a philanthropy, corporate, and government -- helps ensure that public media is not beholden to any one source of revenue. indeed, it is for this diversity of funding that we are able to maintain our journalistic independence. with the nation facing continuing economic uncertainty, it is both right and necessary to scrutinize all federal spending. but if the public value for the money spent is the prism through which spending decisions are made, public broadcasting stands strong. the american people believe in federal funding for public broadcasting. a national survey conducted last month by a bipartisan polling team shows that 69% of americans oppose the elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting. at the time when our industry is cutting back, when punditry is

drowning real news and thoughtful analysis, npr moves forward with quality reporting and storytelling delivered with respect for the audience. -- what a columnist caused the sound of sanity. we continue to build and not retreat from that 44-year investment. as guardians of the public trust, we have an obligation to address the current crisis in journalism and not simply fall victim to the turbulence of these times. i like to acknowledge that npr is not alone in this mission. here at the head table, some of my colleagues from public broadcasting. pollock, president and ceo of pbs, which presents programming unique in the television landscape that expands the minds of children, the documentary is

that open up new world, and cultural content that exposes america to their roles of music, theater, dance, and art. the president and ceo whose job is to advocate for public television and why he is more vital now than 44 years ago. or recently, pat has taken on the mantle of president of the public media association, which represents both television and radio stations. and pat harrison, the president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting. a private corporation created by congress to serve as a steward of the federal government's investment in public media. i would like to thank all of them as well as my other many npr and public media colleagues and my colleagues throughout journalism for joining us here today. in closing, at npr we have a vision for the future, built

around high-quality journalism, radio craftsmanship, and storytelling. smart use of social media, a seamless user meet -- experience across platforms that combines strong, local, national, and global reporting. it is a work in progress and always will be. but our growth in audience tells us we are on the right track. a light to and where we started, in libya. recently on "all things considered," the husband to an entrepreneur in the midst of a major protest about 25 miles outside tripoli. throughout the conversation, you could hear gunfire and chaos unfolding. it was reverting to listen to and brought the story home with clarity and immediacy. when the interview was finished, mohammad asked michelle what radius station he was talking to.

she taught him in pr. he said, i listened to the station most of the time. i have it on my waking clock. i really love that phrase. every day, the men and women of npr get up and go out into the world to bring back news that matters to people like mohammad and people like you and me. that is both a privilege and responsibility. it is good to have a waking clock to remind us that what we do matters. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. we have had a of a good month for six weeks before we knew you were coming. we're grateful that you had. the internet traffic has been spiking into my in pots or

twitter account with some good things. we want to engage the public and discuss matters of importance, particularly those that have to do with journalism. there are some subjects that are particularly of interest to these people who sent in a number of e-mails in as well as those in the office. the one that is garnered the most amount of traffic involves someone with whom you no longer share a professional relationship, and that is juan williams. we have to get the subject dealt with before we can talk about the other issues of government funding and critical issues facing journalism these days. i guess you had five months to reflect on how that episode transpired. it took some pain for the organization in this that it shifted the discussion away from issue like the talk about. as you reflect on that episode now, and you have one key employees no longer with npr,

who suffered because of that, what can you tell people about the way that that transpired now, about how you might have done it differently, and then ultimately a number of other questions and get to the issue of the perception of left the s -- versus right bayh's. he -- bias. >> we handled the situation badly. on reflection, it has been several months and i stand by the fact that we handle the situation badly. we acted too hastily and make mistakes and i made mistakes. we reflect on the states now and fix things that some of the rigid that fell down on that day and make sure it did not happen again. that is the learning experience with juan williams. >> are you arguing that and tell

us how that works and how ultimately whether you'll be in line by that or you're stakeholders? >> we did not handle it very well. there were processes they were not really in place or fallen on that day. and we have fix those. >> from that standpoint, the public interest notwithstanding, it you think that you have move past it and get fixed whatever the issues were in place that caused the problem? >> yes, the process issues. >> can you give us an idea of the processes? >> their work issues on communications over those couple of days that did not work as they should and we have put those in the place. >> obviously -- [laughter] >> a lot the ink has been spilled about this issue.

>> by virtue of the questions that we got, people feel that there are some questions that lender. this is an opportunity for you to not have them linder anymore. >> i would like to talk about something more assistant about who calls to win, that since october, we have undertaken a thorough review of our new code of ethics. this is something that any organization should do from time to time. it was high time for us to do that, the major our news code of ethics is clear, up to date with the reality of media in 2011, and is consistently applied. the fact is, our news code of ethics was created in 2004 and has not been fully updated since then. we just finished a process whereby a task force of 13 people from inside and outside

npr, led by bob steele, one of the experts and journalistic ethics, letter reviewed and there were recommendations that are coming out of that of thatled a -- led a review and their recommendations coming out of that. we will release that in the spring. one example -- we're going to be creating a new position at npr of standards editor. he is on top of the checks and balances that we have in npr. we haven't ombudsman, lisa shepherd, here today. we have a correction is policy. we have a comments section on our website. the addition of a news standard editor will help us be another

critical check in our process. look for more about that sen. >> there was a question anticipating that issue. the task force has called for an into the practice of allowing npr journalist to appear on other media outlets under long- term contracts. and a specific question -- i don't think it is relevant here, but how would this affect your journalists? >> one of the recommendations, the task force embraces the notion is -- the notion of npr journalist sharing what they have learned with sharing with other it audiences beyond the npr audience. we wait to make sure that the processes in place for approval. but the task force has recommended that having a long- term, long standing blessed ship with two news organizations can

be confusing. we will take a look at that. >> can you expand on that? >> a couple of our reporters have relationships with other news organizations that have been long term. what you will see is that we will likely not have any in the art journalists have relationships, longstanding, long term standing relationships with news organizations going forward. with regard to specific individuals, they are doing that for years and we're not ready to make any specific statements about them. >> this sounds like there could be a grandfather clause there. >> could be. >> in pr has been criticized for not having enough minority voices on the air. juan williams was the only black male regularly heard. >> this is a big priority for us. i'm glad you brought it up. it is true that at the time that he left the organization, he was

the only -- not the only african-american, but the only male african-american reporter. that was changing and has indeed changed. but this is a very, very big priority for us. in the room with us is keith woods, who came from the dean of studies and now is head of diversity for npr, and we have a number of different initiatives under way to diversify -- to further diversify our staff, our reporters, the people that we interview on the air, and of course, our audience. we think we have made some progress but it is not nearly enough. the national association of black journalists, an organization that has given us a hard time in the past, they had recently wrote a column and its title was,npr's diversity, better but not enough.

i think that summarizes where we are. a year from now, it will be better still. >> an entry in the "national review," someone who is in the audience today from the heritage foundation, addressing the question from another angle. and that is -- to you believe there is an imbalance at npr with terms the liberals? what do you propose to do about it? >> every news organizations -- i have worked with three, but from every other news organization and i know -- critics up -- there criticized about being too liberal, too conservative, this, that, or the other. it comes with the territory will certainly get criticized about all manners of things.

in terms of the liberal, and it does not get as much attention, but we get criticism for getting -- for being too conservative as well. i wish those those could be a our editorial meetings and see the care that our reporters and journalists and editors take to get it right. this is incredibly crucial to what we do, to present not journalism that is on the one hand and on the other hand. that is not very interesting storytelling. but reflects no particular bias, and not a matter of how the stories are told, but that kind of stories we tell one npr. we tell stories about areas that almost no national news organization is covering, not just urban phenomenon. for those that to criticize us for being liberal, i ask them when i get that personally, i ask them to point to specific

stories. when they do, we take this very seriously. have we erred? absolutely. but we make corrections and we strive to do better. >> would you say it is a perception problem as opposed to an execution problem? the perception seems to exist toward the liberal criticism. i did not have have any questions that you were too conservative. >> there is no question that there is a perception there. it is a perception issue. that happens with all news organizations. the main thing for me is not the general perception, which is difficult to control, but the actual work that we do. let's look a stories. i take much more seriously when someone says i have a problem what this story, the estop i have a problem with npr. what does that mean. they met not even be listeners. but when we get a complaint, we

take those very seriously. >> another question all along the same line, but asked in another way. what is npr doing to attract talent outside the normal sources? >> we have a reporting on team represented by the almost -- 800 stations throughout public radio. they are all over the radio -- the country. every state, every community, just about every campus, every indian reservation. yes, well we certainly have hired people from j school.

but we have quite a number people on our staff to work it in pr reworked at -- worked at npr member stations. with apologies to some of those stations. >> former cnn correspondent wrote a pretty critical entry in the "american journalism review," and you may have seen it. in a sense, she link together juan williams with the episode where congressman gabrielle giffords was reported to pass away after her shooting. and that was not case. she is raising the issue that may be in the attempt to embrace change that haste is creating

some errors. to the specific question, we vari talked about juan williams , about the gabrielle giffords reporting error, and does that fit into your earlier comment about standards? >> there is no linkage between the juan williams matter and the gabrielle giffords error. the real difference, it was a mistake, a plan and simple. -- gabrielle giffords, it was a mistake, plain and simple. we take that matter extremely seriously. throughout the newsroom, he have done a post-mortem and shared information -- we have done a post-mortem and shared information. i would not say that it represents anything other than the one mistake that it is. it got so much attention even

though other news organizations reported the same, because we so rarely make these kinds of errors, a mistaken breaking news reporting, i do not know the last time that it has happened. it is a serious mistake but because it is so unusual, it got that attention. >> in the same injury, she says that you did not follow your -- in the same entry, she says that you did not follow your standards about checking or the information came from, and significant errors. did you feel that you did follow your room procedures? was there anything not properly handled? >> there were procedures that fell down in the story about gabrielle giffords. we apologize for the error on just about every platform that we had, on the air multiple time, on line, one devices, and

with a breaking news alert. the error,ooking at it was not that we did not react -- corrected. we most certainly did. >> there may have been an error and that report. you talk about the challenges to the political environment and funding. there is a matter that congress has yet to resolve, funding going forward. when you're talking about the risks to the public broadcasting model, how high would you say the risk is from ultimately the deficit-cutting environment that seems to be pervasive in washington right now. how great is the risk to your enterprise, as well as those interested in your well being? >> it is a very significant risk, a risk to all public broadcasting. as i said in my remarks, for public radio it represents on

average to% of public radio stations -- 10% of public radio station revenue. but for some, it is a much higher percentage of revenue. and for many public radio stations, there is state funding as well. we take this very seriously. it would have a profound impact, we believe, on our ability of public -- public broadcasting possibility to deliver a cultural programming and the arts to the audience. >> one person harkening back to an earlier thing, but it does get to the political dynamic -- how does the liberal perception of national public radio impact the current funding debate? >> that statement has been made and that has been suggested. the fact is, this country is

facing a i'll $1.4 trillion deficit. i do not envy those trying to figure out how to bring that deficit down. i think this is driven by mostly an attempt to find cuts to the deficit, and that is understandable why it is important to have a the deficit reduced, but it is a small amount of money that goes for public broadcasting. and a very large amount of money that that small amount of money leverages across stations, the public/private partnerships allows for critical infrastructure to continue, it to be able to continue to serve underserved communities and to raise money from the lappers and organizations, it is too critical to give up. >> a question asking how you may

be risking at the historical project historical standpoint. is there any more reason to think that these attacks will succeed this time? >> that deficit is a simple answer. there were attempts to the fund in 2005 and famously in 1995, but we did not have a $1.4 trillion deficit. i think the threat is more serious than it has been in the past. >> some ask, can you just walk away from government funding? you say it is a lot of money and you essentially cannot. but this was opposed by a couple of people in different ways, why does not npr become completely privately funded? >> federal $1 way, the impact on

our ability to serve the he is federal dollars went away, the impact on our -- if the federal dollars went away, the impact on our ability and the stations they rely on the lion's share of their budget for government funding, then we would be going backwards and retreating on this 44-year investment that the people have made in this incredible institution. and the fact that you cannot isolate funding for this one institution, we are all of that word. it is the network that strengthens us, not usnpr and the other predict -- not just npr and other stations, but pbs and local public television

stations, many of whom are joint licensees. it is like pulling out a thread, and the whole thing unravels. >> you have an interesting background in that you work for a number of other media organizations. now you are at npr. there is a question about that broad background as opposed to the ready of background. first of all, can you talk about your memories of listening to radio growing up, and other than listening to npr what do you listen to now? >> i grew up in the 1960's and early 1970's in new york. i mostly listened to am pop music. i came late to npr, because for most of the 1980's, i was living abroad.

i can tell you the first time that i really listened and honed in on it. i first target dating my husband, who is here somewhere -- there he is. i just previously move back into the country, and he had npr on, and i was hooked on npr and on him. those two things are linked. >> we hope it stays around if only to keep your marriage -- here is a question. this is news to me, but npr engineers are complain that they're being made obsolete and the strength of the networks and is not what was traditionally. that is not the only question that we got along those lines, but there's a feeling in some quarters that the attention to audio quality is not what it has been. can you address your assessment of audio quality and whether the

professional staff is as robust as it has been? >> audio quality is essential to is. people often tell us, and i've had the same express myself, if you are in a town or city and do not know, and you turn on the radio looking for whatever the npr member station is, a people tell us that you can tell within a nanosecond that you're listening to an npr member station. the extraordinary, rich audio, and all our reports, but what we hear coming out of the middle east and north africa, is not just about the reporting but the rich audio experience. there have been some reductions in our audio engineers as we move to some automated systems. but we are not forsaking our heritage, the rich audio

experience of public radio. >> no drop in quality from your perspective? >> that would be in the year of the listener, i suppose, but we have your audio engineers going to do field reporting. so not every story has a full crew. in those cases, perhaps you do not have some of the layering and richness of sound, but generally speaking, we have not heard any complaints from our listeners in any significant numbers at all about at the mission of our sound. -- a dimunition of our sound. >> area huffington just got paid millions of dollars. why not just call them commercials and move on? >> that is not who we are.

we are public radio, and it is part of the fabric that we do that we are non-commercial and not for profit. we have corporate underwriting. if you'd be hard-pressed for anyone to listen to the five- second spots and think they are anything like what you hear on commercial radio. would love to have more revenue from philanthropists, from listeners, from corporations? of course. we work very hard to try to increase the revenues so that we can have more money to spend on our reporting. but we have no plans and will not have a plan to become a commercial enterprise. that is not who we are. that is not how we are chartered. it is part of the implicit pact that we have with our listeners that we are a not-for-profit news organization. >> the earlier question about