over criticism from that. there was a story about the information campaign to give

generals and officers feeding them information that would be used on network news shows during the wars in afghanistan and iraq, and i thought the story was excellent in exposing the existence of the program and showing the efforts being made. it was not necessarily as clear to me that it had an impact, and i felt the photographs on the front page with many officers who had many levels of engagement, it was not fear what they explained. >> you say there's an entire

body of scholarship devoted to a hostile media syndrome. the belief about people with a strong feeling about issues are hostile to their sites. who invented the term? >> i vote -- i wrote the column, but i do not remember who wrote the term, but it is a bit like what you were talking about before. there is a tendency where if you do not support my point of view of view, -- point of view, i am angry about that. there tends to be a leap. maybe i should think about this in a different way.

instead, people seem to go instantly to motives -- hidden agenda, conspiracies. believe me. i have seen all of the hundreds if not thousands of time as i receive mail from readers and non-readers. >> that was back in 2008. in the same column, you said it is a tricky thing. we like news the supports our view of and is like things that may challenge them. we tend to pick apart word by word. perversely, we magnify and then minimize what we life. if you were sitting around with the fox people before they started that network, what the

think you would have heard when they came up with, "we report, you decide"? all the things they use. were they making fun of the business, or did they really believe it? >> i did not know, because i love this thing around. -- i left it sitting of around. >> people get very upset when they hear that. >> i think there is an element of -- >> fair and balanced. we are fair and balanced. >> perhaps they believe it. i think what they really believe is there is a public perception of unfairness and imbalance in the media, so they are going to take advantage of that, and there is a strategy, and it is very clever. >> i hear more people say, i did

not watch it anymore. i do not read a newspaper anymore or believe it. i do not trust them. there is a problem. >> absolutely. >> why? why is it people do not trust? >> i think people are less trusting of all institutions. people do not trust government. people do not trust the media. people are angry of large corporations. people are angry at lawyers. >> what happened? >> it has been going on for quite some time, and there is a large mistrust of institutions in our society. >> where did it start? >> someone say it started in vietnam. i do not believe that. i am in the middle of reading all wonderful biography, and the

1920's and 1935 were a time of cynicism and mistrust as well. there has always been some under correct. -- undercurrent. technology seems to undermine everything to speed it up or make it more intense. today it is magnified. >> where did it start? >> i cannot tell you. >> where did you see it get worse? >> i saw it get worse during vietnam's. >> why would that be a time when if accelerated? >> people felt the government lied to them and that many thousands of people died for a

war of the those waging it were themselves skeptical about and some viewed as on winnable, -- un-winnable, and we all lived through a time when society seem to be tearing apart in many respects, and i am not sure we ever fully recovered from that. >> i do not know if there is a list, but what institutions see you trust the most yourself? >> personally? >> word you say, i believe them? >> i trust region where do you say, i believe them? >> -- where do you say, i believe them? >> i trust my doctor.

let's face it. people who are unhappy complain and complain loudly. it is clear there is a large amount of mistrust in the news media in this country, but i have not got to share that, and i guess you understand why i do not. >> "the new york times" says all media fair to print. >> what is wrong with it? >> one of the columns you seem to have a tussle with was the john mccain story. >> i think that was the single biggest mistake they made during my tenure as public editor. i believe it was a bad story in the sense they raised one of the most toxic subjects you can raise in politics, an allegation

of sexual misconduct by a presidential candidate, and if you are going to raise that, you had better be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they could not do it, and having raised it, i think they failed to make the case, which simply played into what we have been talking about -- liberal newspaper out to get a conservative republican presidential candidate. i think it was very damaging to "the new york times." >> the catholic church and the constant reporting about the catholic church. >> what about it? >> what about it? what is the beef you get from people outside reading "the new york times"? >> from within the church, and i have heard from the church hierarchy -- the feeling that it

was anti-catholic, of the fact that it was unfair to harp on the child abuse and the church, and a stories began to escalate to the point where they reached the current pope -- there was a feeling "the times" was out to get the pope and that it was on an unfair catholic crusade. >> you write in your column that you used to publish letters you get. here is one from fitzgerald in philadelphia. i think it is november 8, 2009. he wrote, it is difficult to see how of "the times" sponsors are in general. his work in -- her work is short

on reason and logic but long on venom and distortion. it is no secret they are steadily losing leadership, remaining in the dial is just an example of how badly out of touch the editors continue to be. i expect many will find this to be thoroughly unpersuasive. >> it is interesting. and none in the church sent me an article from a catholic magazine -- a nun in the church sent me an article from a catholic magazine pointing out all the positive stories about the catholic church, about the catholic clergy and people doing things for communities and society, and the article was basically making the case that

it is pretty hard to call "the times" anti-catholic if you read everything it has said. i think the nature of the scandal inevitably made it big news and front-page news. these are not isolated cases, and the church was more concerned with protecting the clergy and the hierarchy than dealing with the victims, and you and i both know it is not always the crime. it is the cover-up, and the church is going to endure this type of coverage until it is dealt with. >> how many times did you get a

call from the executive editor or the managing editor, and they are really take -- ticked? >> it would depend. i think i heard from farceur once, and he was unhappy about it, but he was very similar. i heard from bill and jill. they would be fun half feet, and they would disagree with it, but sometimes i really felt supported by them in the sense that they kept its civil, and in

the and we all agree to come back. >> how many newspapers are there across the country? >> i cannot tell you how many there are now, but as newspapers downsize, they have been losing people. there are others around the country. suddenly, the first was the the courier-journal in kentucky, and the physician has been eliminated. i belong to an international organization. interestingly, it is growing around the world. organizations around the world are embracing the concept, even

as they tend to be walking away from it for financial reasons. >> i asked them what they think about "the new york times", and they say, i love "the new york times." i cannot understand why they have been wasting time. it is a ridiculous way to do business. what is your reaction? >> i have heard that more than once. i would say i do not agree with that view. i would say the role is important, and it shows courage and strength that an organization can open itself up suit internal criticism and

allow examinations of areas where -- open itself up to internal criticism and allow examinations of areas it might fail. nobody knows how to reach it, to asking questions, to complain to it, and i think this serves as a valuable avenue to engage with the newspaper and raise issues that need examination. like all human institutions, " the times" makes a mistake. better than most, it tries to correct them. there is still a resistance and defensiveness that the editor hopes to break down. >> this came in from a fellow named thomas rise.

he says, the core audience is secular rest -- secular, atheist reject all enjoyed it immensely when "the times" uses its bases to kick the church. the archbishop is correct. other sectors of society get a bye from the writers and editors. what about that early charge of secular is, atheists, members of certain politically left-leaning organizations? >> that is an extreme characterization of the readership. in my own experience with engaging with readers and

hearing from readers, "the times" has a wide readership across the political spectrum. even those who said they could not do without it, i have heard from those who say there is nowhere else i can get the cultural news. but as a letter written for a fact. this is the person who does not want to see their stories in "the new york times" so has drawn a character in the newspaper. >> this is a product from the action fund. this is under something called climate progress very good the final report says they never

mention a global warming covered. they have largely been criticized, but you would never know it from the report from internal affairs. this all looks like a piece of journalism. how often did you get criticized from the left? >> not as often as the right but quite frequently. there was unhappiness constantly from the left. this was one example from the left. there was a lot of criticism from the left and right. during the campaign, there were complaints from the left about the way the paper covered the

campaign. if you do not like the news, get mad at the messenger. >> fineombu de -- define ombud. >> someone charged with helping the newspaper define its own practices and correct instances where it is falling short. >> what is the change in your view of them from the day he started until the end? >> i have a great deal of respect. it is a newspaper deep and rich in talent. i think unlike most news organizations -- i wrote something to arthur sulzberger and told him the story of john

s. knight and "the miami herald." it was the third place newspaper. the dominant newspaper main money hand over fist with advertising, and it was a big staging area, and there were lots of families there. "the miami herald" recommended a limit advertising to one page and go all out covering the news of the war and the community for all the people

there. at the end of the war, "the miami news" was way behind. "miami herald" dominated south florida. "the new york times" is doing the same thing today. it is investing while others are cutting back. it is investing in the future. but as one of the most powerful things i have observed. >> if you were to advise them to do something different to get them to come back to them, which would that be? >> i am not sure people are going to come back to print. i think young people have moved to the internet and social media and hand-held devices, and the holding paper in our hands is something i am not

sure as for the next generation. i think the values of journalism and the values that make reporting iwith solid reporting important to people need to be upheld on solid platforms. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for a dvd copy of this program, calle. for free transcripts, or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at our website. programs are also available at c-span podcasts.

>> tonight on prime minister's questions, deputy prime minister nick lang fills in for david cameron, who was visiting the u.s. also, discussion on race and politics, and another chance to see "q&a." clark hoyt. -- with clark hoyt. >> c-span was created by american's cable companies. >> why is it pensioners had to wait until this coalition government came into power to restore their earnings links? why is it his party scrap the tax rate? we have taken people