a lot? >> i do not talk about it much and it did not come out much at all. people know it. >> you did not use it to your advantage? >> i was not going to do that. my family is involved with benjamin franklin and we had a lot of benjamin franklin paraphernalia. they had to be sold off to pay his debts. >> it's the wiki bio. >> thank you. >> mike castle, nice to talk with you. >> thank you. >> next, reporters discuss investigative journalism. we also talk to documentary filmmaker dan reed. and then later, alan west talks about -- alan west speaks at the pro-israel conference.

now i panel of reporters discuss investigative journalism. harvard's kennedy school of government hosted this discussion in honor of david halberstam who died in 2007. this is an hour and half. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> david halberstam was a graduate of harvard, but he was also a significant figure in american journalism in a different time. he was really the beginning of a new kind of american journalism. highly educated, idealistic, committed any kind of social way to being a journalist in order to use journalism to tell true this that would have the

effect of making this a better place. it is not the journalists in the past, before his time, were not eager in many cases in idealism. he looked at journalism as a profession that was suitable to a guy who went to harvard. that was very unusual in its time. he graduated in 1955. he went to a small newspaper in mississippi to begin his journalism career, covering civil rights, and then went to "the new york times" in 1962. i want to tell your story about that. a think it really gets us something that is very important for the spirit of david halberstam and also with journalism, i believe, is really all about.

let me take you back. david halberstam went to mississippi to cover civil rights. what he found was a situation that was morally repugnant. but what was really also important was the found that the enemy coming in this particular case, was often the government. that was a big change. the government for generations had looked at themselves as allies or partners of journalists. journalists were uniforms in world war ii. and david halberstam and his contemporaries cut their teeth and a world in which they were actively answering back to government power and often criticizing them. he went to vietnam in 1962 and was in saigon, one of the very few newspapers or journalists of

any kind full-time in saigon, and began sending back reports about what he really saw and what he learned. that was something that was very unhappy to the day of kennedy administration. he was president at that time. -- and happy to the j.f. kennedy administration. he was the president at that time. he became publisher in 1963. he was not supposed to become publisher. he was considered to be much too inexperienced, much to sort of a polished. he was not a man thought to be ready. nevertheless, his brother-in-law died in he became publisher. he was now come in 1963, try to figure out how to be publisher and what the publisher of "the new york times", an ex-marine,

from world war ii, a man who had belly had gotten through college, what was to go to do? he and scotty reston, the legendary white house washington bureau chief of "the new york times," have lunch. they walk in and there is jack kennedy using all of his power of the white house and everything else to sort of overwhelmed this young publisher. he begins immediately to tell him they has to get rid of david halberstam. david halberstam is to close to the story. he is not objective. you have to replace him. you have to withdraw him. you have to get him out of there. and it was apparently one of these kinds of lectures. and punch got a soup full of

this and basically said, "mr. president, you can go this on a rope," and walked out. he went back to the washington bureau and called david halberstam and cancel his vacation which had been planned because he was afraid that it would be interpreted as acquiescing to the president. scotty reston was so proud. he felt that this is really the time that he had come did age -- had come of age. it made it possible for ap and other news organizations to do the same. they set the tone. the tone was to tell it like it is. 30 years later, the new yorker magazine is sort of celebrating

the pulitzer prize winning vietnam journalists. and five of these, they had won a pulitzer prizes for their the an aum coverage. -- for their vietnam coverage. they went to lunch and found him. he looked over and he said, we realize that what we did could not have been done without punch. we wanted to tell him that we appreciate him. so the group of them, five pulitzer prize-winning vietnam war correspondents sent punch

and his table a bottle of dom pairing on champagne -- don perignon champagne. we are here tonight to talk about journalism as he .xperienced a perioit and also journalism for a new generation, the generation that is now coming along and facing a different world, in a world of its own with its own challenges and difficulties. the issue of journalism and the of pleasure and joy now -- and the pleasures in joy now are very much the same. -- and the pleasures in

enjoyed now are very much the same. >> what was important was that my readers, if the d.c. walked into saigon one day, which we figured would happen sooner or later, they would not be surprised. that was my mission, just to let readers know. i understood something else, which was that i was only 28 years old -- i anders good that i was an air of a great tradition -- i understood that i a greatiheir of tradition. there are a lot of stories, a terrific stories. you have a great time. journalism mattered in the civil rights movement because this was a country trying to define itself for a modern era, coming out of a feudal past.

when the government does not tell the truth, then the power of journalism go up. >> we have a distinguished panel. i want to introduce them and then we will have a conversation, first with ourselves and then later, we hope, with you. without further ado, let me introduce our distinguished panel. to your right, that is charlie senate, who is one of the founders, editor, and vice president of a new online international news site. he comes from a very distinguished background for the boston globe.

charlie had the idea that there was interest out there in international news. this is something that has been under way for many years and has won incredible recognition. next to him is martha raddatz. she is senior foreign affairs correspondent, but the truth is that she has been one of nbc news's most distinguished reporters for many years. she has spent a lot of that time going to places like iraq and afghanistan and pakistan and doing the kind of journalism and reporting that david halberstam represented and loved. she has won zero awards -- she

has won awards. did bill pearl, you'll remember, was "the wall street journal" -- daniel pearl, you'll remember, was "the wall street journal" journalist to was killed. moscow was not just the -- martha was not just a white house correspondent and foreign correspondent, she has done work that is at the heart of david halberstam. stephen engelberg has spent his career as an investigative reporter.

now he is the managing editor of propublica, which is the most watched, admired, and worry about non-profited venture for journalism. it is focused on investigative reporting. this is a very distinguished group. i told them back in the green room that i wanted to talk briefly before we got into investigative reporting. i wanted to do something that journalists do not often do. i wanted to talk about what it felt like. these are people who have given their entire careers to journalism. all of these folks have done the

same. they have made their careers in journalism. i want to talk about why they became a journalist. more importantly, what journalism feels like coming in their experience, at its best. >> i think there are a couple of different key experiences. one is when you have that piece of information that will break that story wide open. the other one is being of the right place at the right time. he often have to work really hard to be in the right place at the right time. for me, the reason i came into journalism was -- my family had a house painting business and my oldest brother had a job that night as a photographer for "the boston herald." i would go and run his film for him. i would like it very long to do

i would get a chance for a minute to sit courtside at the celtics. i grew up reading "the boston globe." i had always wanted to work there. to see these great journalist, the great tradition, of feeling air to something -- of feeling heir to something, to the guys who wrote the stories, being there at the right place at the right time, being in afghanistan in 2001, being in iraq in 2003 -- seeing those stories that you cannot holiday joy, but to david perfectly put when he said

that history catapults to into a place. >> someone says something and you know. >> yes. you know you got them. i worked with ben bradley. u.s. aid truly fantastic editor. -- he used to be a truly fantastic editor. covering the big dig, i began drinking with a lot of engineers. there was this thing called a nine-day contract. i just remember this morning of being with a whole bunch of engineers who were talking about the 9a contract and knowing that this is where the story is. one of them let this slip that this was not going to work and it would cost $500 million in a

screw up. i have a place where i need to go to to find that contract, -- i knew i had that place where i need to go to find that contract. that informational "got it" is one thing. but another thing that is powerful is the sense that you are in the moment. your honor story and you have worked hard to get there. -- you are on a story and you have worked hard to get there. i had covered al qaeda for 20 years. from the first trade center bombing in 1993, covering it like a cop story. we had a great city editor, billy boy, who sent me to egypt and then to pakistan and the west bank to follow the suspects. and then you fast forward to

that moment of september 11, where you have covered that for eight years and now you're going to afghanistan to cover what will be "the world has changed, and externally moment for our country." that is my sense of history bringing you into a place where journalism matters. >> why gutted to journalism -- this is always a little bit embarrassing for me because i was not like you. i was not looking at people thinking about what to do that. i was kind of a loser. [laughter] i was drinking too much beer and playing too much pool in college and i kind of fell into it. and when i fell into it and when i started working at the lowest possible level at a television station, i absolutely loved it. before it can matter, most telling you a little bit, now 29-year-old daughter worked for a short time after college at

news channel 8 here. she would call and say, you -- it is a local -- and she said, the storage it was so boring -- the story today was so boring. and i said, you know, i love every story i did. and i really did. there is a curiosity that you are telling stories. that to me is really the important part of my job and that is what i always say to journalism students. you really cannot go on to the news and say that this happened and this happened and this happened. you have to tell people why it mattered. you have to be excited by it yourself. a couple of moments for me that were exciting -- and they're all very different. you talk about the interview and you say, ok, that is going to make news. i traveled with the vice-

president cheney a few years ago, several years ago. it was kind of a nothing trip. i kinda got thrown in on this trip and had not traveled with the vice-president and i do not think he really loved having press along anyway. he and literally never said hello to us and we're on the same airplane. and i can tell you how tense these interviews are with public figures, whether it is the president or the vice president or the secretary of state. you have five minutes and they're giving a flash cards. you want to drill down into some subject. but if you just stay on that, which they would love you to do to to of all the time, you will not get to what you want to talk to. so vice-president cheney is saying there and he is just looking at me and i said, "vice president cheney, two-thirds of americans say that the war was not worth fighting." and he looked up and me and said, " so?"

[laughter] and i was honestly just stunned. i know that i am on camera. i know that i have to react. and i just said back to m, "so? does that matter?" and that became the source for quite a while. during the time that i covered the white house, the stories, those interviews were, to me, what i am proudest of over the years, covering the wars, both of them, since they began. sometimes from the pentagon, a lot of time overseas -- during the period when iraq was truly in danger and the national intelligence estimates said they were in the midst of a civil war and the administration was saying that everything was fine,

it will be a success, everything's going well. since the surge, it has been going a lot better, but, at this time, it was not going well at all. i was traveling very lot. it was great. i was a white house correspondent, but i could face the present after going over seat and asked him what he thought -- but i could face the president after going overseas and asked him what he thought. he said, it is hard for me to say living in this big beautiful white house. you have been there and i have not been. during that time, day after day, the administration was saying that it is going just fine. but every night, the american public was being exposed to what was really happening. i think the american public figured it out. it did not mean that we went on the air and said everything is really terrible and everything is horrible and they are liars. but we went on the air every

night and said, i am here and i just got mortared and rocketed. i have talked to a lot of people and here's what they're saying. to me, day after day after day after day of doing that and having the american public figure that out and president bush understanding that they needed to change strategy, needed to do something different, frankly, that was a courageous move to double down on this one and sending more troops and then the security situation improved dramatically. also, reporters never really get calls in the middle of the night. it is the old-fashioned you're on the phone all day and they call you when something big happens. nobody ever cause you when something big happens.

but when he was the head of iraq and was caught, i got a phone call early in the morning and i thought, not tonight, i am really tired. i was writing a book at the time and i was covering the white house and my head had just hit the pillow at 2:00 a.m. i got the call and the caller said, "they got him." they got to? they are either calling you to do something or to tell you something bad. i cannot believe i just got this huge story. it was great. "the new york times" runabout it. -- "the new york times" wrote about it. when fans and see me, they do not say, hey, you on tv.

they say, "and remember that day." >> i was a college freshman and wanted toctly onwhat i do. i was good to be a historian. i knew freshman week that i was good to go to college to do that and that i was going to go into private school. and i got sidetracked into this journalism's thing and told fellow love with it. given a decision between writing a very rough history and writing history where you could ask follow-up questions, i would rather interview the people i was writing about. but i think it was a deeper thing than that. a little bit of a personal background, i am a first- generation american. my father was a jewish refugee from germany. as i thought about it over the years, the choice of career was

once so coincidental. in my heart, i have always believed that, if people only knew the truth, if people had put in their hands the actual facts, the important facts, the things that were being hit in, there would have been a different outcome. people talk about the bias of journalists. for my money, most journalists are really reformers. they believe that democracy will make a good decision if only they know. our job is to actually communicate that. i was working at "the new york times" washington bureau in the 1980's and there were speeches saying that the libyans were building a chemical weapons factory. and everyone said, oh well, that is terrible. khaddafi should not have chemical weapons. alice went to find out who was doing this, who specifically --

i was going to find out who was doing this, who specifically. i remember talking to one guy who knew knew it. i asked for in a man he city could not. i said, what letter does start with? he said, you're out of your mind. where does he say? he said, no, no, no. everybody threw me out of their offices. i finally went into the office of a guy had never met before the state department who was not working on this anymore, but he had. i said, look, it would be enormously important people knew this was. and he said, i think you're right. i said, do you remember a name? he said, i am not sure. but has been a year. c'mon, c'mon. he said, is a german company. it is something like i hausen --

einhausen. so i went back and told "the new " bureau in berlin and there was this young energetic kid. i said, tom, we're looking for a company that makes pesticides. that is where the chemical weapons are made. they are german. they probably came across hard times financially about five years ago, but they're looking pretty good right now. they must have a contract somewhere. three hours later, he called me at home and he said, i think i have something. what is the name? is it einhausen. he said, no, but there is an inhausen. there is this contract. five years ago, they were almost

a business and now they are flush. you should call your again and ask him about this. he turned out to be the guy. his denials were." amazing. he said he had jewish family and that is why he would never do this -- his denials were quite amazing. he said he had jewish family in that is why he would never do this. it created this international sensation. the headline was "auschwitz in the sand." >> how did you feel when you got "einhauzen?" >> it was an indescribable moment. and it was indescribable when we

sat down with them and played poker and absolutely blocked them. two of the guys that he covered? we knew this. i looked at him and i said we have this story. we know all about inhausen. we have the spider in the web. the guys looked at me and said, "did you get a briefing from the cia about this?" i said, "i do not discuss my sources." they said, did they tell you about the state department role? we are writing this whole thing. we are doing this, not them. that was the moment when i thought, oh, my, this is really something. >> it can also be terrifying.

i think you guys would agree with that. there is that moment for before it goes to print or after you have been on the air and you think, "i hope this is right." even if you have the most bold and of sources, there is a moment when it is absolutely terrifying. >> that moment came. people visualize washington is where leaks get handed to you. i had the story in a printout and i went to a supervisor and i said, "we have the story. is there anything you want to add?" and they said no. so we broke the story and the germans were not saying anything. then we went to a state department spokesperson and said, of " you know this is true." madethey said, "you may this mess. you get out of it."

[laughter] >> you are the managing editor of an organization that was created in a sense of desperation for investigative reporting. it was created because a couple in california were willing to endow four least three years -- for at least three years. the existence of this was announced and the call went out for people who are interested. paul steiger from "the wall street journal" was invited here one night. he said that it was discouraging because they were overwhelmed

with applications. it was dispiriting because they were prepared to leave jobs like those at "the loss adelstein" -- "the los angeles times." my question to you is -- you are probably at the top of nonprofit journalism right now. the survivability of this type of journalism. >> you have to believe that you actually keep banging at this locked box and it will contain something. i am an optimist. in the long run, investigative reporting will surge because,

ultimately, what we're seeing in this media business is that original and you need content is what people want. ultimately, there will be a commercial argument for finding things out that nobody else knows. essentially hope that is the case. i hope you can make a really good commercial argument for it. in the long run, as we get to this, this is a transition of this great hope. the transition we are in right now is a very ugly one. >> is your perspective choice of having the ability to hire if you have the money to hire -- is it still was overwhelming as it was? >> it is a little bit less than it was. it is interesting why. in many areas, we have many

resonates. it was overwhelming. >> -- we have many resumes. >> it was overwhelming. >> it was going to be something that was genuinely for real, not a hopeful startup. it was something that would be well funded, at least as long as the founders did not get mad. >> so far so good. the one of arena where it has changed a little bit, it is interesting because it does reflect a business model issue. in the world of financial turmoil is a right now, where we are competing with reuters, "wall street journal," and bloomberg, they're very well funded and we always have a low offer by a mile. we still get some people in the financial world. but the financial journalism is health care because bluebird and reuters have a different kind of thing where they are charging

-- because bloomberg and reuters have a different kind of thing where they are charging companies. >> in the world of traditional media, a media that is in many ways in danger. nbc, as a network may not be. i don't know. i am asking you. did david halberstam represent the beginning of a generational change? i would say that he and his generation been established a tradition, one that was willing to take on government in a way that had not been generally true in the commercial or mainstream media in the past. we are members of the succeeding generation. and the folks of the crimson and other students here tonight are members of yet another generation.

what do you have to say to a generation that is coming on if they are interested in careers in investigative reporting? >> first of all, nbc news has an investigative unit, which is great. all the networks do at this point. one of the things that the networks realized is that, if you do not have an investigative unit, you really are not a real news organization. that really defines you. it helps define a news organization, that they will put that kind of money into investigative units. one of the things about investigative reporting is that it sometimes does not pan out. you may have just invested a whole lot of money and time into something that did not happen, that you did not find out what you thought you might find out. there was no one doing anything wrong or at least that is what you found out. every journalist today is

worried because we are in an incredible transition. i cannot tell you how many younger people, to me and said that they want to be a foreign correspondent sunday, just like you. justrresponded some daday, like you. to me, the networks, in all of the white noise and all the journalism that is out there, i think it is more difficult for people to figure out where to turn. maybe it is my generation, but i think it is difficult to figure out what is important.

even if you go to "the new york times" on the internet, we, if we have a paper in front of us and i am doing and less and less, quite frankly, and reading it more on the internet -- in the old days, however, that story on the right was the most important story you should read. when i told my story growing up that all they had to do was read the first paragraph of every story except one on the front page, it did not work out that well. but that story on the right was the story that was the most important. i look at the internet at night. i worry about that for a generation that does not quite know what is important, does not quite know what the vegetables are. there are so many choices. trust me. i go on our website and i am reading about lindsay lohan, too. and i do not want to say to people not to. there are so many stories to

tell and some of them are entertainment stories and some of them are political stories, but you need a little bit of all of them. but what the networks offer people -- people forget this. we have 8 million viewers per night. that is a lot. it may have reduced dramatically compared to other media, but we still have 8 million viewers. despite what everyone says about mainstream media and we are horrible, i frankly think it is the most objective news you can get on television. you can tune in and watch world news or brian williams's show and you get 20 minutes of the day's news. there are very few places you can go in that economy of time to get the day's news. that is what i hope to stay with. i know sometimes the networks things, oh, my gosh, we have to do a different model.

but the most attractive thing about what we do is that we present what happened on a daily basis on those programs. we have historically had that you can spin and fine stories on and you can find archived stories on and all that. that is great. i do that, too. but, if i miss the evening news , i think you're really missing out on being a citizen and you are not really informing yourself. i worry about that. i worry that there is a generation that does not know what is important. you have a professional class that have invested their lives in figuring out what the important stuff is. that is not meant to sound arrogant. but we do this for a living. we tried to interest people in what is important. >> charlie, you represent

another model still, a startup model, but a for-profit model, which is focused on news. there are a lot of web start- ups, but there are few that are as ambitious or as serious minded as global post. talk about what the conviction and the optimism was that inspired a global post and what is now. >> global post starts as a split screen here in boston. i have been working at "of the boston globe." i had come off of 10 years full time as a foreign corespondent. i covered iraq and afghanistan. i feel that i have reached the moment where this work really matters. it is that moment at which they pull the plug on a foreign

operation. they will not carry international news. i am feeling very sad about this great institution that i love. i know the people that had to make these decisions are sad, too. but something will have to be borne out of this. so i begin to do what i think a lot of journalists do, think about starting a non-for-profit. those of us -- i think a lot of us have that on to pinero street, but i do not have the business skills. i would love to have a future grant. i know that i could pull the team together. where would i get the money? i am doing this while my four sons are pounding above me on the floor boards in my little basement office and i am thinking, "i cannot leave "the boston globe" unless i have funding." it is very difficult. at just about the moment i am approaching despair, i can see

you and others. i was putting together an advisor report. several of you mentioned that i might want to talk to someone else in town who has another model, a for-profit model, and that was bob l. boehner, the founder -- bob balbony. he had a business plan. he shared it with me. i think he saw in me someone you had the contacts and the network to build that team. we shared an editorial vision of what we wanted it to be. and he invited me to come in with him as a co-founder. he lined up a lot of the investment. we were able to go forward and do this startup. that was 2008. i left the boston globe poll on st. patrick's day 2008.

we launched in january 2009. we lunched with zero traffic. we are now getting past a big milestone of 1 million units per month. that is the metric to on the web. we have a million people per month to go to our site. there is a very engaged audience. we have about 65 correspondents on contract. they are in about 50 countries. we have 100 correspondent in total that are writing for us all the time. they're all over the world. they are a mix of really young people who are getting their first shot at being a foreign correspondent. there mid-career veterans who find themselves sort of crashed on the rocks of the collapse of commercial journalism. and there are wonderful veterans.

we have some with 20 years' experience and we have some with two years' experience. but we have this team. they're sort of like herding cats. they're all over the place. but they're part of that tradition that david halberstam talked about. david was part of something that i am sad to say no longer exist, the idea that you can start at a small paper in the deep south covering an important story on a local lovell and then you get to the tennessean and then you get -- on a local level and then you can go to "the tennessean" and then you get to new york. that journey of going from one

paper to the next is largely over for the younger -- for the students here who really want to take on his career. it will be a different path for you. what we're trying to do at global post does say that we want to be a part of the next generation of foreign correspondents. we want to be part of a new model which is basically a free- lance model and said, " here is a shot to go to a country where you know you have some facility for the language and you have to live there." it is a prerequisite of hours that you live in the place about which you write. that is the only way you can really get at those stories. we're trying to create something new that can replicate the experience that david halberstam had, which is to get that moment that every foreign correspondent is waiting for, that intersection when history, as he puts it, catapulted to a moment when journalism matters. and you do not know when that is

going to happen. but that is the thing that everyone out there is looking for. the more people we have in the world trying to do that, the more eyeballs we have in the world, i think the better we are is a country. and we need to start to build these new models because cannot let the great traditions of journalism die. we have to start thinking about rebuilding. >> i know you want to talk about a particular story that just appeared. can we put up the visual of this? explain what we are looking at. >> this is a story that we did last summer. we're trying to think about how we can stay in a story but also create an environment of understanding that takes you in depth. this is the history of the taliban. i started covering the taliban in 1996. the then-foreign editor of "the

boston globe" sent me and he said that there was this new movement. it is the taliban. go check it out. this fantastic photographers started covering them at the same time and we have known each other a long time. but there was one story that neither shamans or myself broke that was inside this series. it was by jean mackenzie who was correspondencorrespondent. we were having lunch and this ngo person comes by and had seven says that is the guy you have to pay a contract with the taliban show that there say. i said, excuse me? gene did not break it perfectly.

this was not a spotlight "boston globe" six month investigation. but she got the first three out that said "uscid gets hundreds of million dollars a year." that is where they are afghan contractors. those subcontractors are paying off the taliban for protection. it is a protection racket with a 20% straight off the top. we have potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. certainly scores of millions of dollars. we began to think that this is just a huge story. we do not have all the resources we need to get that story. partnering with others and getting funding is what we really need to think about to really get those kinds of stories. but we know we have the people

in places to find them. we got as far enough down field that uscid began to investigate. this just came out the following week. they did give us a call in the middle of the night and they said, hey, the report is out and we are giving you the first shot at it. the taliban was taking 20% cut off of afghan contractors in afghanistan. >> so we're paying the people who -- >> our tax dollars are going to the taliban. that story really resonated. it got us a lot of attention. at a global post, we're trying to find a way to do those kinds of stories now. that has really become the focus that i am trying to go in. we have a daily running. if we can keep that daley machine going with great feature

stories and great coverage with people really know it, can we take it deeper and do the stories that really mattered. can we can -- can we do the stories that david halberstam really cared about. >> he was a professional journalist and he made a modest living. the mess of his career .as a book-write your you talk about a new model. the appeal for propublica is that it paid a living wage. you have lived a life of being paid in no way that allows you to be professional journalist. there is a lot of thought now that professional journalism may genuinely be an endangered

concept. is it important? >> first of all, yes, it is important. absolutely, it is important. one of the things -- the initial rush when a the internet started destroying the business model is the people said it would not be so bad because we would have crowds sources. the crowd would go investigate. it turns out that, if the crowd were that good at reporting, they would already be reporters. it has been a great disappointment. i do believe that the future will bring us more stability. we cannot overstate how much of a transitional time this is. " we used to be a newspaper that, before the internet, was gaining 50% of the revenues from classified advertising.

what could be a better model than that? we were the only game in town. then craigslist came along and the effect it had on the business side cannot be underestimated. down the road, yes, the difficult generaliststhing to dn journalism is to give away our information for free. over the next few years, we will see that people will begin charging small amounts of money to large numbers of people. but i think the business will ultimately emerge in a way that we do not know yet. it will stabilize and there will be living wages paid to people. i think it is because i wanted. >> one of the amateurs. what about the people who come, the credits from harvard, the

people will have a passion for it? will that be enough? is there room for people who send a kid to college or pay a mortgage to do professional journalism? >> i do not think the media has done a particularly good job letting the american public know that what we do is important. i hope you're right about everything you just said. but i think that we have stood back and gotten stung by all the changes. there are a lot of smart people working on have to keep up with all of this. but the public does not understand the important of journalism in many ways. i will talk to the young reporters here, too. to me, there is a new model of business. nick shmuel is a young journalist -- nick scmittle is

a young journalist. he moved to pakistan with his wife and they lived there for two years until they got thrown out because he had written something in "the new york times" that musharraf did not like or the isi did not like and their pieces were revoked. -- and their visas were revoked. it is a harder model then perhaps what i went through and i do not think any of the scud in it for the money. but that saw -- any of us and got into it for the money. but that steady job is an absolutely wonderful model. he loves what he is doing. he writes for "the new york times" magazine all the time.

>> why do think this question and as a great deal. i had a similar career to david halberstam and. i was a copy boy at "the new york times." i was one of the last copy boys in america. i went to norfolk, va. at age 22. possibly covering school busing as a person who had just recently gotten out of high school by any definition. and did not have any kids. i did not have family. i had no idea what it was like to be an adult and our society. i was sitting there trying to interpret busing in the south to an entire community of people. i was way over my head. there is nothing wrong with it. i think can people do a great job. i put young people many times in a place where they are over their head. but people who are in their early-20's and have no families

are in the early stages of life. i do not think it is enough. >> i think the young nick schmittles will grow into the model. >> if they leave, we will not see them come back. >> we see a young and very talented person. nicky seveky is a talented photographer. she cannot ride out of the box away someone has been doing it for 10 years, but she has a gift as a photographer. she goes to turkey for us. she lives in his gamble and begins to unpack that place. she has an affinity for it. she stars to do it. she brings back these photo essays that tell us things about turkey that are really interesting. she does simple reporting,

interviews, quotes, building the story. she started out slow and now she does really good. we had to pay her in a way that is far different from what david halberstam did. he was trying to make a name and he was getting his shot. these younger correspondence can start to put together lives. they begin to freelance for the people and they have their on blogs. it is a different life. it is a harder life. the idea of being at "the boston globe," of the middle east correspondent, my family will taking care of, never had a new car my life until the paper least one for me in jerusalem -- it was a stunningly generous way of telling you to go out and cover the world the way "the boston globe" used to be able to

afford to do it. it was the greatest job you could ever have to be working for a great big newspaper as a foreign correspondent, from my point of view at least. now, it is hard. if you guys want to do this, it is difficult. you have to be your own brand. you have to be entrepreneurial. you have to think about where you want to take your career. you have to make good decisions. i would never let nikki go if we are going to get these start-ups like ours working, we will have to be attentive to the needs of this correspondence. there is a obligation we hold to really make these correspondents

feel like they are part of something. we are trying our best. >> we are going to open it up to your questions. we hope you'll join us. there are microphones here. if you would, make sure what you say is in the form of a question. also, please identify yourself. >> my name is william. my wife is a student here. i am a freelance journalist. i had been making my way for the last four years. i found very few people willing to pay more than $5 for an article. my question is about the coverage of afghanistan. i worked in afghanistan for a couple of weeks and wrote an article from there. for the last two years, when you watch the news -- your stuff is

much better than a lot of your competitors -- it is just not representative of what afghanistan is. all i see when i watch the news is when hitting the victimized, which is true, or i see men who are taliban who have begun an abused their women. there is never the reality of the afghan men who are just like us. >> what is your question? >> when does that get cut off? i do not believe you are going to these countries saying, "i am just going to show the taliban, i am just going to show the women." when does it get edited them up who is responsible for that? how you approach that to get the message across? >> one of the problems with the coverage of afghanistan is the

country is really suffering from the war. >> which country? >> our country. our country is suffering from more fatigued. -- war fatigue. through nine years of war, they feel that we have covered these stories again and again and again. i think i am in a unique position. it is harder for me to say. i am pretty much in charge of what i put on the air. the military is not the only view of afghanistan, nor should it ever be. we have people based in kabul to get out to see other things. do i think everybody has a complete picture? i really do not. it is very tough.

throughout these years of people saying the networks want to put on the blood of war and horrible things to make money, trust me, when afghanistan comes up, the television goes off. people change the channel. i do not think my bosses are lookit that and say we cannot go to afghanistan. it is really challenging for us to go out there and tell stories and make people care about it or show some normal life in afghanistan. i also have to say that we have a bazillion stories from iraq. in some areas it was completely peaceful. our troops were fighting. that is the same in afghanistan. i tried more and more analysis when i come back. i do not like it to be based on

what i think. i think we really have to talk to as many people as we can. we have to talk about people who are living normally, but right now we are in the stage where we have to focus. it is very difficult. it really is. >> i would like to thank you for sharing your experiences. i am a freshman at the college. i want to ask about the difficulties of your job. was there any time in your life when you were this close to saying, "i am done. i have had enough of this. i need to move on." >> charlie has had 10. i had only three happy years as a foreign correspondent. i do remember a moment when i was covering the war in

yugoslavia. i had gone to cover democracy, freedom, and free market in poland. i felt myself wandering around a corn field wondering, "how did this happen?" we discovered a massacre. there were bodies stacked in an old-age home. it was very bloody. they basically said we could have 14 inches and site. i remember saying, "what do you want here?" we have 100,000 refugees. we have bodies stacked up out back. what will it take for you people to care about this? this is crazy. why i am doing this? i felt myself thinking i was not doing my job. they do not care, so why should i care?

the word was "yugo-fatigue." i am shore charlie has a lot more frustration to tell you about. >> probably all of us -- the frustration is not ever getting what you want on the air. >> the thing about what you are saying is -- i love the way you came back to you have to work harder. if there is anything from david halberstam's history and the work he did is how hard he worked. this is something that i -- i really worry about your correspondents who do not have these opportunities and are running in all of these different directions to make it happen. it is hard to sit down and focus on that one big story.

david had a chance to do that in vietnam. let's get the economy. think of the hard work of trying to get our heads around this economy. i like where we ended up. that is really healthy. i have had more frustrating moments where i did have -- where i did not have such a healthy response. [laughter] >> there are not as many fits as they used to be. -- as there used to be. >> the worst thing to do is to hang up on an editor when you are on a staff phone. you'll never get another connection. it is the stupidest thing i ever done. it is like, "dodd, i am and 88." -- "god, i am an idiot."

when i lived in jerusalem, we had our kids and the bus bombings or going on everywhere. you are suddenly very connected to the israeli and palestinian people and what they are going through. in a way, you are part of that. you are immersed in it. i think similar experiences -- living in jerusalem, going into serious fighting in the west bank, seeing kids shot by israeli snipers, coming home, passing by the bus stop where israeli civilians have been killed -- your little kids are running in the garden and you are like, "i am part of this." part of it is recognizing that three little boys and a bombing right near the it is school brainhamas bomber's

in a parking lot. my wife and i both said, "that is it. we have to go." we arrived in london in december of 2001 and i knew i was out of the middle east. i had on a blue blazer. i was going to cover london. it was going to be amazing. then september 11 happen and the whole world changed. all the things you covered have come into sharp focus. you have a chance to take all that work and bring it to the field. i have said it three times and i will not say it again, but that despair can often lead to the place where you need to work hard. >> yes, sir? >> i am a freshman at the college. my question relates to safety. we talked about that in previous

questions. how important is the consideration of safety when you're going into a relatively dangerous region? what sort of a balance do you try to find and how does that thinking process go along? >> i have been in war zones most recently. i think you have to be -- i always tell people who have not done this before that do not go into your own safety. having roles. since the lines you will not cross. when you get in there, you start forgetting it because you are excited and something is happening and you want to go further and further. i do not tell my family what i do. i do not tell them half the stuff that i have done. i share a little with the u.s.

military. i have some disadvantage. i remember -- i try to be careful and not be crazy. i had a colleague, but would woodruff, who was injured. thank goodness he is doing great. that was really hard. that was hard on me. that was hard on my kids. bob. knew my son who is a freshman in challenge, used to kid me that i had never been an anchor on tv. peter jennings had died the year before. bob woodruff was named

anchor. my son said, "mama, i have decided i do not want you to be an anchor any more." you think about things like that when you are over there. on the other hand, i have done things that i know i should not have done. i went into the swat valley in pakistan when the taliban were controlling huge areas of that. i pretty much stood out like crazy. no matter how many scarves you put on, they know you are an american. that was that moment where you thought, "i really need to do this. no one has done this." we did it very quickly. i get a stand up and we got in the car. i got to interview a couple of people. we drove 120 miles per hour out of there. in terms of body armor and things like that, i always wear

body armor. peter jennings used to tell me i looked like a complete dork in a helmet. i think you just have to have your own rules about what you will do. in afghanistan now we have security. i will take some credit for that. a couple of years ago we were staying at a hotel there and we started going back and forth. it was not the safest drive by ourselves. we got stopped once bite some afghan police. it was nerve wracking. i remember calling my editor and saying we should not be traveling these roads by ourselves. you try to get better at that. charlie -- i love hearing him say this -- we will not send people who do not have war experience to a war zone. i said to abc that they had not

done this before. bob was experience. do not send people who do not have experience because anything can happen. if you are in a humvee, you know what questions to ask. you just have to have experience. you gain it or you talk to people who had been there so that you get better. >> this is the thing that keeps me up at night all the time. we are a small news organizations with limited resources. we are very stealth. the thing that is balanced there is that we can never be so self that we put people at risk. -- so stealth that we put people at risk. we have had to cobble together coverage plans that we can afford it by being creative, by

being very precise, by being short -- by being sure they check in with us, but be sure we know where they are, and by being very careful. we are building new models for journalism. we cannot forget that we have to respect the people in the field. we have to have the resources. >> i am 8 visiting international student. you talked about the sudden feeling of having a piece of information. i was just curious and i guess my question goes to all of you -- have you ever wondered if you crossed the line or ended up not publishing an article because of moral or ethical reasons? >> that is a good question, but we have a lot of people who want to talk. i will ask one person to respond

to it. >> if you are a good journalist, especially in the investigative realm -- i think you have a better answer. >> investigative reporting involves getting information that somebody does not want you to have and the courage to have -- and the curse to know it may not be there. >> i have purposely not written stories that did not pan out. i have, and i am short markell and charlie have from time to time, have had to withhold details at the request of the american government. i take a deep breath when i do something i know will be horrible to another person and i know we have to do this. i had never felt -- i could tell

you about it, but i would have to shoot you all. there was a story where a very decent person in a story does not, i'll well. -- does not come out well. >> my name is at blair. my question is for charles. you mentioned that you're sending someone over to turkey to immersed herself in the culture and the history of the culture in order to be a better foreign correspondent. in the future in a globalized, digital music world, the you think the foreign correspondents will be from that country? >> that is a really good question. we have many of our correspondence to or from the country to write for us as well. one of the things we are trying to do is write to an american audience. if you are from that country and

you have gone to college in the states or have lived in the states for a while, that is great. as long as you know that the nba matters a lot more than cricket. you understand if you make a reference to the west bank, describing it as roughly the size of rhode island. we have such an uphill climb to get americans to care about the world, i have to have writers who can do that. i do not care where you are from as long as you can do that. we do find that it is really good to have fresh eyes. that is the skill of being a storyteller. people talk about growled sourcing and citizen journalism wd sourcing and says in journalism.

they did not have everyone go in. i really believe that journalists have a craft for getting it right and telling the story in an interesting way. that is what we are looking for. yes, it needs to be told in a way that the american audience can connect. >> there is a big line where someone was asked about citizen journalist -- ben bradley, sr. he said, "what you think about citizen journalist?" he said, "i do not know. what do you think about citizen surgeons." >> we want to find the top journalist in these countries with whom we can partner.

then it becomes a learning experience. >> my name is richard. i am an affiliate here. in the real world, i am a bbc correspondent. david halberstam and loved challenging conventional wisdom on a story, specifically for historical hindsight. he talked about when editors and audiences have a fixed view about something. >> i think that is a good question. there was a time in the late 1980's when a colleague of mine and i were frustrated. we had gone out to do a story and could not get the editors to pay attention. he said, "the "new york times -- "the new york times will never be ahead." in a sense, you can circle too far ahead of a story.

it becomes very frustrating. i think that is great journalism. if you define yourself as challenging the conventional wisdom, you are going to find a great journalist. nobody has ever really changed anyone's mind by doing a slightly different version of a story. >> we are running out of time. i want to get to two other questioners a very quickly. yes. >> thank you. i am not a harvard student, but i am a news junkie. i find your story about dick cheney breathtakingly cynical, but not at all surprising. what do you think is the chemical reaction that produces that moment? why did it happen with you and not with one of your colleagues? is it the time of day? >> you know what, i do not

know, but i know we walked out of that room -- you could see his staff just go, "oh, no." no one was mad at me. no one was blaming me for that. he was retired or he had a long day or what he met was -- whatever. there are certainly moments. i had never interviewed him before. if it tells you something about vice president cheney, i have covered the white house for 2.5 years and never met him. there was that. i think sometimes people go into interviews and they think it will be 10 minutes, who cares. oman during that

interview. i felt like he had a lot of chances. a lot of moments past when he could have said, "let's go back to that." >> one last question. >> i am a graduate of the school. i would like to change the subject to something that has been an enormous failure, which is the coverage of climate change. i want to ask steven a question about that. why is it going to take for you to cover that? we have had a decade of climate catastrophe around the globe. >> per deval, we do cover it. -- first of all, we do cover it. should it be covered more, absolutely. my personal view is that we are in a transitional period in the world of energy.

it is the single most important story of our time. i will challenge you back and say that i think there is an awful lot of coverage. i do not think we are ignoring it at all. >> i am sorry to say we are out of time. i hope that you have enjoyed this as much as i have. it has been a great opportunity to honor the traditions, the passion, and the spirit of david halberstam. panelist, thank you all. -- panelists, thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> a former journalist for the

united nations, she is the author of eight books. phyllis bennis , sunday at 12:00 eastern on c-span2. what previous programs at booktv.org. >> this week on q and a, we continue our interviews from in london -- we continue our interviews from london. dan reed is the director of the film "terror in mumbai." the bombing killed over 175 people.

>> to page you to do this? >> i am eau claire byte channel 4, hbo, pbs fought -- i am hired by the channel 4, hbo, pbs. >> how many documentary's have you done? >> about 25 or 30. i have lost count. >> we ask you here to talk about "terror in mumbai." it is two years old. >> it is the story of the terrorist attack on the city of

mumbai on the 26 of november, 2008. it is known in india as 2611/ 10 young men invaded a beach in self mumbai. it is the most popular side of the series of the city. i just darted killing. they did not stop for 57 hours. i tried to tell the story of the attack. i also did it from the eyes of the attackers. >> we are going to show a little bit in a moment. where were you on that day? >> where was i? it is funny, i was trying to remember the other day exactly where i was. i think i was in a cutting room.

sometimes i like to do a police procedural. it is a contrast to the documentary work i do. i do it less dangerous work since i have a family. >> how long did it take you to get to mumbai? >> the genesis of the film -- it was not an instant reaction bank. i do not watch the news. i am hired on a job by job basis. i do the project that i like and the project that turned me on. i got a call, i think it was in january, from an executive producer. he said, "dan, would you go to mumbai?"

i had not made a documentary for about four or five years. i had been making,. i made a movie. the last documentary i made before "terror in mumbai" was called "terror in moscow." they covered the activities in 2002. it told the story of a hit squad to cut 800 hostages in moscow. i told that story through the eyes of the hostages. it was about sitting in a theater with your family and friends and waiting to die. it is about the events that unfolded. i obtained a tape that was shot

by the terrorists in the theater giving a speech on one of the hostages' video camera. that was my last documentary for a while. i went on to do some fiction. i had a hankering to return to the documentary world. after a while, talking to actors and living in a very controlled world, it gets at you after a while. i did not know much about the mumbai attacks at the time. it was a terrific story to try and tell. hbo came on a little bit later.

the notion of mumbai appealed to me. the challenge of trying to tell a story in a different way. this was a story that was confused and model. nobody really understood what was going on in mumbai from reading the papers or watching television reports. there was a lot of conflicting information. mumbai is a very dynamic, modern indian city. >> if you had never been there? >> i had never been to india in my life before i make the film. >> where did you touch them -- when did you touch them? >> march, 2009. this was sometime after the attack. >> did you go by yourself? >> i did. >> did you have a camera? >> no. i will first get to smell the air. i will try to make friends and make contacts, trying to of

soared as much as i can and understand, not by a sort of fondle -- frontal assault, but nibbling around the ages -- around the edges. this was a story that did not tell itself very easily at all. my first idea was to try to compact as many victims as possible, people who were there, who were in the railway station when the gunman started firing. those who were in the hotel when the gunman started shooting. those who were in the jewish community center. i had the luxury of being able to take a little bit of time at the beginning of the project. the accelerates quickly when you find what you need. -- it accelerates quickly when you find what you need. >> how long were you there the

first time you went? >> i spent a total of three months over all. the first trip was five or six weeks. >> where you marry at the time? >> yes. >> children? >> i had a son and a daughter. >> how old are your kids? >> 7, 3, and three-months. my children were little. every time i go away for more than three weeks, it is miserable. >> hell are you? >> i am 45-years old. i never had any training in television or film. i did a degree and had -- i had a strange academic career. i went to university to do math and physics. before i started the courses, i changed to russian and french.

i was very curious about russian. this is when russia at what the on no other -- sort of -- this is when russia was the unknown other -- sort of like the looking glass. i wanted to explore world's unlike my own -- explore the world and like my own. >> i saw your documentary in several places. it has been available more than one time on video on demand. i watched it on the internet where it had a different moderator, a different narrator. the hbo documentary was one and i do not know who the other one was. to block the documentary? >> it was commissioned by two

broadcasters. one was channel 4 in the u.k., the other was hbo. they wanted to have of what you call a "wrap around." fareeq was wonderful and a very eminent figure. i am extremely pleased that he came on board. for the uk, -- the u.k. birgit was made before the american version. the american version is longer. for the uk version, we used dominic west. this was his first ever voice- over narration job. >> let's watch so that those who have not seen it can get a sense of what you have put together.

if you pay close attention, all of the elements are in this opening couple of minutes. >> what you are about to watch is unique. the attacks have been reconstructed from the point of view of survivors, witnesses, and first responders. this time, you are with the terrorists. you'll hear the voices of the young men on the ground in mumbai. victims, menee the and women -- men, women, and children. it is the first 360 degree view of terrorism. >> november 26, 2008 -- an organization determined to surpass al qaeda as the world's most feared terrorist group. their mission was to kill and keep on killing. it was a spectacle so

terrifying, that the world could no longer ignore the army of the righteous. >> indian intelligence intercepted the terrorist cell phone conversations with their commander in pakistan. >> they were doing their job, as a matter of fact. >> when gunman was captured alive. -- one gunman was captured alive.

for the army of the righteous, it was a test run for future operations, not just in india, but perhaps elsewhere. their method of attack could easily be adapted to any american city. no hijacked airliners or sophisticated weaponry, just tend young man with mobile phones and rifles. they were trained to kill on command. >> i kept asking where you got the video of them walking out of the hotel and the audio of the telephone conversation between pakistan and these 10 men. let's start with what we just saw. how many people were killed in mumbai on that occasion?

>> the death toll reached, i think, 150. most of these were 52 or 53 to died at the railway station. it was over so quickly. the victims were poor. they were less important in terms of the media then maybe the wealthy clients of the hotel. >> where did you get the video of the blood on the floor at all the clothes? >> that was camera phone footage. it was taken by a guy who, as a teenager, was a beggar at the station. he ended up being part of our team. he is a successful young man now and a politician.

he grew up as a hobo in the station. when the attack happened, he went in there looking for his friends and picking up the bodies. he helped collect the bodies as well. he fell on his camera out phone. -- he filmed on his camera phone. he said, "have a look at this." i bought it from him. >> where did you get the audio phone conversations between pakistan and these 10 young men who did the killing? >> they were recorded by two intelligence agencies in england to my knowledge. it was the intelligence bureau in new delhi and the police

anti-terrorism unit in mumbai. exactly how i obtained the recordings i cannot say. these are not recordings that were released to us by the authorities. >> are the authorities upset that you have them? >> they were rather upset that i have them. i believe a summons was issued and some legal action was threatened by the mumbai police, but they would not follow through. from the indian point of view, it was upsetting that this material was not supposed to be publicly broadcast. on the other hand, it demonstrated that pakistan was behind the attacks and that, for them, was pretty useful. i guessed they were not too

upset. >> how often or you solicited by people in india once they knew you were there doing a documentary and they wanted to give you stuff? >> no one wanted to give us anything. it was extremely difficult to pry this film from where it was. that was the hardest part of the production. it was very difficult. nobody in the indian media or the national media has succeeded in getting the recordings before we did. >> where did you get the closed- circuit video from the hotels? >> the closed-circuit video from the hotels were obtained without the consent of the hotels. they were recordings that existed and had been circulating -- the authority's at them -- the authority

ies had them. it was an important story to be told. i suspected that the material was being held because it could be embarrassing to the hotel. it may be considered embarrassing if you are a big hotel to have men with machine guns walking around shooting your guest. >> have you been back to india? >> no, i have not. >> as it aired in india? >> i think it has in another form on one of the local channels. in mumbai, we try to prevent that. it has been seen online. >> you can see it online now? >> yes, you can see it online. to answer your question, it has

been broadcast nationally in india. >> first question, how many of the 10 men were killed? >> 9 of the 10 men were killed. >> in that 36-hour. ? >> yes. the 57-hour period is the time that they were killed or burned to death. that is where the clock stopped, if you like. he had machine guns and a whole lot of people at the station. he then killed three policemen and a fourth as he was being captured. the police had every reason to treat him with extreme

prejudice. i was surprised at how gentle they were within. he has been put on trial. he has been sentenced to death. whether the centers will be carried out or not is an open question. the indian legal system is very slow. >> at degette video? >> -- how did you get the video? >> we obtained it because we've got it had a huge public interest value. that was the most difficult piece of material to get ahold of. >> have much of the video did you have to pay for? >> we do not like to pay cash for materials. we hire people who obtain it for us. you cannot just hire someone.

you cannot walk into a newspaper or some institution in england and say, "here is two months' work. could get this." obtaining film like this is a bit of an art. it involves a load of trust to make relationships with people. they have to trust you and believe they are doing something worthwhile. >> here is the more video from the train station. >> with the terrorists bond, the railway police rushed out of hiding, weapons at their ready. the terrorists killed 52 people at the station and wounded more than 100.

>> who is the young man? >> eight young muslim boy who was at the station with his extended family. six of his family were killed by the surviving gunmen and his associates. it was a stroke of luck for me. chasing the victims was very difficult. these are people who had come from far and wide. it was a railway station. a lot of people were passing through. when the bodies were collected and the wounded were picked up, there was a sketchy record of who they were or where they had gone. it was quite difficult to find people. i had researchers scouring the continent. i thought of looking for a taxi

driver who lost six members of his family. it turned out there were two with the same name at least at one not chasing the wrong guy. eventually, i found out that he had moved to a village three days a train ride from mumbai. there is a series of negotiations with the younger members of the family. i wanted someone to come to mumbai to be interviewed. eventually the taxi driver came. today, the fact that he was with the family who came to the railway station and they had been gunned down by these fanatics from over the water who

had an ideology that had nothing to do with the religion of the victims -- i felt that this was a cool thing for me to get. we asked if he could bring more of his family to speak to us. he said, yes. he believed the 19-year-old boy would come. he was not a 19-year-old boy. he was a 12-year-old boy, accompanied by a family. 12-year-old's in london have problems talking about a very intimate, personal things. this kid was amazing. he was fantastic. we interviewed him in an extraordinarily noisy, crowded

place. i could barely hear his words. he was just incredible. for me, he is the heart of the film. >> how many days did you spend a total in mumbai? >> the research and the filming together took three months. most of that time would have been research. i think i fell on and off for one month. -- i think i filmed on and off for one month. >> how many people did you have on your team? >> my team in india was larger than it usually is. we had two or three drivers. i used a 35 millimeter camera. i wanted to capture a sense of the city at night because the attack began at night.

mumbai at night has an incredible atmosphere and a mood to it. there were many different types of colors of light. taxi drivers and colored lights. it is visually a very rich place. i shot with a film camera with no sound. i shot at 6-frames per second. yet these weird, ghostly shapes. -- you have these weird, ghostly shapes. we shot all the interviews on a regular video camera. the camera comes with two attendants at a special driver. it was slightly overmanned. my basic team was my cameraman, my photographer, who was the second unit cameraman -- he's a shot my documentary in haiti --

as our core, a production manager, and a researcher. it was quite a small team. >> how did you decide which footage you reduce it? >> i wanted to use [unintelligible] for a long time i was looking for a friend who could compose it. we found an outstanding composer who did the score for "the millionaire." he worked dealt the line -- he

worked down the line. >> they think that is most intriguing, i think, besides how horrible the whole thing was, is the ability to hear these telephone conversations. set it up before we show a little bit of these calls. what is going on? >> the attack on mumbai was incredibly well-designed. it was conceived with kind of an evil genius. they took 10 young men who were not hardened fighters. they were not mujahedeen. the they had minimal training. they were able to control and reinforce their psychological conditions by use of the mobile phone. they were completely in touch with the operation center in pakistan. the men who had lost them on the

mission were saying, "now you got to do this." they were very colly controlling the young man. >> constantly choosing the word "god." >> there was less religious she'll than i expected. a lot of it seemed very, not mundane, but every day. they lived in a world where the taking of life in this kind of extraordinary killing spree they were on was a normal thing to be doing, like driving a taxi. the whole thing reminded me of listening to the communications between what we call in london the dispatchers -- a bunch of guys sitting around with michael's talking to taxi

drivers. -- with microphones talking to taxi drivers. brother wassi is the main guy. he does not seem to be the ultimate authority within a terrorist group. he does not seem to be "mr. baker "the is the guy that runs the operation. -- he does not seem to be "mr. big." he is the guy that runs the operation. of the washington post ran an article today or yesterday that publicly identified him. i have yet to read the article. >> watch this. >> little use was made of them, but the authorities would

intercept 284 telephones. most -- 284 bombs. most were controlled by one controller. his grip on the gunmen would not listen until they were dead tr. as scores of people were being unned down at the ratrailway station, others burst into the mumbai hotel. they wore black.

they killed nine staff and three guests in the lobby. he murdered 13 diners at a restaurant. this man was shot five times and left for dead beside his family and friends. >> the whole place was very silent. i could not see my friends. whenever i tried to look, i could see he had not moved. he was at the same position from the time he got shot. so was my cousin and his wife. i was close enough. >> to is the woman? -- who is the woman? >> she was one of the few people from the upscale neighborhood in mumbai. that is where the victims in the hotel came from.

that is where they had their parties. most of the people from that sector of society just wanted to have nothing to do with the media. they were very distrustful. she was someone to had been having a meal with some friends. the gunman came in and butchered everyone in the restaurant. she was surrounded by her dead friends. she somehow managed to survive. she called for help, but no one came. . .

who also took a long, long time to arrive and their plane wasn't

ready and there are all sorts of delays on route and the response was very slow. now, i was talking to people in new york and they're saying if this happened in new york, these guys would have been dead within minutes. i don't believe that's the case -- that would be the case. an attack like this has such -- has such an impact and it's so hard to get information on what's happening that even in a place like new york, in london, my city, i think almost as many people would have died in the first half hour. i think the impact of the attack is such people don't know what to make of it. i had been having requests for my film. i had been receiving e-mail requests from swat teams here in the states and homeland security officials who were desperate to find out what an attack like this looks like and sounds like. i think maybe if it happens here now, we're better prepared because we seen what happened in mumbai. but i think these guys, they

change their moatous operandi all the time and they don't do the same thing twice. each time, 9/11 and this attack, what they have in common is they're almost inconceivable. there's something about the design of the attack that just created disbelief. you just think for about -- you're sitting there ten minutes thinking this cannot be happening. this cannot be happening. >> are we to believe this is all about cash memory? kashmir? >> no, it's not all about kashmir. and one of the decisions i took quite early on is to -- that i wouldn't try and -- i didn't go to pakistan and i didn't try and unlock the pakistani side of the story, more than i was able to do from india, which is not very much. i had the recordings, which told

me a great deal about the relationship between the controllers and the gunmen. i had as much information i could discover about the group that did it. i believe a lot more is now coming to light good about the motives and the character of the organization, the army of the righteous, which carried out the attacks. lashkar was an organization that came about because of the conflict in kashmir. it was used as a proxy by the pakistani states to attack -- to attack india in this disputed territory of kashmir. i believe my theory is lashkar was kind of lagging behind in the -- in the league of jihaddists glory and needed to do something very visible, needed to do something very international to put itself back in the sort of -- amongst the stars of the jihaddist movement. and this was something -- this was an attack on a modern city. it was a highly very well executed attack. highly visible attack on

international targets. this is not a pakistan versus india type of local attack. >> one fell yes we saw that was talking, he tells a story about being sold basically into this group by a slavic. >> yes. >> for what reason? and did his father have any idea what he was going to get into? where did he come from, what kind of a village? >> he came from a small village close to lahore. this was a kid who had a bad relationship with his dad. he was doing some odd jobbing. he was paining houses. he also told the police he been a robber. he was from an unhappy family. he had dabbled in petty crime and violent crime and in -- when

they go to a group like this, when they're attracted into a group like this, they're drawn by the glamour and the glory of it, i guess, because suddenly you are -- you have a purpose. you have a family who are your brothers in arms. you have a father, they call them uncles, who nurtures your career as a jihaddist and potentially has a fighter who goes to die in combat. and -- and you offered this deal. you go to mume mumbai, you get to kill anyone you want. any of the bad people out there. >> they're told in advance they're going to kill? >> yeah, yeah. there's a process, a selection. only the most capable and malleable get closen. >> when in the process of the three months you spent there, did you get the different ingredients for this documentary? for instance, how far along the

way did you get the telephone call, the audio? >> i was i would say after six, seven weeks i was told i would get the audio calls. >> where did you set up, by the way? where did you live while you were there? >> in an old hotel in the center of town. i couldn't afford to stay in one of the big hotels and kind of liked it. it was a slightly rundown hotel opposite of the main hospital. >> when you do this, did whoever bought this, channel 4 here or hbo today say this is how much money we're going to give you to do this whole thing and you live within a budget? >> that's right, you live within a budget. you are cash-flowed you like through the production. you don't have to put up your own money. you're cash-flowed through and there's a limited amount of money and you can't spend more than what you have. so stuff -- i like to put it on screen. i like to put as much of it as i can on screen. >> can you give us any idea how much money this whole thing

costs? >> i would say by the time -- both versions, hbo versions and all of the marketing and what have you, in the region of $400,000, maybe less. certainly the u.k. version by itself would have cost a lot less. >> who owns the rights to this now? >> the rights are owned by channel 4 and hbo. >> you don't hold anything? >> no. >> do you hold the original video and audio you were able to research? >> i retained copies. who owns that is a moot point. is there another documentary you can -- >> i was curious about what i was told today about the article i identified brother wasy. i think brother wassy, if i could get to brother wasithere, would be another film. because this man's vice, an educated voice, speaking good

english, very gentle. brother wasi was speaking to one of the israeli hasages. having a very, don't worry madam, it will be ok. you will go home to join your friends. you will be home for the sabbath. very soothing, well educated one would think voice and completely ruthless. completely ruthless. >> you had a turkish couple. >> yes. >> let's watch them and get to you tell us about them. >> i threw myself face down and he started to shoot and all the bodies were falling on me. and i was buried under the bodies from my waist down. >> he left five people alive, his wife threen other women. the other ten had been gunned down on the narrow landing. >> you can hear them, some of

them were not dead yet. you can hear the sounds of their last -- i don't know. and we had to, you know, step over those people. >> i said, look, i step on the bed of this man, stand on the neck of that man and i will hold your hand. i stepped over the bodies and i told them not to stop on the blood, otherwise the blood is so slippery. i never known blood can be so slippery. >> at the same time on the attack at the trident, two backpackers skoaled into the taj, the most exclusive hotel in the city. each carried an assault rifle, a pistol, hand grenades, hundreds of bullets and enough dried

fruits and nuts to last a couple of days. they began killing anyone in their sight. they were soon joined by the two terrorists who had just killed 11 civilians at a cafe the block away. newcomers narrowly avoided bullets meant for a hotel guest. the two pairs joined forces in the lobby by the swimming pool. there were now four gunman inside the taj. >> who was the turkish couple? >> they were having dinner at the hotel, on a business trip to mumbai. safi makes yachts. and they were having a very nice trip.

and within an hour were watching fellow guests being murdered on a narrow staircase and they had the most -- this was one of the most harrowing things of the whole attack. they're turks, muslim turks and when the terrorists checked their passports, realized they were muslims and told them to step aside while they murdered all of the other men. they were then taken to a hotel bedroom and locked in with two women, so there were four of them and eventually the two women were taken outside and shot in front of safi and milton and so the turks were taken to another bedroom, sat down on a bed and just left there. their lives were spared, we are told, because of their faith. now, they have nothing in

common. their muslim religion has nothing in common with one of their attackers. they made it very, very clear. this is one of the most strangest episodes of the whole story. >> where did you intersflue >> i flew to istanbul. it was quite difficult to find them. i was amazed they agreed to go on television and speak of this. >> what are you like during one of these periods? >> i'm quite obsessive. in fact i get haunted by the story. and it's my dreams and it has tarblee effect on my family life because i'm kind of absent and i've learned to counter that, i hope. but, yeah, i was obsessed with the story this turkish couple and as -- you know, there was -- there were four guys who were in the group who they saw being

killed, and there were a total of 15 men and 4 guys who survived under the bodies, 4 indian men who survived. so they watched this group of men be machine gun by the two terrorists or guys fall to the floor dyeing and they are taken off to another place. meanwhile four of the guys under the pile of bodies are still alive. i found all four of them and i tried to dissuade them. i met with two of them in mumbai and i met with two i tried to persuade them to be in the film. they said no. i was in the cutting room about a month later, and i got a call from the son of one of these guys and they said dan, we watched your film "terror in moscow," which i left with them, the documentary i made before. we had no idea you were a serious filmmaker. of course, we'll do anything you like.

my father would like to take part, the guide, the survivor. by then it was too late. but there are certain things i believe have i to do and get from the story so i live it. if you ask my wife, i probably take it too seriously. >> what do you tell to the people e-mailing you and want a copy of this, where can they go? >> they can't go anywhere. they can see my film online. >> type in "terror in mumbai" and that's great. >> i want people to watch it. i would like it if people were able to buy a d.v.d. or to download it legally. but at the moment that's not possible. >> i know hbo put it on demand but it's not there right at the moment. do you know how often they will do that? >> i hope they put it back on. there's been tremendous demand for it. i will send the disks to someone if they reach me personally.

there's a limit of how many disc i can send and i would love it to be available for sale. >> back to the earlier question. i asked you about the audio and now video. when did you first meet the fellow who was at the train station? >> the young boy? >> no. the one that had the video of -- >> yes. i met him very, very early on. he was still a guy sort of hanging around the train station. wendted up filming at the train station. he was the guy smoothing the way getting permissions and stuff like that. we got that fairly early on and cctv fairly early on as well. the tape i got very, very late and audio, i was already in london. the audio came to us, as i said, two-third of the way through. big challenge with the audio, seven hours of the telephone intercepts, seven hours worth and i had to have it all

translated, of course. because i wasn't going to miss anything. having it translated and finding people who spoke the right pakistani dialect and whom i trusted to give me an accurate, completely objective and impartial rendition of what was being said and go into every detail. sometimes the line is bad and you only hear half a word. tremendous job translating this. other people got hold of the tapes now, recordings. i'm probably -- we're probably the only people with the full translation of the whole thing. because it's expensive and it takes a lot of time to do. we had it checked and rechecked. i'm very, very thorough. i like to know when we broadcast something, it is absolutely right. it is absolutely spot on. >> when this documentary -- what did it run for, here at channel 4 in london? >> in june.

>> june of 2010 -- >> 2009 >>. 2009. that's right, of course. when did it run on hbo? >> it ran pretty much on the anniversary of the attacks so late november 2009 last year. >> if you can do this again right now, do you have material that you didn't have at the time that you would put in this? >> there is -- yeah, the whole david headley story, the story of the american and wife and pakistani guy who acted as a reconnaissance for the mission. there were elements that have come to light about the pakistani side of the story since i made the film. i'm a freelancer so i will go on, i will retain an interest in all of the stories i do. but i can't put the kind of energy i do when i'm in production into stories left behind me. so it's a story i would love to return to. at the moment i don't have the key elements which would allow me to make another film about it.

but, yeah, this is a story we'll keep on revealing layer after layer after layer. it will keep on getting richer and richer i think. >> you mentioned a documentary on haiti whfment will that run? >> that will be on channel 4 for pbs frontline and running on the anniversary of the haiti earthquake, january 12, 2011. >> how long was that? >> it sounds like science fiction, doesn't it in it will be an hour-long film. it's about -- it's an unusual angle on the haitian earthquake. my film is about the jail break, mass jailbreak that took place during the earthquakes. not only did haiti lose 250,000 people in the quake, not only its capital city wrecked but all of the really hard-core criminals and about two-thirds of the prison population escaped during the quake. and we launched on a society which is at its most vulnerable. >> how long did you spend in haiti? >> i spent two months in haiti

shooting that. >> did you talk to any of those prisoners? >> yes, i interviewed quite a few of them. >> on camera? >> yes. >> why would they do that? >> i asked them nicely. one of them had been recaptured and the other five, six -- you have to track people down ungo -- there's always a way to find people. there's always a way to find people. >> what has been the impact in your opinion of "terror in mumbai," the documentary? what are the things you kind of hang your hat on because that has been aired in london and united states? >> "terror in mumbai" personally i hesitate to express it like this. but the objective is it's kind of an historic piece. we have never had the kind of material to rival these phone calls, and it really gives you an inside seat, it gives you an

inside view of the terrorist attack. we never had that before. we never heard the terrorists' intimate conversations with their bosses. and cctv and all of that kind of stuff has been seen before but taken together with the other material, i think it adds up to something unique. not just an insight into the way the terrorists operate but also into the relationship between the controllers and gunmen. the controllers never shouted. there was never any hysteria. even when the gun american were hit and dyeing, never raised their voices. there was complete calm. and i think that's strange and and significant. i think it tells us a lot about the relationship between -- you know i was kept thinking of children or youngsters who were groomed for abuse and the way

the relationship is, we're told, not con 0 sensual but normalities that establish themselves between children and young people who are groomed for abuse and abusers and there's a sort of relationship that sets in and i kept being reminded of that. i think why would a young man like this let himself be sent to certain death by -- by this person sitting in an office miles and miles away? why would they do that? the religious, fanatical religious rhetoric wasn't really there. there was something else. and these were people who had been groomed and psychologically shape sod what they had been doing became normal. this is what they did. it was norm a to me that was the biggest part. >> dan reed, producer, writer of "terror in mumbai." thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much.

for a d.v.d. copy call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or give us your comments about this program, visit us at q & a.org. programs are also available at c-span podcast. >> tonight on c-span -- we elected congressman allen west speaks at the annual pro israel conference. the harvard kennedy school of government hosts a discussion t investigative journalism. documentary filmmaker dan reed about his film "terror in mumbai." >> the one thing that we've absolutely learned over the last

30 years is economists and other stages are not very good at predicting what actually happens. >> in his columns for "newsweek" and "the washington post," robert samuelsson has written about politics, the economy and social issues for over three decades. he will join us sunday night on c-span's "q & a." this year's pro israel conference featured a speak by newly elected congressman alan west, who will represent florida's 22nd district when he is sworn in next week. the conference, held in ft. lauderdale, florida, was organized by the group americans against hate. this is just under three hours. >> grab some food and take a seat. plenty of open seats on the left and right. my name is jeff rubenoff. i have been involved with americans against hate for four years now.

pretty much ever since i moved down here to florida. american against hate was founded in 1998. it's currently united way funded, nonprofit, 501c3 organization whose mission is to educate the public on the danger of those individuals within the united states who actively spread bigotry and violence. on september 11, 2001, the focus of our organization drastically changed as you can all kite imagine. the issue of terrorism became our primary concern, as it is to this day. as a terrorism watchdog group americans against hate work tirelessly to shut down entities

that are related to terrorist groups overseas. in october 2006 we found a terror watch to expose a terrorist ties of many individuals who are associated with a council of american -- on american islamic relations terrorists. a front group of hamas. since then we have persuaded a number of government officials to break their ties with the care organization. this this includes united states senator barbara boxer in california, who we convinced to rescind an award from a care leader. also tampa bay's mayor pam iorio, who we convinced to stop issuing proclamations in care's name. in december 2008, we stood

shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of our friends in the hindu, christian and jewish communities here in florida to speak out against those who perpetrated the massacre that took place in mumbai, india. in december 2009, we launched young zionists. to call on the united states government to stop hindering israel from taking action against those who threaten her existence. americans against hate continues to be a leading voice in the fight against hatred and terror. please continue to support our great effort. i want to start by handing over the mic to our conference emcee,

lisa messy. >> thank you, jeff. i'm pleased to be here with you today at the pro israel conference 2010. i wanted to thank joe kauffman for putting it all together and for all of the work he's done through americans against hate day after day, year after year. on my radio show, "the justice hour," i tell people if you don't know your rights, just don't have any rights. today is about justice for israel and justice for america. israel's existence is at risk and every day just as americans fight the war on terror against the same factions seeking to -- the same factions seeking to destroy israel. our support for israel in the united states must be unequivocal. we're here to show our unwavering support for israel with a number of wonderful

speakers. we thank you for your support and your presence here today. now for our national anthem, performance and arrangement of joe citizen of the joe citizen show, wlbj 1040 a.m. ♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight oe'r the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming

and the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star-spangled banner yet wave oe'r the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ >> and next singing the israeli

national anthem by international vocalist inez chapman.

>> we lead off today with dennis brown, a lecturer for young zionists. he is the former south florida district president of the zionist organization of america. dennis will discuss how internal

politics within israel can withstand the threat from iran. >> thank you all again for joining us. the young zionists in our pro-israeli policy forum today. thanks for our distinguished panel for being here and we are especially proud to have with us congressman alan west, a truly great american who will no doubt be a great friend -- [applause] -- who will no doubt be a great friend to israel and all of congress in the criti ahead. i would like to discuss today how israel can with sps stand gather ago nuclear storm from iran. in order to do so we will have to look at internal matters within the state of israel. we will have to take a close look at israel's political elites as well as the political establishment that insulates these leets from strength and will of the israeli people.

as we do this, we will discover this has been leading israel down a dangerous path. but my's edge will be a positive one, because we can find that which has been leading israel down a dangerous path can be found and reside in the state of israel, then it is within our power as supporters of the state of israel to help the israeli people bring change about from within. let's begin with the proxy wars. as we know, iran has two proxy forces, raid against israel. one in the south in gaza, and the other in lebanon, hezbollah. they have been prodding and poking israel for years, testing her resolve. so it's not a surprise israel has fought each of the last two wars against the proxy forces of iran. maybe it's a surprise to hear israel was defeated in each last two works by no less than any measure by proxies of iran, each

of whom emerged more entrenched, more deadly and lethal than ever before. in the south before the fighting took place two years ago, hamas had weapons that mainly were weapons of mass destruction, such as primitive missiles aimed against israel's south. but today hamas now has missiles that can target israel's most popular city, tel aviv. it's interesting to hear that the prime minister of the state of israel has said it's difficult for the israel lair force to fly over gaza because now also hamas has very sophisticated aircraft weapons as well. i said it's interesting to hear that from the israeli prime minister because as a former member of the cabinet in a nationalist government of ariel sharon, voted four times for the unilateral withdrawal from gaza, which led the missiles to now dangle like a dagger over tel aviv. as we look to the fighting that took place in the north, hezbollah took the fight to israel, took the fight to israel's home front in a way not seen ever before since even

going back to the war of independence. missiles hailed over the north, causing the entire north region of israel to evacuate. hundreds and hundreds of thousands of israelis fled for their lives to the center of the country where many would live out the longest war as internal refugees, many living in internal displacement camps. the jewish world has taken little note of this. of what happened to israel's home front but the enemies of israel and middle east did not miss that. they saw the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of israelis feeling for their lives. so because israel's weakness and pass sievety, today it is also hezbollah has missiles that darget all of israel's population centers. why did israel stay her hand in these proxy wars? nobody on any side of this conflict doubt had israel determined to t. could have achieved any strategic objective, including completely

expelling hezbollah from lebanon as it had done previously two decades before to the plo. why did israel state her own hand? many supporters of israel, our minds turn right away to the in fact israel is a small, tiny nation under so much universal hostility and double standards. thurely this must confine the ability to defend itself as other nations ordinarily wofment we don't need the recent wikileaks to understand that's not the case. even at the time these wars were in progress, even the most important arab sparkse sunni arab space in saudi arabia, wanted israel to do what was necessary to deal with the sites of blow to the proxies of iran because of sunni arab states have a lot to fear from the rising shia tide, the menace in the middle east from iran. why did israel state her own hand? for that we must look at internal matters in the state of israel. is the threat from iran deemed overblown?

our president said expects the islamming republic of iran. as he points out he says this is nation of a people for som centuries contributed so much in every field of human endeavor. and this is a nation of a people with deep adherence and faith to one of the world's great religions. surely deopportunities, containments that worked against the mighty soviet empire can work against iran. unfortunately our presence has conflated the enlightened forces in iran with the regressive repressive forces of this regime. even as these enlightened forces bravely rose up in the streets and challenged the regime, as the regime seemed to even blinkthere, were no vital critical words of encouragement or moral support for the leader of the free world. would that regime have buckled? we never know. but the jewish people know the power of words. we understand when ahmadinejad speaks of israel, a cancer that must be expunged from the middle east, we know where those words

can lead and we know those words are echoed among the highest echelons of power throughout iran. but the jewish people are no longer a weak, stateless people. we have our own sovereign nation and leadership. surely, surely our own sovereign leadership and our own state will do whatever is necessary to defend the lives and safety and security of its citizens. if only israel can feel that assured. recently we just seen israel go through another cycle in the endless cycle of the peace process. it began in earnest towards the end of the last august as the netanyahu government announced it achieved its most important goal, it's great victory it said was its most important goal of being in office. direct talks with the palestinians, direct peace talks. while the nation of iran is fasmeated with the destruction of israel, they were perpetrated with the cruel hoax of the peace process on its people. the peace office has been the

main point of light on the horizon israeli political police on the right as well as left offer to the israeli nation. it's center organizing principle for decades. the logic of the peace process holds all israel needs to so is final anything out the rye way to give up its pat tro mony, its claim to the united jerusalem, even to sovereignty over the temple now and also carve out of its tiny ways between the jordan and mediterranean another arab state f it puts a bow on this, presumably the arab world will be waiting there to receive israel in peace. but this logic has run aground against the reality of arab rejectionism time and time again. precisely the point, say those who support and feel benjamin netanyahu was a strong leader for the state of israel. according to them, netanyahu's really going through the motions

. once again israel is flying a nation without red lines in order to appease the obama administration and international community. whether this is strong leadership or a vision for israel, i are leave as an open question. but as to whether it is the international community that has taken israel down the path, as to that question we need to look at internal matters within the state of israel. what we will find is even the very awful process we have been speaking about bears the label made in israel, it is part of the appeasement policies of the political elites of the right as well as the left. in order to demonstrate, we will go back briefly to the onset or onslout on the israeli people. go back to the white house famous ceremony through 17 years of self-inflicted pain, where the famous handshake takes place between then yitzhak rabin and the world's leading terrorist yasser arafat. when those two men shook hands,

it was the end of another abrupt peace process in place. it began an international conference. israel held out many years to go to an international conference knowing she would be isolated, that the deck would be stacked against her but she held out in principles. what were those principles? the principles were no two direct negotiation of thod with blood on their hands, no to arab states between the borders and against the weight of the international community, israel held out and the international community conceded to israeityo how do we get from that point to the white house lawn and the handshake? when those two hands clasped between arafat and between the prime minister of israel, this marksed the end of an order in israel and beginning of a new order. at that time a group of far left post zionists realized their time had arrived. these are a group of far left -- part of the progressive

universalist movement take place throughout the world. we are feeling all israel needs to do -- it needs to negate zionism and jewish character and by doing so become a society that can live in peace with its arab neighbors and perhaps mold into the arab world. these utopian visionaries knew that the time had come because they knew that there was an ideological void in israel. we'll talk about how they develop into a power vacuum in another moment but they seized their moment, filled that void and have been directing the course in the future largely of the state of israel since that time forward. they calculated that as they conducted the negotiations also in secret as the left likes to operate. they calculated the old horse on the left, rabin, would accept the principles he did on the white house lawn and also calculated the nationalists camp on right would eventually fall in line, which it did. even as the anxious nation

israel turned to netanyahu to lead them away from this path, he had already adopted the principles of oslo. and the reason is the world pressure, above all also, netanyahu snn a come sunesette politician. he understoods the power left in israel. understands how the power aligned in a raid and the fourth of any politician on the right must confront. so it is he adopted the principles of oslo, tacking his way and dragging his feet but ultimately embedding the process as he went through the first term, through the current term, because you now he's given up the entire world play. semantic game palestinian state or not, he believes there should be a creation of a palestinian state. let's take a look at the power of the left in israel, a more closer examination. a supreme court is the fashion of zionism. a former president said everything is divisible, which means the supreme court in israel can determine whatever

matters want tos to weigh in on, including the invading province of the knesset. just as an aside, shows the aspirational quality the supreme court has for the universal's progressive movements around the world, elena hagan, obama's recent appointee to the supreme court, said that iran barack is one of heroes in jurisprudence. there's very little push back. recently the speaker of the knesset called it a sickbed and nobody in israel will argue terribly much with that. disloyal, seditious, members of the knesset and arab barack can openly subverted the state for many years. and they've had the critical vote and important legislation in israel, even including the oslo accords who was a jew legislation.

two central bounds i will talk about is, one, an anemic ideology among israel's political leets. one that lacks robust for israel to exist its assertive permance in the middle east. it is this ideology that created a void. this is the power vacuum i spoke about a few moments ago, which the radical left has exploited. this could be summed up in netanyahu's political work, a place among the nation. place among the nations assume -- israel assumes their place among the nation must be a normal nation, therefore must be at peace. so, therefore, this is the central organizing principle of all governments of the right as well as the left. as israel and treats for peace dean nighs peace, continues to intrigue for peace. it becomes a downward deathward prirle in which the process is conflated with the gull and it is quite grotesque. the second failure i want to point out is the political process in israel has insulated

the ruling elites from the strength of the israeli people. they have become unacceptable and by virtue of that are more requisite in that than the power of governing. this is great energy that the left has been managing to exploit. in israel people are handed a ballot. the pears selected who would sit into the knesset. what remeans is how many they will get by the popular vote. therefore the members of the knesset are not directly accountable to the people. they're holding to the party bosses and party chief chieftains and hacks and the poll recently showed the party system 80% feel is utterly, utterly corrupt. what can be done? we're formed in israel where districts would be arranged such as we have here in the united states where we have congressional districts, where it -- candidates buy an open

contradiction can instantly revitalize the state of the nation of israel. we would see the emerging class of a new governing group, grass roots, men, and women such as we have seen here recently and in the person of congressman alan west could rise to the floor. but it's not enough for israel merely to be a well-ordered liberal democracy. this is a very tough geography. israel must draw upon everything that it can to continue to assert its permance and survive. therefore israel must aim for a higher purpose. israel must rediscover the forgotten promise of zion and israel must reconnect with the longings and urgings -- longings and aspirations of those of so many generations from the miraculous return from zion and israel must reconnect with the miraculous return in our time. it may do so bay don't ago jewish democratic constitution which grounds the tenets of judaism in everyday life but does so in the best spirit of

our traditions of tolerance, freedom of thought, inquiry and debate. as this takes place arkse spiritual awakening my develop in israel, appear at jewish international renewal and in this period of international reveal as the jewish people become self-aware, no longer will israel be nation in which its knesset and courts denigrate preseps and values but rather draw deeply from its beliefs and values and during this period of jewish international renewal, when the jewish people come self-aware, no longer will israel be nation without relines. . as israel becomes self-aware t. will understand its purpose, its destine yifment as israel understands its destine why, the nations of the world and israel's enemies among the nations will understand and recognize israel's permance. when israel's enemies recognize israel's permance, then there will be peace. thank you.

>> next is the chief spokesperson for the government of israel consulate in florida. he's also the special israelis programs coordinator for the university of miami. he will talk about the portrayal of israel in the american media. [applause] >> thank you very much. good afternoon. i just want to call your attention -- now i'm going to show the secret review of the speaker of the knesset that you spoke is my brother. so you should know that next time -- you're correct. he was the only one who voted as chairman against the withdrawal and just from historical point -- i did not say i agree but at

least i gave you the facts. others opposed speak about the media but permit in in two, three minutes to give you the background of myself so you can understand how the speaker of the knesset behaves himself compared to where he comes from. i'm seventh generation born in jerusalem. our family came in 1809 to israel and last year we celebrated 200 years in jerusalem thrfment were over 5,000 people from around the world who came to this convention. and reasons i call a levy, reasons are related to each other. and then thoughts of media we have to go from historical point of view.

the media as a matter of fact loves an underdog. that's the thing that leads the media and the news. the point is, which i want to share with you is when came first to the entire place on 1964 after i served at the army, my father was a visiting professor of n.y.u. and i want to share with you my father was the only one who translated the koran from arabic to heeb rue and other languages and only candidate to be president of the state of israel in 1957. therefore we are very close and we are very familiar with the muslim attitudes. and we have to remember that when i came here in 1964 the first time, there were only three major television shows. there was abc, cbs and nbc, for you new yorkers, you probably remember channel number 9 that showed movies 24 around the clock, the same movie every two

hours. i think that was the only thing we did and we had good correspondents. even though it took two, three days before the news came to america. the most important thing that everyone in the media that time did see the idea to spread his ideology, he felt that his position and his work is to inform and to give you information but not to play as mediator and not to play to someone in your opinion to lead today. todayly tell you the trune, all honest f. i want to hear right wing, i will turn to the fox. if i want to hear the left wing, i turn to cnn. if i don't want to hear anything, i turn to channel 2 to hear good music. but that's -- this is the fact of media and let me be very -- we have people from my age,

younger -- not older. i must be the older one. and we do remember, i use the word that i don't use quite often -- sexy. as you go to the movies, 60 years ago a kiss between gary cooper and grace kelly was the headline of the movie. today, unless you're naked, you don't even sell tickets to the movie. same thing with the media. it's the same thing with television. you turn on any channel, you see -- you don't get to know if she's left wing -- i can't tell you wolf blitzer and on the other side if you go to fox, you can see right wing people and they express themselves and that's why we have to understand

what's going on. the questions we want and subject is israel is affected by this. i had the preevose speaker, i want to share with you two important things. we may never again, it's never again. we are very strong people in a very strong country and don't kid yourselves. nobody can threaten us. the analyze we have that effect on. we don't get to be the appointees benjamin netanyahu, shouldered the iranian problem. eye iran is not easing the problems, folks. iran is the world's problem -- iran is not israel's problem, folks. iran is the world problem. and more than that -- and more than that if you try -- don't know how many of you heard my radio talk show "live from jerusalem" in the last 20 years from 1993 to 2003 but it

occurred to the hezbollah, i said hezbollah, israel, is an excuse. the ideology of hezbollah is the ideology of hoe mainy. what is the ideology of khamenei? to control iran and around the middle east. look what's happening today. today syria starts to speak in the same token on peace or war. why do i say that? i do remember in 1991, hi the privilege to speak to prime minister chmiel after the gulf war. i want to share with you something which is very important for your knowledge and you tell me how much time i have every five minutes. on my radio talk show i interview alexander haig. i said to him -- and this is the

media. mr. secretary please share with us what happened in that administration when you learned they bombed the nuclear facility in iraq. i said -- he said i want to tell you the president called for an emergency meeting and the cabinet sat in the whole office and said to h. bush, what is your opinion? he said i think it's time to punish the israelis. then he turned to caspar weinberger and said what do you think? don't be shy. he said, every time i tape, he said, "it's time to get rid of israel." and then he came to me secretary of state alexander haigen. what is your opinion, mr. secretary? he said, i quote, alexander haig word by word, "mr. president,

before we know it we'll be on our knees to thank the lord and to thank the israelis for what they have done. and the same sentence he continued by saying to me try to what could have happened in the gulf war in saddam hussein had a nuclear facility during the gulf war, if it had become so victorious as we came with schwarzkopf -- that's it. actor with an actor schwartzes negger. it's ok. so anyway, just want to tell you the whole thing is we have to rely on ourselves and brothers and sisters. let me say -- and i will finish soon, let me say one important thing -- israel is the frontier

of the jewish people but more than that, the jewish people are the frontier of israel. as long as we march together, we will overcome every obstacle in this world once we are united. don't let other people decide the unity between you and the israeli people. that's -- [applause] thank you. thank you. last but really not least, it's great to be here. and i'm waiting for your questions. but one thing i want to assure but one thing i want to assure all of you is another thing --