>> no, that's correct but we could talk about, if we talk about large contributors here, then we're not talking about so many contributors. we should have it down to at least thousands or hundreds or tens, depending on how we define large. >> the agency makes a rule and that could be challenged in court. but suppose your plaintiffs loss on a case of merits. i take it this is not a class action. other plaintiffs before another district court could launch a similar action against these very same defendants, right? there would be nothing to prove that. >> no, well, the aactions by the state might have some consequence of the citizens of

those states -- there would be others who would have the ability -- other states, i sup pose. this federal common law nuisance is available first and foremost for the state and the question whether the land trust or any other private parties could even bring it is -- >> even if you won in a district court and impose some sort of limit, would there be any other obstacle for other claims bringing suits and another district court issuing a different standard? >> well, ultimately such things would be resolve by appeal and by the circuit courts. i mean, there are conflicts in many areas. that's true about every district court litigation. >> well, no, it's not. it's not true every litigation in this sense that everyone is

harmed by global warming. so unless you limit your suits to the states which would -- i'm not aware of a principle basis for doing that. every individual can bring -- individual in the world if they can establish jurisdiction can bring one of these causes of action. >> well, a principle basis to limit -- the federal common law of nuisance exists prince -- principally for the states. the court spoke of the strong federal interest in providing the states with a remedy for interstate pollution. so there is a principle there. and then beyond the states, plaintiffs would have to bring a common law nuisance claim as long as with standing would have to have a special injury of some kind that would differentiate them from the

public. this case could turn and should turn on the right of the states to protect their people from -- and their land from interstate -- >> but general, much of your argument depends that this suit like any other pollution suits. all those suits that you've been talking about are localized affairs, one factory. they don't involve these kinds of national, international policy issues of the kinds that this case does. there is a huge gap, a chasm between the precedents you and this case, isn't there? >> i don't want to call it a chasm but there's a large distance between them. but i'd like to separate two things, the international aspects of this are simply, i think, beyond -- we're not suggesting that this -- that the federal common law of nuisance entails relief against

international defendants. it does exist for interstate -- conflicts between the states, essentially. so i'd like to put those aside. and then in terms of the magnitude -- well, there are many cases, not just one factory, the one against ill-not just -- illinoises not just entails the milwaukee pollution -- >> could you just explain in concrete terms how a district judge would deal with those and just determining the facts is going to be hard enough. let's assume all the facts are proven. there's not a dispute about the facts so that if a certain reduction in green house gas emissions is ordered, it will have this effect. it will increase the cost of electricity by a certain amount.

and that will result in the loss of a certain number of jobs. it will mean that consumers will have less money to spend on other things. some people will not be able to have air-conditioning in the summer. that will have health effects. what standard does a district judge have to decide those? what is it? just what's reasonable? >> reasonableness is the beginning. i've suggested that we can allege without increase the cost to the consumers. that may seem --s that the subject for proof. >> implausible is the word you're looking for. >> thank you, justice scalia. but a very good place to look is what other companies have been able to do or are have done as i suggested in tennessee-copper and perhaps in

this area as well, companys that sell this litigation and companys that don't this measure that haven't been widely adopted. there is a practice to examine in the world about what ease feasible and what's cost-effective. >> that's about as cost-effect -- suppose your complaint is the same but what i get from reading what might be the best way to deal with this problem. i would like the court to impose a tax of $20 a ton, one carbon. and we bring all the polluters in. and the same injury that you have, everything's the same, you have 14 expert who is say this is how to get it done. it's cost-effective. it will lead to substitution. it will actually bring about a world without global warming. so let's do it. now does the district judge in your opinion have the power to enter that order? >> i don't think so. >> if he does not have the

power to enter that order which could be proven to be extremely effective and as least possible thoorm the consumer, why does he have the power to enter the order you want? >> because the common law of nuisance is addressed to directing the polluter to -- >> oh, this will. this is addressed to that it says abate the nuisance. you're going put a $20 a tax on carbon and low and behold you will discover that nuisance will be abated and by bring 15 economists -- >> actually the order is less intrusive than that. we ask the defendants to abate the nuisance by some amount informed by what information is available about -- >> well, why is it less intrusive to try to get into the details of how an electricity company will in fact run its operation than to say all you to do is make a change in the dollar sign that you charge for your product? >> well, because, we're not

suggesting that the court would get into the details on our theory either. it would be the dfs that would figure out for themselves what the best way was to meet these standards -- >> i wish justice breyer would make this in the e.p.a. case. [laughter] >> of course, it's true that, yes, you conclude that the federal statutes displace -- and the federal regulations displace the federal common law. either now or in the future. this same federal statute that displaces the federal common law will revive source state common law because of the savings clause in that statute because of the choice congress made. and that result, they would

nevertheless leave common law cours in the business of attempting to address, unaddress a pollution problem. the suggestion has been made that the e.p.a. has entered the field of green house gas and that's enough. but it isn't just one field. it only seems like one because the e.p.a. once said the whole subject was off limits and beyond their jurisdiction. once that obstacle is removed, there still remains a series of programs under the statute, a series of kinds of sources that need to be regulated. the clean air act regulates by substance and by source, a collection of statutory programs and taking action

under one program can't displace the common law as it applies to program outside that program. there may be a regulation soon but it would be very surprising if this court concluded that the promise of regulation is enough to displace the federal common law as distinguished from the actuality of it. the court has suggested that a court might impose standards that would conflict with what the e.p.a. is doing. but there's really no reason to think that would happen because if what a court sets time-out do is find out what feasible methods there are for reduction and then order the defendants to make reductions that are feasible that they're much less taxing inquiry than the e.p.a.

is likely ultimately to make. >> what if the e.p.a. comes up with a different number than the one that you achieved in this litigation, would the e.p.a. prevail? would the e.p.a.'s number prevail or your number prevail? >> you mean an emission reduction. when the e.p.a. speaks, the e.p.a. rule will displace the federal common law. >> and will displaced the judgment that has been obtained. >> it would presumably provide a basis for the defendant to go back to the court and -- and they take the judgment or alter the judgment to comply with regulation should that happen. >> and the court says no. >> then that's what appellate courts are here, isn't it? >> well, what is the appellate court is reviewing? sit reviewing the

reasonableness of e.p.a.'s judgment or to continue the validity of the injunction it entered previously? >> the continuing validity of the injunction it entered previously. >> so that seems to be a displacement of the normal process of administrative law which we would review the agency's determine of how best and to what extent to regulate emissions? >> on a different litigation track it would be possible to challenge the e.p.a. regulatory judgment. but in the case in which an a judgment had been entered it is right to go back to the court to modify it. >> that's the central problem. once you turn it over to litigation, it's an entire different set of standards that would regulate emissions as opposed to an agency's determination. >> i don't think it's a

different set -- yes, if one set of standards would be reviewing an agency's standards but the the standards that are going to be reached of a level of emission reduction. during what could be a long period of time when it doesn't, the state are entitled to a federal law governing their dispute. so we urge this court to deep federal courts open to the states exercise sicing their historic power to protect their land and their citizens from air pollution emmitted in other states. >> thank you, general underwood. >> mr. keisler you have five minutes remaining. >> just a few points with respect to the merits and what it would involve to adjudicate this case, it is a task. there's a reason that this issue is so fraud and difficult

in international negotiations and in the e.p.a. and the halls of congress it requires policymakers to allocate the goods and the remedies that are being considered are potentially transformative because they involve the way we use, supply and pay for energy. and the problems with courts attempting to replicate what's going on in those venues is not only that the matter is complex but there is no legal principle to guy the decision. it's how the country wants to balance the risks and benefits against projected benefits and costs. if congress provides a standard then our political question argument goes away. it's not that permanently not judiciary. congress can often create an orderly framework within a

statutory context. the final point i would make is that my friend and i come at this from opposite angles. the plaintiffs say that this is a deeply historically rooted cause of action with a very strong and ancient pedigree and therefore it can't present a problem under standard of level's doctrine. we say that the obstacles that we think are apparent on the face of this are a signal that this is nothing like the historical cause of action that they've relied. it's they classified climate change as that tork would figure away from the political accountable branches which we think it would be inconsistent. we ask that the court reverse the judgment and direct that the case be dismissed. >> thank you, general, council, the case is submitted.

>> next a conversation on minorities and the media and popular culture. then a look back at america's race to the moon. then a conversation with the lawyers in regards to the president clinton, ken starr case. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> go inside pivotal moments at the c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> now a discussion on minorities in the news media and popular culture. speakers include film director spike lee and chairman director will griffin. it was held at the museum in

washington, d.c. and it's moderated by richard of msnbc. this is about 90 minutes. urging people to kind of move up front. take a seat. [inaudible conversations] okay, and just to remind you, we've looked at different contexts for our look at racial questions, and we've gone through the home and family, politics, and them the last session, the institutions, # and now basically a public sphere, the media and popular culture, and i turn it back over to richard lui. >> thank you, charlie. what a great panel today to talk

about this. donna byrd here, thank you for being here today. will griffin, thank you, present ceo of hip hop on demand as well as spike lee, founder of 40 acres and film works that everybody knows. what a great panel to talk about the subject today. as you know, the entire subject we look today in the state of race in america. i want to start by asking you what the state of race in media is. if you could give me your thoughts, and spike, by the way, i forgot to mention, he has to leave at 4 for a plane to catch heading up to new york, and there's a reason for this, and you can explain what you have to be there for. >> well, i have to be there for my man. tonight, chris rock is making his debut on broadway. the name of the play is --

please excuse me for leaving early, and i thought i would be in the earlier panel, but i have to leave, so please excuse me, thank you. >> i wanted him to announce the name of that play. [laughter] spike, you're doing that. why don't you start then for us, how about that? your feelings about the state of race and media. >> to be honest, it seems like there's panels like this forever. we're discussing the same thing over and over, oveh, over and again, and you know, what is really -- i mean, we have, i mean, what's been done is magnificent, but if you look at the -- i'm really talking about

hollywood and networks and cable television, you know, the -- it's kind of -- >> are we in a better place you think in >> than what? >> than before because you said we've been talking about this over and over and over again. >> look what's on television, and i mean, is there a cosby show now? i think that this reality show is going to bring about the down fall of western civilization. [laughter] these reality shows are unbelievable to me, but i just think that -- and it's something i said before. we can do a lot of stuff up dependently, but we're -- independently, but we're talking about the institutions, hollywood, and television you can break that down into network and broadcast. unless we become the gate

keepers of, it's not going to change. the gate keepers are the people who are a very select few, again, in hollywood and in television, radio, and television is broadcast network, these select few decide what's going on and what's not going on, and there's not one person of color that i know of that is a gate keeper, and what i just said, and you cannot use will smith and denzel because even when will wants to do a film, he still has to call amy pascoe and say i want to do this fill. . of course with him the biggest star in hollywood, of course

they say yes, but he still has to go to anyone and say this is what i want to do. we're not in a room. quick analogy. when "master minds" and an unnamed studio decided they wanted to do a film called "soul plane" there was no one in the room saying wait a minute, can we just talk about this? ask american airlines, they go put rims that spin on the plane, hydraulic wheels, snoop's the captain, there's a pole in the back, and we serve fried check and malt liquor. no one in the room to say wtf,

wait a minute, that's not a good idea. [laughter] we're not in those decision making -- these studios every quarter, they sit around a room and people have green light votes, and they look at the budget. they look at the script, they look at how much money they think they can make overseas, and they vote on what film they're going to make and which film they're not going to make, and we're not in those positions yet. >> how do you get there? >> well, the thing about film is there is no one way to anything. i mean, you could be a hostess at a restaurant and working at

being a head of a studio so it's not like you do this, this, this, this. it's like it's this and that, and i think the number one, we have to delegate. i think the time has to come where african-american artists can't be making art and also be raised in the film too. there's enough african-americans and hispanics coming out of business, staff ford, howard, nyu, coming out of warton school at penn, and i mean, that's not my -- i don't know how to do that business. i just try to do art, and as the artist to also raise the money and come up with a business plan, and if they said, spike, i want you to give me a business plan for x amount of dollars for

slater films. i can't do that. i just think we have to get people -- your jobs to do this, leave the art to the artists, and just get together. >> all right. great way to kick it off. will, what would you say? >> i think a, hollywood in trouble; right? and hollywood is in trouble and the black artists within hollywood are caught up. it's just a dead end to what that system is. we talk quite a bit about this. they have to deal with technology, changes, they have to deal with competition for the consumer and bootlegging and they what are focused on is films and that's about what happens at the studio. now, there is an example, and we didn't talk about this, of

somebody when you are a black filmmaker they expect you to be the artist and the entrepreneur at the same time. you have to produce the movie and make the money. that's the green light. in the real world that's almost superman; right? you got to have it or woody allen before that, these are amazing filmmakers because they can raise the money. they'll bring us a film ready to go, and we just have to put it in theaters. that's the expectation of african-american filmmakers. today, it's just too big. we did a show called a reality cosby show. >> i love that show. >> thank you. there's only a companies that buy it, abc family would have bought it, and then mtv ultimately bought it. it's not like a huge market.

the wb didn't want it, abc, nbc, they were not trying to do it. i think the biggest issue is there are no standards now for the content, and especially as it relates to african-american content, and one of the things it was -- we need the apollo project if african-american media which is a total rethink to say 10 years from now which is what president kennedy looked at years from now is we're going to be on the moon, reaching these points, and the best thinking towards having that goal. i think if we thought 10 years from now or 20 years from now when we look back and said first african-american president, a real life cosby show in the white house; right? i mean, a reality has outstripped imagination of the possibilities, and i think

rethink of the media industry would say how do we -- how do we extend our imaginations beyond, you know, the reality of our society. if people look back 20 years from now, what would we want to say we were about? what did we record on television? what did we put out on film? how did we represent ourselves in our times, you know? when you look at news, where is the new ed bradley; right? he left a few years ago. we lost something. i think about the investigative journalism show. i remember abc and food lion thing and remember that where abc undercover reporters go in the food line and realize that the meat was bad, the way it was prepared was hoosh, they dropped it on the floor and washed it off, and i look at today's society and i look at the tea party in the way it's covered.

people cover it play by play. i was like who is going to go out there and tell us the meat is bad? right? the ed bradley who is going to do that for our culture and go out there and cover it, and i think at the end of the day to ask somebody to go raise money and say do the job that the state is supposed. no, the state is supposed to do it. that's the responsibility of the news media. that's your obligation to the electorat. i feel the same way towards television. there's a responsibility to produce things that will uplift the civilization, that match the values in the society overall, and i think we have to demand that, and i think it's good business. the first studio that stands up and says, you know what? i'm not going to be in just like the last five movies business. i put in half a billion dollars over ten years or a billion over five if you want to get crazy

aggressive. you got to bring me along because spike already said he can't give the money. [laughter] come on. [laughter] >> a billion dollars, and you say we are going to be committed to films for this audience and this market and we are going to make them work. it would capture the united states as a community and would be successful in the market. >> real quickly -- >> yeah. >> the thing that we're forgetting is that the united states census bureau has said by the year 2035, and some states it might be quicker, white americans are going to be minority in this country. any business in this country that does not take that into account starting today or last

month and wait to 2035 is going to be extipght. this country is becoming brown, and if you continue to operate with leave it to beaver and audrey and harry, it's not going to work. 2035 white americans, and i don't make this up, the united states census bureau, white americans are going to be the minority in the country, so that's reflecting not just dealing with media, not just how you portray the media, but also the decision makers. you just can't have -- you got to give the people who make the country give them jobs in meaningful positions too. >> a part of that fabric you bring up here spike and mona is middle americans. >> i'm glad he touched on both entertainment and news because when it comes to both and the

many hats, to rip off the hat -- >> his hat was different. >> very different. [laughter] >> for people like me who wear many hats and i'm of arab dissent and here in the u.s., when it comes to the news media, it's lazy. first of all, as a white american, you can talk about everythingment you are an expert on everything, and i'm fresh off talking about the egyptian revolution on various media outlets, but also talking about that because i was born in egypt. ask me to talk about the libya revolution even though i'm tennessee expert in both countries. they go to the white academics who said this would never happen, and as it was happening, they said it's not going to work out. they continue to tell you these arabs love dictators. i don't think they are going hello, can i talk? nobody is listening. they go to white experts.

it's frustrating on that level. when it comes to my muslim hat, where do i start? muslims were not invented on 9/11. everybody acts like we were. the muslim experience goes back centuries in this country. never talk to a black muslim in the country because they want the foreign muslim experience. my citizenship is official tomorrow. [applause] >> we should have waited a day. [laughter] >> should have waited. [laughter] >> but you know, to me, there's a bunch of other muslims of foreign dissent because it's easy to make that connection. with a muslim experience in the u.s., it was the voice of

pakistan. what is it about americans who have been in this country for centuries. i'm relieved that the muslim congressman in this country was representative keith alison. he's african-american and his family has been here for centuries. you cannot say he's a foreigner. this is a muslim experience on media, and when they go to the foreign muslim, it's the elam, the most conservative example of the muslim experience. hell lee, talk to -- hello, talk to me. 20% of muslims in this country go to mosque and identify with this conservativism that you see on tv, and yet they go to the very conservative man or a woman in a head scarf. on every count i lose when it's to talk about international news issues i lose because the white analyst knows more than i do. when it's my muslim experience and the muslim experience of,

you know, you tell people that the documentation, muslim tradesmen in the country centuries ago and say islam came from slave ships, people go what? all they want to know is that 9/11, islam, what does that mean because it's very comfortable to keep islam the foreign element in the country. it's 10 years after 9/11, have we learned nothing about the muslim experience in this country? when it comes to news media, they are lazy, white centric, and we can talk about this forever and ever and will continue to talk about this forever and ever as long as my voice is not considered an authority, and only an authority -- you know, like i why being enterer intiewed about the budget cuts, why am i not interviewed about planned parenthood. i'm a feminist and have strong opinions, but they don't come to me. unless we push it and point out

its laziness, it will not change and comet to be above my ahead regardless if i'm an american citizen or not. >> it was great to have you on msnbc i must say. [applause] we'll see more of you based on what you just said. gr you tell them. >> i'm going to take it home. donna? >> i have to agree with the pommists thus far. if you look at the statistics, of the 815 executive producers in broadcast media, 64 of them are african-american -- >> out of how many? >> 815. >> wow. >> 64 are african-american, 24 his painic, 13 are asian, 1 native american. >> what field is that? >> that's television broadcast, executive producers. looking at print, there's a survey with 900 papers across

the country answer the survey. 50% of those had zero minorities in any management role in the companies. you look at that, i mean, we have an issue, i think everybody noted it already, it's a representation. when you don't have anyone in the room to bring up different viewpoints, different ways of looking at a story, stories that may not be uncovered, then you miss this. many times behind the scenes, you have someone who is producing a show, and they are asking who do you know? right? they are looking for panelists, experts to come on a show, and they may not know that mona has expertise in a specific area. they they, she's egyptian, she can be on for this, but they don't know what she can represent. the problem is they're not people -- there's not representation in the room that can say i know someone who can fill this role and that role and this sort of group of

individuals looks diverse. that also has to do with the stories that are told too; right? so once you have the representation, it has a significant influence on the actual content. that's shown on air, and i work for the root, and we are an online publication written, and most of the writers are african-american. we write about news and politics and culture through an african-american lens, and it's interesting how many people come to our site that are hungry for the stories that are not being covered in the mass media. that's what we get day in and day out, and interestingly enough, we also get many -- nonminority people coming to the site that are looking at, looking for the same thing. they are like, oh, when the story hits that's big on the news, occasionally people come to the site because they want to hear what the black perspective is. we have to sort of move past

where we have been. we've been talking about this story for years and years and years, and we have to begin to effect change. i'm on the business side of this industry, and when i look at it, you know, it's unfortunate when we look at some of what's going on in media today, it has a business implication; right? so when you look at -- i'll move quickly to your glenn becks, the rush limbaugh's of the world -- >> donald trump. [laughter] >> the list is expansive. [laughter] >> let's put him on the list though. [laughter] >> when you look at this, you find unfortunately, racism sells; right? when you have people who are race baiting racism, however you frame it up, at the end of the day it actually does have, it does sell, and it's going to take us standing up and saying this is wrong.

standing up to the advertisers plaicessing advertisements on the stations say we will not watch your programming, and we'll be vocal about what's going on in your program because it's toxic, not only to the individuals that are watching this, but more broadly to our entire community. >> launch of what you said as well as the other panelists. back to you, spike. the idea of an apollo project will brought up and weaving in what was mentioned. what does that look like from your mind? >> not just one, but i think there should be many -- it's all about the money, and, again, we had discussions again and again and again, and it always comes down to money, and now there are enough people of color who have the capital to do it because

there comes a point where, you know, matt morris talked about self-reliance, self-determination, and that -- i mean we got to have a multifacets program, so we should have apollo projects, independent stuff, but that dpunt mean we -- doesn't mean we let hollywood and tv get off too. we have to work in all the different levels. speaking of hollywood and the muslims, hollywood is very, you say it in a little less degree, tv, a little bit, you're always going to have the bad guy. who was the first great so-called film, griffin's "birth of a nation," who was the bad guy? the blacks in the reconstruction, and then you go to the western. who was the bad guy?

the -- that's why there's john ford and the great directors because all the hateful images he did of native american law and john wayne trying to fix up the last film, i forgot the name of it, but so then there's world war ii book out, it's the nazis. we kick the nazi's ass, who is next? the russians. the union blows up. we need a bad guy. 9/11 happens, and boom. you look at every film out since 9/11, it's not the russians anymore, it's the terrorists. it's like muslim equals terrorist. you look at all these hollywood films, it comes down the new boogeyman is the muslim. >> this describes our culture what you described over time in >> no.

the american people are being fed this stuff. they are being fed this stuff. i was thinking when france want to come in, the idiots say no longer french fries or french toast? freedom fries, freedom toast, and they are crazy. [laughter] we're gullible as a people, and you tell the lie long enough and loud enough, people believe it. that's this whole donald trump thing. you know, he's going to keep pounding on it and pounding on it until you have half the country believing it that the president was not born as an more than citizen. >> why does he poll well? >> why what? >> why does trump poll well? >> that issue. it's gist on that issue alone.

i mean, to thispoint, the birth issue is the father of the media, period. now, the media is reporting trump is a legitimate candidate. no, he can't be a legitimate candidate. they should have debunked a lot time ago. can you see walter reading this? no. it's all play by play. that's news now. now in the poll, trump is second. it's just too much play by play. i think this is where the opportunity is, and i agree with spike's point. he did a film where you can't get on the bus, privately funded, and i worked with him on one. we can't privately fund the solution to this problem. that's part of it like he's saying. the apollo project has to be at the studio.

a media company has the cut the tag. it's not a problem to throw money at. it's not poverty. we don't have the money to tell the stories, and you can't throw money at it and make a difference, but in the news, they are just on these standards. if there's an enterprising within the media companies if an african-american doesn't say, hey, i'll be the standard for my cull cheer and report the news the way they did. you don't have that voice on television now, and i think there's an opportunity or would be an opportunity for african-americans to stand up or muslims. james, the right winger with planned parenthood, acorn, he's dismantling progressive organizations with a $600 camera and some access, and i think there's the same opportunity. you are telling me you can't go

to ten tea party express stops to make the case this is a racist organization? you think there's not a time among those 100,000 people that say i don't care whether the birth thing is true or not? you don't think you can capture that on tape. they don't qair whether it's true or not and the news media on the birth issue should say that's a dead issue. anybody who brings it up is ridiculous. [laughter] if you get a phone call and say hey, do you support donald trump, your answer should be no, you're an idiot. he's trying to hustle me out of the boat with a dead issue. no, i don't support him. somebody in the media should be saying that that as a journalist with the responsibility, i can't tell them this. >> you know, one person who has been saying it, and that's john stuart, and speaks to the state of just how miserable news has been. this is a dead word now. we think it means something, and

it doesn't mean anything because the way that -- it's basically been so used that you can have donald trump speak this nonsense with the issue of park 51 and the community center and mosque near ground zero and john stuart said it's not on ground zero. it was a nonissue until people campaigned for the elections. it was -- pamela geller was a nobody who had a lunatic blog that nobody read, and they came out of nowhere and put on news shows with serious people to start the rubbish of the islamization of the united states. if somebody said you speak nonsense, this is ridiculous, she would be deflated, but now she's an expert on hate. she's consistently one after

another news show. she was -- she was speaking of fox news about a year and a half ago talking about the islamic community center and fox said it was a great idea, and pam speers this idea of the blood dripping mosque and the muslims are coming to take over and how babies and this community center and it was taken seriously. what happened between what fox news had daisy on and it was a great idea to last summer and america goes crazy during the summer because you have nothing to think about. it's like forest fires everywhere, and last time it was muslims everywhere. you care about park 51 and this pam lunatic became this huge megastar. i do not understand, and then she invites people over from the netherlands, another hate monger, and she has this congregation of hate in new york whereas in the beginning if it

was nipped in the bud, and she was told you are talking hate. she's free to talk hate, do it on your blog, but to talk with an expert to the fact, i was outside park 51 last summer doing sidewalk activism, and the people here for three weeks tell americans what they should know, and what i'm learning from my citizenship examine is which the first amendment allows you the freedom of worship and expression. outside park 51, all these americans watching fox news and watching pam come to the community center and yell obscenities at us. somebody left a bag of dog poop outside the community center, and another nut case, this evangelist comes outside with a news crew to say he's there to save muse lism women because we need saving. outside the center is six muslim women shouting at him saying we

don't need to be saved. it's a lunatic situation where this right wing evangelist is speaking on my behalf. >> what about the guys burning the quaran? >> he is a congregation of 12. [laughter] >> equate that with the tv space, and he's a megachurch. >> last summer when there was nothing to report, they go to his church and turn him into a superhero. again, i'm not stepping on his right to do anything. >> you think he has the right to burn that in? >> he does. hehe has a choice. sarah palin on the right side come up with this crazy solution. they said if he doesn't burn it, you don't build the community center. that's why he has the right to burn it.

the amendment givings him the right to burn, and the 4th amendment gives me the right to build this commune center. there's no kind of confession done on the first amendment here. you have to tell people that. you do not want to let go of your first amendment rights in order for people like donald trump and sarah palin to speak on your behalf. where is america? i really want to know. >> don, before we get to you, spike, you have to leave in five minutes, and building on what you talked about is the responsibility of media; right, and putting the views out there. spike, where has media been responsible? what are some of the examples that we can hold up? >> i need some help. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> what? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> film making, it can be

hollywood examples or regard to news as we talked about, but where is the responsibility you've seen out there, that awareness? >> it's fleeting. >> it's that difficult? >> well, we're being overrun by garbage on television, and it's selling, and especially in this difficult economic times we live in, they are not just going to cut that loose when it's making money, but i just think that people in power, they really just got to come down and understand you have the responsibility because when you get your license from the fcc, there's a responsibility there, but i think that for many people it's profits over people.

i think the best example was bp of the whole bp thing where people in the gulf states were sacrificed for profits, and that's really what the country is built upon though. you look at the what happened to the native americans and this stealing of people from africa -- that's what the country is really built on, you know, exploitation, and it's slicker now, it's glossier. sometimes it's harder to find, but, you know people pray it all the time, people kneel down to the altar of the al mighty dollar and they'll even put their mother on the corner for

money. gr what's your -- >> what's your perspective of large money? the perspective of the media companies, does it squeeze out diverse voices? that's the argument that's being made out there. >> my whole thing is just a matter of huge media companies. i mean, it looks like a couple years, three companies will own everything in the world. it's not just media. yiesm -- i mean, everything is just people buying this and buying that, and there's, you know, fewer places to go to because you got to unlock especially with film. there used to be a lot of independent houses, major stuff where you can go, you can try to get a film made. those companies are out of business. >> they are gone?

>> gone. >> what's in the place now? >> the majors. >> how do they do that? >> my man said now they want movies. if it can't be done in 3-d. come on, we're people of color. they don't make a black swan, fire, true grit, those films like $20-$35 million, but african-americans, it's hard to do, especially when denzel's not in it. >> or you. >> or me? no, no. don't put me in that. no, the thing it's not just african-americans, but i just think -- unless your spielberg, james cameron, tyler, it's hard

to get a film made nowadays because the median range budget film they do not make anymore. they give you pennys or $20 million. >> last words. i know you have to hit to road to go to that -- [laughter] >> woman with the hat? [laughter] >> i just think that we have to keep fighting, and we have to think about our past. think what oscar myrrh shell went through, same with nat king cole, many, many people, jim brown, people -- my man ossy davis, ruby dee, great, great battles have been won and sometimes likes like we're

moving backwards, so we just got to, you know, keep going bard of the it's tough now. it's tough. >> spike lee, thank you for being here. i know you got to go. >> okay, thank you. [applause] >> donald, let's continue with you then, what are the examples, you said on the business side that looked at that you would hold up as ones that have been responsible, media companies or filmmakers or writers, columnists, what have you seen out there in >> i think there's a number of examples of folks that have been responsible. i was thinking when spike told the story, one of my stories from last year was the turn around of how everyone came out and were attacking from the get-go, and at the moment they found out the information was incorrect, i enjoyed watching the unfolding and the news

stations and the online publications and the print communications all coming back and actually apologizing for what they did, so i think, and i think after that point, they were responsible, granted they were very quick to accuse, but they were able to come back, andic that they gave her -- and i think they gave her the air time to give her the amend to correct what they did incorrectly. that's one case that started bad, but turned good at least in terms of that particular story. i think on the business end as we look at this space it's kind of hard to see that; right? as i mentioned before, the dollars are tracking quite frequently with the sort of base level type of content, and the

viewership, people are watching -- >> like what you were saying? >> similar police take. spike talked about reality tv moments ago. it's unfortunate, but inexpensive to produce, and people watch it, get sucked in, and the people who produce it are introducing the people to be on the shows looking for points of tension, frequently racial tension, and they cast the stereotypical black woman who is loud and boisterous with all kinds of craziness going on with her life, casting her with someone else and want to see tension occur on television, and when that occurs, the ratings go up because we're tuning in, and our country, we continue to tune into this stuff, and i had these conversations with friends who will sit there and talk about

just what happened on i won't name all the shows, but they talk about what happened on the shows, an the next sentence is about how awful media is today, and the fact of the matter is you have to begin to vote with your, you know, with your tv or with your newspaper choices or with your online choices. you have to determine what is, you know, what is sorpt of media -- sort of media that is fairly representing of what's going on in our country and support those outlets and turn off the other wops because -- ones because until we do that, we're not going to see much of a change. i mean, it's -- many of these cases, it's a business decision and it is what drives ratings and the advertising dollars. >> will, reality tv show there; right? >> right. >> did quite well. >> yes. >> what is positive about that

>> well, i just think it was in tune with the times.. .. >> what i am saying is you need 10 shows carrot right now you have two shows occurred if you had 10, you would have the diversity people are looking for. it could be creative and they could tell different stories. ultimately, asking the consumers to vote with their feet is hard because consumers will not carry they go to work all day or they go to school. they watch what ever is on. they will not vote with their

feet. alternately, the obligation of the media companies to say, hey, our goal crease to try to the diversity 31 examples of responsible. most of these are not historical kar. the networks realized they did not have any black reporters. they hired some. ed bradley or some of the early does current. guys. max robinson. and then a couple years later he was on the anchor desk. i remember seeing bernard shaw over in iraq with bombs in the background and then he came back and cnn really hasn't recovered from his departure because they don't have an evening news

program when he was there and i don't think they realized what they had while he was there. we've told in 60 minutes they are trying out some guys it just became obvious they were not brimming barred revenue or mentoring somebody i think in the news rooms or even in the media companies it's become in the mud to talk about the diversity because people are against goals and targets, etc.. if you don't plan for it it isn't going to happen. and that's what needs to happen within the news rooms and what happens with the entertainment companies. i want to have ten black films, start with that we are going to fund it. and then you can open the door and start taking pictures and they can't all be the same i don't want all my reality shows to be conflict and i want to see different slices of life and you say that's what we are buying and where the creative community

essentially will be selling. >> i agree with what you're saying but i also believe that consumers and watchers and viewers do have to say and we just recently freedom of peace last week on race state inverses racism. it was the people who ran talking about andrew, the same, but basically it changed and they decided they were going to start a position to be a competition to get rid of him on the "washington post" and the have i think it was 43,000 people that signed the petition, it raised the eyebrows of the folks the "washington post" and they actually did take a minute and start looking at andrew and they responded by saying he doesn't have racism in his heart. he's just priest beating. so, however you want to slice the birds and whatever you want to do with that the fact of the

matter is that they have been looking at where to put him on the site and they have been responding in part to what color change to it, and i think that there is something to be said about the viewers and consumers taking an active role in change, and they can make a difference in doing this whether it is the petitions with these types of things. i agree it's not going to happen as quickly as if you were to fund it from the top but i do believe there's a rule to be played. >> anything - ten we aren't even at this level where we can think what is ahead. so on a good day in the so-called established media like "the new york times" on a good day they would have a story in the way they did about six or seven months ago and the muslim women in the u.s. and every single one of them where the heads are off because that's what the muslim woman is to "the

new york times" and the muslim women like me have to go okay at least they see a positive role models of the women but none of them look like myself and at least they are there's a that's why i'm talking about stopping at a disadvantage or about a month ago they had a huge magazine off about in muslim preacher in the u.s. again who represents a tiny slice of the muslim experience in the u.s. trying to explain where the ultra-conservative views come from. this ideal at least we've got to get rid of this at least because many of you out so at least i or someone who believes what i did so we had very little in common that they had and i think the pushback is coming not so much from the established media itself because they don't recognize our diversity where the pushback is coming from this social media.

social media is where a lot of the voices who don't have room in the list published media coming from so you have consumer media watch set up by muslim women and north america basically come and they have writers from across the world who monitor the way the muslim women are portrayed in the so-called stub bush meant major media. and you have independent writers who because they don't have a place in this so-called established media they have to go and created online and i am fine with that because i think in a few years that will be the place to go because when i look at egypt i think one of the main drivers of the revolution is what has been happening in the region is the young people who've gone and created spaces for themselves where they've not existed before and they've used as platforms to take on these regimes, so that is what it takes here and if i have to look at the guest of which media as the regime in this country then so be it because it's not happening, we are not creating that space. they might take a muslim reporter war two but still the same story that at the end of the day makes me think of leased

line there but i've got another five or ten years before they recognize that dhaka, too and a muslim in this country. >> we have had these large buckets. you did a great job, mona, describing the muslim community and they are diverse in their experiences with a come from culturally as well as ethnically in nationality as well but also exists in the asian-american community as we all know, so with all this diversity, within this diversity to the question is should they be presenting all of these, is it physically possible, can you do that for these media companies? >> they are representatives of people who live on earth. it's not like -- it's not like somebody is sitting but people on tv that don't reflect the human being or the american population. i think the center on this is why i say it was back to what are we -- what are our values as a country, and whenever we get into those perlstein or we have to go back to the root of we are

as a country, i count several as being probably the the era where we have the basic, then we start making decisions that are based on that like yes, there should be african-americans should have equal access to schools, different minorities should have equal access to hospitals. when we go back to the root of we are as a country and once we establish, we are a representative democracy. and that should be reflected in all the major sectors of our country. and the media should be no different from that. and so it i run a major media company i do think there's a difference between the news and entertainment i won't go all into it here because entertainment is a very finite resource 100 some odd major companies per year. it is hitting the water to get a film made so that is a different

discussion. television and news is different. it's not as finite. news i think should reflect the culture, and i think msnbc so far has done the best job of reflecting the way from what happened during the obama administration, before obama msnbc on a demographic point of view was no different -- was behind cnn to tell you the truth. it was after the obama campaign started kicking up and he became very serious than people who had -- the start of pulling people in from chicago now moving to new york. people who then had access into the world and the obama phenomenon than became -- then they started being put on the air. and i think it's good for that to happen that way. but i think that somebody can be more intentional, and if you were more intentional you would be a big winner.

i will give you quickly the converse. i used to work of news corporation, and it was in the very beginning years of fox news. >> still nice guy. don't worry, i got goldman and other stuff landstuhl chongging -- [inaudible] [laughter] but fox news is in the early stages and that the beginning roger ellis came over from cnbc and he still had his ideology and political views but he was trying to program it has a broad based network. alternately with a decided is forget the broad base, let's just go back to what we do best and what was being done in the u.k., primarily what had been done in australia, and we are going to become the conservative outlet and have diversity point of views within conservatism, and they went from being the last please note this tradition in new york and l.a. to becoming the monster that they are today.

and i think msnbc has tried, but it hasn't been falls road, the same thing with cnn. you know, you can't straddled between object -- for objectivity and sound point of view. i think your values shouldn't be a point of view they should be your values, period. you planned those and then build your company are now those values and i fink within the first media company that says we are a media company within a representative democracy the first one who increases that -- increases that i think will blow the rest of the water because they will have nieces and the different points of view that represent the country as a whole. >> donna, to you. as we see the specialized media, specialized news channels and i mean not only in broadcast but also printed online as a

distinguished themselves based on ethnic groups, does that help or hurt the issue we are talking about today which is race in the media? >> for the moment i think it still helps mainly because there is no representation in terms of mass media. so these outlets provide an opportunity for people to congregate to discuss and engage a around issues that are very relevant in the communities. and i think that too will's point as soon as someone understands you can integrate all of these stories and these people into the fabric of what you're doing and actually gaining broader audiences respected for doing all of those will work and until then it still makes sense for us to have these places that are basically surfacing, stories that are not

being seen other places. >> and you're saying there is a time you say that these sorts of ethnic based media organizations may not be seen that way anymore or they will be integrated in or they will buy other companies. >> two things. there will always be the need for people to find the people with like mind and to complicate and discuss issues. i think double always be the case whether it is drawn on the racial lines, religious lines or whatever, economic lines that will always be the case. but i do believe at the time progressives you will see more integration, you have to see it about the browning of america. if you are going to win in this space you have to begin to look at how to incorporate all these voices, you must to even play long term in this business so i believe over time you will see much more integration but i think it's going to take -- it's the first move.

who's going to be the first company? again i think nbc has done a good job in terms of increasing minority managers and employees and raising them throughout the company but i think we need more. and if you look at the other companies, there are very few companies that are really looking at this seriously to figure out how they are going to win long-term. >> two things come to mind, the arab community in the u.s. right now there's a growing american comedians who started around 2003 and they perform a function very similar to a jewish comedian, and richard pryor and eddie murphy and chris rock facing head-on discrimination for comedy and arab-american communities sold-out a theater on broadway about four or five months ago it was the first time

they managed to sell out a broadway theater and was a great moment, and soon after that we began to hear questions should they identify more or should they be canadians -- should they be pigeonholed and that is constantly de dial am i and for a certain amount of time you do need to identify and work within the so-called pigeonholes because you want to present these diverse spaces but sooner or later you ought to be accepted as arab-american comedians and for the comedian in the muslim community we are not there yet. >> on that point that is the question i was going to ask when we see faces on television often you will see those of certain ethnic backgrounds they would be talking about those specific issues related to their ethnic background, and i think it was brought up earlier by the panel is there a point you think where we can get those faces on air that are talking about muslim

american issues, so you will come on and talk about business, for instance, and how do we get there? >> we get there by inviting more and more people on. shaping up rolodex basically because anyone who works in the news industry you know how much time you have and that little time combined with laziness you go to the people you know so it is the same old faces over and over again, the usual suspect so until we break out and start asking friends of friends, ten french removed who do you know and recommend, unfortunately to break into something like the opinion industry which is what i've been trying to do is incredibly difficult because when you don't have any connection how are you going to get on to these pages and then they continuously say women don't want to leave the want to read the pieces but no one goes to the women when they want an opinion piece written by women and then they complain. it is a catch-22 they get to either way, so you have to start just going to the usual names and just start fresh with people you've never heard before and give them a chance.

if they don't have anything to say don't invite them back. i am not saying bring someone who is an expert or an unfair advantage but have them talk about everything because what upsets me when it comes to tv every year something i want for this, we have a piece about what it's like to be muslim and that person is never asked about anything except what it's like to be a muslim. do they not have an opinion on the elections were on every devotee television? i spend my entire life just thinking that simple. you need to give people a chance and i'm sure we can start speaking so just opening up to more people and you see it happening with other religious groups. the focus on religion, when it comes to catholic issues for example someone who used to be catholic they will focus on someone who has a complicated relationship or talk to some of that single orthodox catholic but when it comes to muslims it's like this and it's not that

simple. we are very diverse. muslims just like everybody else come in all shapes and sizes and not just about muslim issues but about a whole bunch of. my opinion about the neighborhood -- >> we can do that next time. >> is a supply or demand problem? you wrote your having difficulty developing serious reporters and serious times is it a supply problem or is it a demand problem? something i asked myself when i entered the industry as well. some devotees reacting to the success of fox news. and what fox paid is it sold the news and so no every network is selling the news instead of reporting. >> in the stivers sees as supply versus demand. >> this is why we are seeing that so now everybody is, cnn is trying to sell the news come

msnbc is on the news, abc, everybody is basically trying to sell the news. so as soon as you try to sell the news to viewers, when you get into the sale mentality what are you doing? i don't want them to report something i don't report, i don't want something on their store shelves that is and online so you start reacting to everything out there and start getting stories from twitter and according to facebook and seeing me in a chat room, you just start getting caught up on the play-by-play, and when that happens, anybody can be an expert on the subject because you're not talking about anything that the other guys aren't talking about. you don't need experts to basically report what is being sold as news right now. as a result it gets back to what you said which is who is closest to me? who can get down to my studio in the next hour to talk about the story that just broke on twitter

that is essentially daytime news right now. a big chunk of it. you know, about what just broke out on twitter, who can get to the next studio in an hour-and-a-half for two hours. so there aren't a set of values for people the media covered or at least it isn't apparent. i think you would change. i really do think when 2012 comes around, i think we will see kind of beside the point when the campaign kicks off and the coverage happens and the tea party dissipates back to the niche that is the essential when it becomes an interest group essentially to the report showed and when people start seeing the house party, the rally they are going to be like i need people who look like those people to go out and report on this campaign again, and i think you're going to see another influx of pieces that are going to be on cnn and msnbc, you know, for sure, but it would be much better if that the top management level within

the media so not just the network, but the owners of the network said listen, all of not accompany we have a mission to diversify from our suppliers to the subscribers that we go after to the customer service, and it will also be true in our entertainment products and who reports the news, not what you report it is who, and we are going to become a more representative company, and i think once one company makes that statement and they begin to see the benefits of doing that, then i think that will have an impact on the rest of the industry. >> turning the boat a little bit, and i will move into talking about hip-hop and definitely get your view as well as a multiracial movement, and what it's meant to the discussion that we are having today which is race and media. >> he should start with will not one.

>> we can start with will and circled back if you would like. >> hip hop and the rule of muslims and arab-americans as well as international hip-hop stars or rap generally because colin the african revolutions can tell you of rappers in libya and tunisia and egypt and so many countries that have taken mix ackley the value of hip-hop as it started in the u.s. and the late 70's, early 80's, have taken that art form as the main expression against oppression and injustice and underrepresentation and using it in the most passionate way many of us who love the beginning of hip-hop continue so it's been amazing. it's taken it exactly and when you hear the songs now, but stick to nisha for example there is one that is the general and

he wraps in arabic. tunisia is known for a lot of people to speak french but they represent the upper middle class existence and those who follow the revolution started by the young man who set himself on fire a working-class town that has nothing to do with french or upper-middle-class existence but very much to do with the upper representing class nobody's all so this idea to point at the invisible isakson ackley what he was doing, and because of that two or three days into the revolution he was arrested by the regime and after he was released and arrested for the rap basically saying you will meet the day your people will overthrow you and they really did. and soon after he was released his next rap was come on other arab countries we need the resolutions and he's basically passing on the book on to egypt,

libya, algeria has we have seen it and now there's a mix tape even the idea of mixed tapes there's a mix tape of rap, revolutionary rap in the middle east and north africa that's exciting so not only is it representing the values but it's now being sung in the language that the average working-class underrepresented person can understand and not the language of the privileged and affluent and that is exactly the kind of value that it started with. [laughter] >> we don't have a straight up and down hip-hop credit on the panel, so i'm not just going to be as animated as i normally would. but the biggest thing about hip-hop is it is the window of culture so it is people who don't live in the same area who don't have the same life experiences but have the same emotions and are looking at the same will have a common language they can talk to each other, and

that has been a movement going on since the 80's until now. like it has literally brought -- when you've show the census, the multiracial statistics, hip-hop is a big part of the reason why the raises have gotten together to the point of the essentially, you know, creating more kids together. so it has been -- it just has been amazing. but in the same ways -- >> what is the sort of -- >> because here is the biggest problem at least in the 50's, 60's and 70's. anything before the 70's people did not know each other. they did not live together. they didn't talk to each other. white parents didn't want black kids -- they didn't want their kids to go to school together. they didn't know each other. in the deep south, blacks and whites knew each other but only in a subservient relationship, so they didn't know each other as equal and together.

so in the 80's, when it became -- it could have happened some like if the rock movement had in the 80's than it would be like rock was this amazing revolution for the races, but it didn't because the races were still separate when the rock revolution happened and what stock happened. there were just starting to come together but when hip-hop have been the they were just coming together. so it gave people a way to talk to each other. that is the reason why win obama is up and at the time hillary clinton was criticizing him he could just brushed that off the shoulder. an auditorium full of white people went crazy and blacks because they knew what that meant. so he had a lot and they were like this is our president, too. so you could just feel that swaggart and black-and-white and everybody felt it. now here's the limit to hip-hop. it is a social values of some of the way people hang out, we get

along, etc.. it isn't a moral value system. like it cannot replace -- it cannot replace what religion, the role religion plays as far as morals. it's about who we are. it can get us to get there but it's not the golden rule. it doesn't tell me how i treat you. and so, for people who think because it brought people together that now it is a new moral code, it's not. it's a social -- it is hard with a social engineering benefit. it doesn't have the moral benefit. that still has to come from the church. that still has to come from what you believe about the country, your political values. all of those things still have to be put into the individual person. it can't solve that problem, but it's done a lot to bring people together, and it's all over the boat.

>> wouldn't use it devolved though significantly from the messages from the 80s and 90s to what you're hearing today? >> it's just at the bottom it's gotten better. because it is more people who are doing it. now people would say in the beginning it was just fun and party. that's not true. in the beginning there were gangs with deejays in the bronx and you go to a party and it's just go off, turning into mass flights. if you go back to news clips in the 1980's you couldn't go to a show in the quarter without a brooklyn being in the house. when i say brooklyn is in the house and brooklyn comes in and they tore up the ladder in court or as if frank was here he was doing his part in it. [laughter] >> now he is gone you can see that. it's on tape. >> but a big part of it, it was still a lot of angst. it wasn't as pervasive as it is now. so the for the negative effects

our people feel now because it's all over they are going to feel it all over. >> two now moving to questions and comments for the panel and anybody that has a question or comment, please. >> the president and ceo of the national puerto rican coalition. i also sit on the board of the hispanic leadership agenda and the diversity of the council for the abuse corporations. it's interesting when you're talking about. i have a comment and question. my comment is it's very interesting. i've been here all day listening to different panelists and two panels i think are very crucial to the hispanic community, just the politics and the media i haven't seen one hispanic, and i haven't heard about the hispanic experience and that is a little disturbing to me. so that's my comment. maybe it's time for us to start finding the word diversity and

maybe that is something to think about. i haven't heard the word of advertising agencies to read advertising agencies i call it with the media is all about because the move that had in the right direction. can you comment on it? >> who would like to comment? >> i want to be clear on the question. are you stating specifically with your creating in terms of advertising work? >> the control the dollars from the corporations. the advertising agencies tell the corporations where and how to invest in the dollar on the media outlets. so they definitely have a very important role for us to be able to leverage them so than the media outlets will create the demand and supply that. >> i think what's happening in the advertising agency is exactly what we've been talking about in hollywood and what we

have had in the news media that there is a lack of representation. if you look at most of these advertising agencies large agencies, most of them at the highest levels have very little diversity. many of the agency's recently started acquiring small warehouses that focus on the hispanic media will focus on african american media or asian media. but for the most part of the highest level there is very little diversity and that certainly has an impact -- is certainly has an impact on what's being created, the type of advertising that you're seeing, and also has an impact on where those advertising dollars are going. does that answer door question? >> what is your definition of diversity? isn't there a lot of, you know, folks from jewish background in the advertising industry and in the media? that to me is diversity. so diversity, are you talking about color? >> it can represent in many ways certainly better its religion,

whether it's race, whether it's economic status. and there is a broad range of ways to look at it. and in the end, the advertising world there are very few minorities and i say minorities i am speaking specifically about ethnic minorities and represented at the highest levels. >> do you have a follow-up question? >> it's just it seems to me when we are having a conversation about the state of the race in america we keep using the word diversity coming and we use diversity whenever it is convenient to us and really it's time for us to find that word because if we are focusing on differences, then we are always going to perpetuate the problem that the difference exists, and all we do this with spikes that at the beginning. we talk about the same thing over and over and over and maybe it's time to find that terminology so that and

everybody starts working from the same foundation. >> hispanic representation as it relates to the media and because in many ways an african-american entrepreneur is look at companies especially when it comes to television, the latinos are a model minority in the ability to have networks that are across the nation and to go and get specific budgets from the effort pfizer's. >> we can with of the concept like hell are we going to create more houses, right? essentially was the question. the bottom line, if you -- if sponsor comes and they need, or proctor and gamble says we're

going to back this showed an mtv or a network will put it on the air almost assuredly. so we went and we tried to put it together. they couldn't get on their side enough johnson & johnson, walgreens.com wal-mart, enough advertisers with in their portfolio coming into the global media, media holdings and ad agency this isn't a boutique agency this is a major agency and they couldn't get them to come at -- connect to the several million would take to put together on that scale. now they took the same idea and probably you've worked with these guys took the same idea and said we are going to try with of the hispanic community without were latino content. do you know that within 120 days they were able to get nine figures worth of commitment for

latino programming and there's many reasons for that, but one is the hispanic community is much more organized when it comes to getting corporate dollars. you won't see it in the film industry or some industries, but when it comes to television, print, and you have your own distribution, the second player, telemundo -- >> but it isn't hispanic owned. >> but you have to -- i know that's important from the wealth building perspective, but if i am a consumer and at the end of the day tyler perry doesn't own the studios, the theaters in the neighborhoods. i don't dig deep about what percentage owned is lying in

state -- lions gate. like i want to see my image, so univision is valuable for consumers. i understand the argument that you're making it at the end of today but i'm saying we had on ideas on shows that were working that couldn't attract advertising dollars and versus shows that were still in theory that could attract advertising dollars from the latino market, and the answer to that isn't for me to be mad at latinos and for us to get into it over those limited budgets, it's to go back to the core principle which is to say media companies need to tell the advertisers we are going to be represented. across the property is what we produce, who calls the shots we will be represented at the democracy. so when we say diversity that's what we mean. it will reflect the population of the country.

>> thank you so much. we've got three more minutes coming up. >> my name is carol gregory, with the economy in a director of communications of special-interest and you talk a bit about the lee zenas of journalists and to point out also and based on the old business model that started failing and focused it and recognized the and that the internet would have of the social media, the fact that the bloggers of the press controls the news rooms have shrunken terribly and in addition to laziness you have news rooms that were cut in half, print news rooms also cut in half and a lot of the veterans are gone you have very young kids out there telling those stories. i wonder as you're looking -- i think i mentioned in a kind of shot out one econ amine launched something called the public

internet channel pic.tv and we have people such as robert townsend who produces program where he can't get that on regular tv but he's doing it on the internet and not just because he can't do it on regular tv but because he's realized so many people are getting content and it's a strategic move in reaching an audience that's growing. do you think the internet has the capability of being what television might have been 20 years ago for the media and also for entertainment distribution etc. >> i will be very quick and done i can jump in, too. as we move forward as traditional media like "the new york times" and others stop putting the ball the payrolls as budgets become a reality i'm glad you mentioned that because budgets are obviously a consideration. i think the kind of media model we give to start looking at now

that isn't on the contentious relationship between traditional mainstream media i think they have to start dancing together. they have to understand the need each other because the budget cuts and because mainstream can't move that far the have to start depending on what has become known as citizen journalists or people who are on a twitter or facebook more and to offer it very quickly. at the same time those citizens could also use the huge platform that there is a mainstream media type can offer them so this is the model we have to look at. i don't think one or the other is the and to replace the other. it has to be this very paranoid contentious relationship. i think it should be symbiotic and they can look at ways to strengthen each other because that will be the future. i spent my entire day on twittered. if someone can get me on to better i will be there. so this is the model where they learn to dance together rather than combat each other. >> 30 seconds. >> i agree wholeheartedly.

basically actually if you look at the recent statistics on online dollars from advertising dollars, they are actually doing more and more toward from print to on-line journalism. also if you look at the online leadership upnews versus print, 46% of americans actually get their news now from online pleases versus the print newspapers so you're saying to see this movement and i'm not saying that no one is right. i think the models are going to be completely different. i think you're going to start seeing different ways to pay for media whether it be micropayments, you might see the subscription models the line excited to see what's going to happen at "the new york times" and recent pay models and a number of different models over the next couple of years until someone gets a right.

>> yes, more every day. [laughter] last question, please. >> i just wanted to ask you to say a little bit more about the difficulty responsibility. the shared responsibility challenge. it to the extent the problem that we face is the structural racism this matter of media representation is a critical part of the problem and dismantling the represent -- changing the representation i think is a critical priority. but could use a a little bit more about how the responsibility towards addressing these images and stereotypes and the representation that we see so often across the media ought to

be shared? you talk a little bit about the importance of those who lead these organizations, recognizing the importance of the diversity but can you say more about what you think the responsibility of the consumers are, and also the folks who participate in these programs who, you know, accept the rules in the movies that are not necessarily positive. can you say and little bit about how you think the balance ought to be struck? >> good comment there. also final words if you could to the panel, and again in about 30 seconds. i apologize as we wind it up here. who would like to start first? >> in terms of -- in terms of what you were asking i think that over the next number of years we're going to continue to see the growing diversity the

major media as i mentioned before their must -- there has to be a change at the top level there has to be a change of the sort of bottom levels of what's going on in order for companies to succeed long-term i will tell you a very brief story but a colleague of mine came in the office the other day and he said you know it's interesting to me? my child just had -- to girls the other day i asked him who they were in fighting over for a sleepover and he said his daughter explained that the girls were really smart and funny and lots of fun and when they got to the house both children were black and his daughter was white and he was absolutely baffled that his title but didn't mention that these two little girls were black. and i think as we look at this nation and we look where we are going as a nation and how we is evolving and changing the people

are going to be -- we have to begin incorporating and integrating people from all different religious economic and ethnic backgrounds and in order to be representative because we have a whole generation that's coming up that doesn't see the world in the way that we have seen the world and they have to be inclusive. >> about the american muslim community, 9/11 was a shock to everybody. muslims included the died in the attack and it made us realize whether we have been in this country or are newcomers to the country than i am it is our responsibility speaking out, and one thing i learned last year during the part 51 debacle according to the polls only 38% of americans say they know a muslim but that is two things to me. they are such a small minority in this country but most americans probably don't think i

am a muslim so they wouldn't tell them that they know me as a muslim so my responsibility becomes now it's almost like being gay you try the first three sentences to put into the conversation that you are in muslim. [laughter] so that is my talent now. i will meet complete strangers whether it is in a hotel, breakfast buffet or in a supermarket and we are having a conversation and within three sentences it is my challenge to let them know i muslim because i want them to go home and say i met a woman who turned out to be muslim and i never would have guessed she was a muslim. so this kind of like we of saying that the american muslim community recognizes we have to speak out more, get out there more, as we now have comedians, writers, actors come active in the rules to your taking and a lot of the actors are speaking out saying no more doing this because they do feed these awful, hateful images people are getting but also the community is learning to write when the ca eight full story. the community in the campaign.

it is kind of grass-roots stuff but the community and all of its diversity is learning. the african american muslim community knows it very well because the have been facing discrimination as blacks in this country for centuries. we as the newcomers to this country was immigrant ascent must learn more from our african-american muslim brothers and sisters and all the others in the community, from the asian community, the jewish community, all communities we have so much to learn that the biggest thing is to just speak out and speak out louder. >> the individual always has the ultimate responsibility for their choices in their lives, period. i just think that's a fact. when did you get into the public square and you're talking about media and government, etc., then those entities also have a responsibility. and so that's the reason why i take the point of view that the

media has responsibility but i'm super optimistic because even in my adult lifetime wilder left office in virginia and people like will there ever be another black governor? it was over, like the government there's a black president and he's not even done with a first term and they are saying will there ever be another black president? so i just think -- i'm pretty optimistic on all these questions and in the media in particular i just want to be a part of it which is the reason why i'm an entrepreneur and by immelt and active and i just believe that my -- when my kids grow up they will be able to play in a pretty much everything all over the globe. i just think there's an opportunity now if the media company would seize it. >> will griffin, thank you so

much, donna as welcome impressive and so open about all >> next, a look back at america's race to the moon. then we will show you a look at the sculpture of rosa parks at washington national cathedral. then president obama and senator mike johannes of nebraska. gil kerlikowskie talks about anti-drug efforts at the u.s.- mexico border. "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> today, the ipod mini is no more. no! [unintelligible] i give you the i-pod nano.

[laughter] >> in his monologue, mike daisey comments on the world as he has seen it. his latest examines apples' view of the world. >> all of my monologue spring of my obsessions. >> find out more on sunday night on it c-span p's "q&a". >> in may, 1961, president john f. kennedy announced its decision to send americans to the moon within the decade. the landing of apollo 11 occurred and july, 1969. now the american association for the advancement of society looks at the race to the moon as well as the cultural and scientific legacy of jfk's decision.

this is an hour and 40 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i would like to welcome you to this afternoon's symposium. please turn off or silence your cell phones and blackberries and i-phones. it's been 50 years since president kennedy announced his decision to send americans to the moon. and his words, before the decade out, his speech before congress and 1961 committed the united states the largest mobilization of

financial and human resources to achieve a single purpose in u.s. history, mobilization that culminated and the apollo 11 lunar landing. anyone over the age of three at the time undoubtedly has the event and grave and his or her memory, as i do, and i was well over the age of three at the time. the purpose of our program this afternoon is to commemorate president kennedy's historic decision but more importantly to put that decision in an historical perspective. we will discuss the reasons behind the decision, the actions that were taken to turn the decision into a successful program, and we will also look at the scientific and historical legacies of project apollo. to address these subjects, we have assembled three distinguished and highly knowledgeable speakers.

we do not have time to give them proper introductions, so let me say a few words about each. john logsdon is professor of america is a political science at george washington university. he served on the gw faculty for 38 years. he has written numerous articles and several books, including "the decision to go to the moon," and "john f. kennedy and their race to the moon," just published last december. if i were to tell you about his other activities and awards, we would be here until midnight, so let me go on. our second speaker, roger launius, is senior curator and the division of space history at the national air and space museum here he previously served as division share at the division from 2003-2007 and prior to that as chief historian

at nasa. he has written or edited more than 20 books on aerospace history, including and this is a random selection or from his list, "robots in space," the societal impact of space flight, "and space flight and the myth of presidential leadership." he received his share of otters and awards and made numerous appearances -- honors and awards and made numerous appearances. finally, the senior staff scientist, formerly with the branch of astrogeology of the u.s. geological survey in flagstaff, arizona. he specialized in research on the prophecies of impact on

volcanism on the planets and studies on the requirement for sustainable and human presence on the moon. he served on the president's commission on implementation of u.s. space exploration 2004, and received the distinguished public service medal on that body. he has written over 100 papers and five books, including "the once and future." mooonn." i have asked our speakers to keep to about 20 minutes. with a bit of luck, we will have some time at the end of their presentations for "q&a" and discussions. now, join me please and welcoming john logsdon. [applause] >> thank you, al. good afternoon, everybody. thank you for coming.

a couple of people have already estimate -- is my book for sale this afternoon? -- a couple of people have asked me. the answer to that is no. house rules said i should not do that. it does exist. it is for sale very inexpensive way on amazon, but enough of that. where do i p usush here? oh, on the keyboard. as al said, are roebuck in 1970 -- i wrote a book in 1970. it ended 50 years ago as president kennedy proposed to the country into a joint session of congress that the united states except the commitment to send americans to the moon . why 40 years later have i gone back to that topic? a couple of reasons. one important one was that lots

more material is available. at that point, there was not a kennedy library. all of the oral history interviews had not been released. so the account could be much richer. the second reason is that it became clear that announcing the decision is only part of the steps needed to get something to happen. and i was interested and what kennedy did in his remaining three months in office after may , 1961, to turn a decision into an ongoing program. third, i totally missed an importance seeing it which i will tell you about as the golan today. -- i missed an important scene, that i will tell you about as we go along today. you know that today's the 21st,

so nine days ago, we celebrated the anniversary of yuri gregarin's first flight. the future of human spaceflight was as uncertain in the u.s. on april 12, 1961, as it is today. and it is very uncertain today. because john kennedy had come into the white house knowing very little and caring very little about space issues. he had used the failure of the united states to keep up with the soviet union as a campaign tool against the eisenhower administration, but he had not thought very deeply about it. the best indication of the party that he had assigned to space was that he gave it away.

he gave it to lyndon johnson, his vice president, as something he could do that was not all that important and would not major th in the way of policy initiatives that kennedy had in mind. there is a call for a re-look at the budget. the new head of nasa, the last major kennedy administration appointment was on january 30, confirmed on february 14. we do not work that way anymore. james webb came in saying the program that president eisenhower put forward is a lows and program. the united states will always be behind in space. we need money for a larger rocket and we need a post- mercury human space flight

program. kennedy said, i am not sure i want to make up my mind so quickly and said, we will think about this, but we're not going to address those decisions until the next budget cycle in the fall of 1961. then, gregarin changed certainly kennedy's perception of the importance of space. the world and domestic reaction to the flight convinced kennedy that he could not by default cede this area of activity to the soviet union. at whatever the potentials for tangible results in space, the symbolic achievement of the soviet union linked to the soviet claims of superiority of, of their social system, and again, al talks about anybody that was three in 1969, you have to be over 15 in 1961, to

recreate the cold war, director of nuclear confrontation, al fall out shelters, competition for the allegiance of the newly independent countries. that was the context for kennedy as he entered office. . . .

>> my conclusion is that kennedy had pretty much made up his mind to do something big in space, before the bay of pigs but the failure of the soviet union was clearly strongly reinforcing activity. he sent out in a memo to lyndon johnson for a quick review of the space program a very nice cest requiremen set of requirements. and you see what they are, can we beat the soviets and promise result that is we can win.

anyone who knows requirements knows that's pretty clear, space, dramatic win. a review took place over the next couple of weeks run by lyndon johnson. and the answer came back to kennedy, moon. why the moon? was it a technical run that the soviet union to that date and still some today was using a converted icbm that was designed to lift a very heavy nuclear warhead and lift space pay loads. but to get the people to the moon, the soviet union would have to build a rocket and so would the united states. and lombron was brought in and give me the resources and we will win. and he was right.

after the weekend of may 6-7, a group of people came together to write a set of recommendations to go through the vice president to the president. and nasa space member web and mcnamara signed that memo on the morning of may 8. and you see the words, men and not machines capture the world. and that these aimed at the prestige are part of the battle at the fluid front of the cold w war. it was clear language and you could read the memo and find nothing about space exploration. it was very much about how compete and be successful against the soviet union. kennedy on may 10, accepted the recommendations and did due

diligence over the next weeks. and kennedy's speechwriters bundled the space recommendations with other initiatives mainly with security policy. security defense, and a second round of increases in military spending, increases in foreign aid. that was build as the urgent need for national need. and that's what kennedy concluded to set a lunar landing as a goal. could he have done that with minutes with allen shepard on may 5 would not have been a success. i am skeptical, i think it was a necessary condition going

forward. there was a big debate whether humans could survive going into space or not. and second, should the united states televise this event live with a possibility of a failure happening in front of everyone so soon after the bay of pigs. and the kennedy got very much personally involved and said yes, we will go ahead and do it it in public. it's not our style to hide things. on may 8, shepard and the other six astronauts came to the white house and they impressed kennedy as the kind of people that he was comfortable with. and people he had written about with piles of courage, that term

was not invented yet but people with the right stuff. so kennedy went before joint session of congress. this first part of most of you have probably heard before. but i will may it, notice he says mainly it's about impressing people. the dramatic achievements in space that occurred in recent weeks should have remained clear to us all as the sputnik in 1957, the impact of this mission on the minds of men everywhere are determined to make the determination of which road they take. i think this mission should achieve the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. no single space project in this period will be more impressive

to mankind or long range for the mission of space. >> but kennedy went on to stress how burdensome this commitment would be and that's interesting. >> i believe that everyone should make their judgment which we give attention over the weeks and months. it is a heavy burden and no sense in agreeing or desiring that the united states is taking a firm position unless we are prepared to bear the burden for the success. if we are not, we should decide today, in this year. [applause] this decision the of man making a commitment. >> you see the president warning

against interagency rivals. >> where other activities where they expressed, it means that the degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized the efforts. it means we can't have undue work stoppages or waste of talent or a high turnover of key personnel. >> kennedy not only talked the talk but he walked the walk. i put this quote in because it captures there are two parts to make big things happen. choosing what to do is executing the policies. kennedy was willing to do that. look at the dimensions of the mobilization. the budget went 89% the first year and 101% the second year and 40% the third year.

totaling a huge increase over the eisenhower budget and nasa almost doubled in size. and the contract workforce went up four times in size. this cost in 2010 dollars 151 billion dollars. the largest peacetime program in history. and i put a couple other figures and if i put the boston i put the dig in there. and compared to other nasa programs apollo was interesting. and nasa says that 2010 dollars is 239 billion.

that is including development and the abstracting shuttle cost 159 billion. so we have spent apollo-type money on space just not in the span of a few years. the program picked up momentum by '61, the start of '62. there was a debate about how to go to the moon, it's an interesting story i don't have time for this afternoon. kennedy went out in '62 to inspect progress, first to huntsville and then houston and his most vivid speech, i can't give this talk until you hear it. >> we choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not

because they are easy, but because they are hard. because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies because that challenge is -- >> oop. >> that's one we are willing to postpone and one we intend to win and the others two. >> on that same trip, kennedy went being worried about the rapidly increasing apole -- apollo. and told that those funds could be raised and a fight ensued whether it was appropriate to provide that extra money. the answer on mr. webb's terms was no.

and holmes went to the times and said that kennedy was an i instigator. and he went to see what it was about, and kennedy had a meeting in the oval office and after the bay of pigs. and there is a fascinating discussion and kennedy being very clear why we are going to the moon. >> (inaudible) on the apollo. and (inaudible) no matter how, and we can spend 10 billion and get (inaudible) or 7 billion into space. if you say that (inaudible) and second point is the fact that

(inaudible) made in this day but the system to do this. why this program (inaudible) they will find out about. >> but you talk about (inaudible). >> everything we do ought to be tied into getting on the moon and ahead of the russianrussian. >> why can't it be tied (inaudible). >> later in the conversation, kennedy said i am not that interested in space taken out of context because he's not interested in spending that much on space rapidly. but still a nice quote. there is this historic method of apollo with smooth sailing and

that there was no criticisms and we went ahead to apollo 11, not all true. many said that this is happening and a lot of money spent on it. and criticisms came from multiple sides. president eisenhower called it nuts, and some said that with the soviets miles up with their programs and why are we spending people to the moon. and some communities said wrong priorities and phil abson said this was a misplaced priority. kennedy was sensitive of this, and after review of benefits, cost and schedules. the program was having its own technical management problems and congress cut the budget by

10%. no exactly trouble free. in parallel with this. kennedy returned to a theme that was there from the start. this is what i missed in the first book, he said in the inaugural address let's explore the stars together. and even at that time he met in vienna and put space cooperation on the agenda. the meeting was so tense that the only time it could be brought up was at the lunches hosted by the yunited states. and kennedy brought it up and christoff said no. and kennedy in 1963 worked hard to find ways to reduce tensions.

and first the test ban treat and then he turned to space. and no one remembers what he said on september 20, 1963. >> finally in a field where the united states and the soviet union have a special capacity in the field of space, there is room for new cooperation. for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. i include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. >> others have said that this was a public relations gimmick or a way for kennedy to back out of the lunar landing before the decade is out commitment. i think it was neither. i think it was indeed a fairly

deliberate attempt to see whether cooperation was possible. the problem was that the soviet union at that point did not have a lunar program and had not decided whether to have one. and there was no program to cooperate with. and the intelligence analogies that are classified are interesting readings. they say no evidence of a soviet lunar program, but we think they will probably do it. which is maybe what the intelligence community still does. but the reality in kennedy's presidency, the united states was racing itself, and not the soviet union. russian responded to kennedy in 1963 saying that a soviet and

perhaps an american, maybe female. what a great idea. at the same time there was a major review of the overall both civilian and military space program. which concluded as options as slowing down or canceling apollo. there were people around kennedy that were concerned about the money. didn't feel that apollo was any more necessary and at least in favor of relaxing the end of the decade deadline. and b.o.b. said no reason to do but our current path. it never got to kennedy, the memo stated november 29, he was killed november 22. so what would he have done then

and maybe in his second term. would he can continued to push for cooperation? i think yes. would he continued to turn off the clock? i don't think in '63, maybe later on. would he push ahead with the program? listen to what he said the day before he was killed. >> we have a long way to go, many weeks, months and years. long tedious work lies ahead. there will be set-backs and frustrations and disappoints. there will be as there always are, pressures in this country to do less in this area as so many others. and temptations to do something else, perhaps easier. but this research here must go on. this space effort must go on. the conquest of space must and will go ahead. that much we know, that much we

can say with confidence and conviction. frank o'connor, the irish writer tells in a book when he was a boy, he and his friends made their way across the countryside. and when they came to a wall that seemed to high or too difficult to continue. they took their hats and tossed them over the wall and had no choice but to follow. this station his cast its hat and we have notice choice but to follow. >> we can using more of that today. in the q & a we will talk about kennedy and apollo. let me talk about -- i wanted to take that off. with one comment, people have

kind of idealized john kennedy in many ways but with the space community as a visionary leading the country into space. that's not the image that comes out of my research and this book and what i have shared with you. rather this was a national security policy decision driven by a pragmatic competitive politician that. came to the judgment that the u.s. national interest required the united states to be pre-eminent in space, whether that's a good judgment, is something that we can discuss now, 50 years later. but what is what compelled john kennedy to say, let's go to the moon. [applause] >> our next speaker is roger

launius, and i will bring up his presentation. hopefully. >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone. unlike john, my book is not out yet. but i have one underway that should appear hopefully late this year or the first part of next year, called "after apollo, the legacy of the moon landings." the intent is to focus on the experiences since the moon landings and what they mean. i have several themes i want to walk through and talk about. one thing that is striking and th that i focused on in the book is the moon is a place tied to all

kinds of things, many of them magical. and they remain tied to magical things right up to the present. interesting enough very few people believe in werewolves or full-moon madness but there is evidence there is more bar fights when there is a full moon. and this is part of the heritage that i explore in this particular book. we know that rationals for apollo and the reasons, as john laid out well. it's interesting that many don't appreciate the deep and abiding connection of the apollo effort with the larger cold war objectives. and the attempt to engage in war by another means in which we would be able to test our metal,

vis-a-vis the soviet union, without anyone dying. at least not intentionally. demonstrating the american perilous was scientific and those results are astounding and paul will talk about that later. but it bore no relationship to the rational of why we undertook this program. although we did great things with it. public support for apollo, john mentioned this as well. but there was this misnomer that everyone thought that apollo was a great thing to do. and tracking the public opinion polls in the 60's, and these the numbers you end up with. if you ask the question: is apollo worth the cost, that's the blue arrow and it goes up to mid-40's and back to the 30's. the only point it peaked above

50% is the time of the landing of apollo 11 and continues to go back down. if you ask the question: are we spending too much money on space? that's divorced somewhat from the issue of apollo, there are other things done in space. but it's very much wrapped up in it as well. and the yes answer bounces up and down. but the at point where apollo achieves with the lunar flight in 1968 and in 1972, the yes answer continues to go up that we are spending too much on space. that's when you tie it to money, when you do not tie it to money, that's the yellow line. and do you approve of apollo? yes, we like it. and rarely dips below 50%.

it's not unlike what you see today, people like the shuttle space program and nasa, they just don't want to pay for it. and that's the case during the apollo program as well. and we have this misty-eyed recollection that all was well, and that he had exploration money and didn't have a substantial amount of money. but it was not a great supported program that we like to recollect. if you track the soviet union and their race in space, from 1972 to the later part of the program in '71. what you find until the mid-1960's is an answer that you

see in blue, yes, the soviet union is ahead of the u.s. in space. that flips in the mid-1960's and never at no point after that do we see a lot of suggestion that the public believes that the apollo program or the u.s. is not leading in space by that particular point in time. it does raise the interesting possibility that in a second term. and john mentioned he didn't think that kennedy would have killed the apollo program, i don't believe he would have either or not turn off the clock in 1963. but what about 1964 or 65 and in a second term, and that we are doing well in space. i think it would not be impossible, maybe unlikely, but not sure about that, a decision to say, we don't have to do it

by the end of the decade. we can let it go on a few more years. and we can reduce the budget accordingly. and that's a potential thing, we love what-if questions but no firm answers. the assassination raises the spectrum of these things. and this is the same kind of thing that john was talking about, i believe there was a great potential of continued discussions between the united states and the soviet union. there were already some, and john did not mention of the discussions between nasa and the soviet academy of sciences in 1962. and they did a number of things plus the exchange of data on

cos cosmonauts and could be more on human flights together. what i talking about the human rights of the astronaut score. and we have seen the movie and read the book, and this is a unique group of individuals and became rock stars in this era. and there is a series of attributes about this. and the first at some level we have the astronaut is every man, and he had the manner of being this normal person, when you look at careers of these, most of them went to state universities. and only one was an ivy leaguer.

and that would suggest they come out of a middle-class background. in some cases they are the first in the family to go to college. and they are like a jimmy stewart-type character and speak those kinds of virtues. and the other piece is they are the defenders of the nation, and to do battle of this empire bent on destruction to the united states. and i consider to ancient rome and an individual is called to do these things. and there is this fun-loving nature and they demonstrate that over and over again. the the lower picture you see astronauts on a bob hope television special, they showed up on those a lot.

and then the impersonation of the american ideal and what we think of the best of american manhood. they are finally daredevil, and cool under pressure and able to leap tall buildings and so on. that's the image that the astronauts developed early on and in some cases they are embedded in that image and for nasa to cast them in this approach. and with a lot of support from the media, special magazine that did a lot to create that in the 60's and did to continue the apollo program by far.

and some individuals betrayed all of these attributes and some few, and all in between. but that's an interesting piece to this story and how the astronauts have continued to be viewed in this particular manner. and i will tell you one story about this. i refer to it in the book as the mystique of the flight suit. and you can say it's the mystique of the space suit. when they show up even today at the national space museum where i work, wearing their flight suits. most of the time they are unknown if they are not in their regalion. but once they show up, you would be surprised to see the hundreds of people who have flocked to them. some who have never heard of them, who are 10 years old. but nevertheless are there and getting autographs and this mind-set is steeped in this

tradition that evolved in the 50 years since the first human space flight. and it's still part of the society. i can tell you story and story about this. this gets to that and i will press on from there. i want to tell you the story about the flag on the moon. it was a symbolic activity. there were numerous people in nasa that felt like a lot of the activities engaged on the moon were not that necessary. that the astronauts needed to do certain types of things and not other. but not one that others thought was unimportant was the planting of the flag and the photography of that. it was the american prestige and that was the purpose of apollo in the first place. and the planting of the flag is the point at which you achieve that important decision point in

terms of american inceptualism. and it celebrated and it recoiled around the world as a result. there was a series of discussions of the first moon landing of what flag to plant. it would be the u.s. flag or the u.n. flag and then the talk of texas. and it was discussed and just put up the u.s. flag and discussions in congress and of the flag and not doing of of this stuff, special that u.n. flag. and this image is critical and

one of the five or six emerging from the apollo progress. and it gets replicated in a variety of ways since that time. let me show you a few. "time magazine" of course is there an artist rendition of this, and stamps and posters and commemrative activities. in the upper left the famous mural in the museum of the astronaut planting the flag. and as you walk in and see this, you will see visitors who are crowneded around this with someone taking their photograph. and as often as not, they are not u.s. citizens. it's not about americanism here but of being part of this larger

experience. and then of course, andy warhol that did a succession of these images in 1986, and there are parts of this, commercial uses. and forget about mcdonald's at the moment but i like the mtv flag. and using the nasa image and imposing mtv on it in the early 1980s as that cable station began to broadcast. and while not using that logo on mtv, they still give out the musical awards and here is one with the logo on the moon that is handed out to musicians every year. and we have one in the collection. and, of course, lots of other

things like this, including hideous ties. there is pride and progress associated with all of this apollo imagery. and the images of this have suggested important things. and i have quotes from senator abraham ribbonhof, men can visit the moon and no limit of what they can do. and that's a version of the, and you can fill in the blank, if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we -- whatever. and that has become a very standard trove in american society since the moon landing since we have used it over and over again. and my rendition of that is if we can put a man on the moon,

why can't we put a man on the moon. not everyone sees the humor of that. the flags and footprints of this was part of the s-- symbology ad we have a quote from a comedian that says, if you want to impress us, bring back our flag. someone may do that yet. and apollo through this process was a representation of american process and what it meant to be fo forward looking. and what i want to talk about is one piece of the book, and our whole involvement as a society

and the conspiracy. and the photograph was 1851, and the greenlake military bakers you can't g-- military base and the russians are willing to sell this one. and there are many conspiracies with the moon landing. and we as a society love conspiracy theories, and some of our most historic important events are triggered by ideas by conspiracy. and if someone wants to talk about that down the road, we can do so. about in the terms of the apollo program, people believing that we did it. and this audience probably

doesn't question that, but increasingly so that's a question that people ask and increasingly there is more questioning over time. at the point where the moon landings took place. there were people that questioned it. there are news stories from 1969 and 70, of journalists going out and talking to people. and sometimes walking into a local bar where cliff and norm are sitting on the stools and blabbing about whatever, and do you believe they landed on the moon. and those guys in hollywood, they can fake anything. and sometimes predicated on the lack of understanding of technology. there was a story i tracked from 1970 in which a woman was interviewed in macon, georgia, and said, i know they didn't land on the moon.

and journalist said, how do you know that. and she said, i can't get a television signal from new york city, and how can they land on the moon. not understanding technology, and it's predicated on a naivety and there are a lot of instances of that. my grandfather until the day he died in 1984 insisted they didn't land on the moon. and he was an example of naivety. and he was a farmer and he farmed using horses. never using a tractor. because tractors were just a passing fad. not a guy you want to talk about

high-technology. and there are attempts to create an uncertainty about this. and some things are predicated on attempts to try to make money. others are perhaps more nefarruous in the sense they tried to throw in question in light anything government does. and we see them over and over again. here is an example of a blatant attempt to falsify the history. i will play this video for you, i am sure you are find it humorous. >> i am going to step off the landing now. one small step for man, one giant leap for -- oh, want to do it again? ok. >> this was filmed in sound stage outside of paris in 2004.

it's on moontruth.com, if you want to look at it, knock yourself out. and it suggests this was one of the out-takes, a blooper of the moon landing. but it's a recent recreation that is designed to confuse and conflict people over this issue. and i don't normally think you should spend much time than just humorous activity. and there is a piece that is significant, while we have a public opinion poll that goes back to the 1960s that maybe 5% of the public that questions whether or not we landed on the moon. but i have a friend who is pollster and depending on how you frame the question, i can

get any. and that's not a significant result. but the polls that are broken down by age and something closing 20% of those under the age of 25 questions it. and that's more interesting in my mind and what it's saying about our society as a whole. i will play one more video, some may remember this from 2002. the guy in the light blue jacket is buzz aldrin, and bart is in the light blue jacket, he's a denier and he's done a number of things, and put a bible in front of them and swear you have done it, and they have. and buzz had a unique take how

to do this. after buzz sparred with him a little, this is what happened. >> you are a coward and liar -- you want to see it again? you heard bart saying you are a coward and liar and thief -- and buzz cold-cocked it. i just hope buzz didn't hurt his hand. time is up. ok, so what? i would suggest to you there are four narratives associated with the apollo program that has come up to the present. one is a dominent narrative from the beginning of the american triumph and exceptionalism, and we hear those. and counter narratives that from the left that we misplaced our resources by going to the moon, and could have used it for other

things. and a criticism from the right that these activities should be done through the private sector and that space should be dedicated to national security. and this fourth narrative of conspiracy and with that, i will quit and thank you very much. >> thank you, roger. and our next speaker is paul spudis, and i will bring up his presentation. right now. paul. welcome. >> it's coming, so is christmas. i want to shift gears a little bit. and talk a little about what we got scientifically from apollo. you just heard that apollo was not undertaken for scientific purposes. but despite that it was quite

successful. and i want to describe my science about geology, it's a young science that was invented at the end of the 18th century. and it solidified by the mid-of the 20th century. and it was a collection of fairly dry facts. and a lot of that was developed in a response to a vigorous debate about bible-based creationism. and saying that you can see how earth works and that happened in the past. and if you accept that premise, then you can accept from the rocks. and from geology there is the idea that things could happen from castrophies, and to geologyists in the 50's was a

bad word. and keep in mind that geology developed on the land, and your surface is two-thirds water. and yet there were hints that we may be able to learn about that. they were doing ocean surveys where they were dredging the budg bottom and we had pictures inside in the earth and we had a long way to go. and this geology explanation of how mountain ranges formed, and you had thick sediment and that's how mountain ranges developed. and what does this have to do with the apollo and moon? the moon is less relevance to

geology in space. the moon is something that got in the way when trying to look at the sky. the moon was annoying. and a few renegade scientists challenged that wisdom, they thought that the moon was important in its own right. but they were marginalized and debated about the moon on the sidelines. i put controversies here so you understand those debates. and how are craters formed, and the craters were holes in the ground. were they impact holes or pits caused by asteroids. the surface was like a big bowl, and the moment you land on the moon you sink into quick sand. or lava flows. and the moon was a created body,

and the man on the bottom left believed that the moon was a meteorite and if you went to the moon, you would have an intact specimen of the solar system. and these theories about the moon. and there was a geologist that studied meter creator and discovered it was not an impact crater but steam vent and robert deitz was a geologist that was involved and he helped develop the criteria to help recognize

impact craters on the earth, and that these striated surfaces formed by rock. and there was a published man in 1949 and he got everything about the moon rock. and that the origin and the impact craters and that the moon was covered by a fine layer of the dust. and these men studied the moon part-time. and one guy was different, and that's eugene shoemaker, and he was convinced if his life that men would go to the moon. and in his mind the moon was a body that should be studied by

geologic science, and he decided that he knew how to get the geology community to focus on the moon. first by studied meteor crater, and demonstrated the mechanics responsible for the creation. and he didn't believe that impact craters and where the body collided with the surface and dug the hole. and that's now how they work but gene proved this and documented the physical and chemical effects that is called shot met

m and he mapped by showing if i have a crater with a ray line on the top of the unit, then that crater formed after the ray. and using that technique he was able to deduce a time for the moon. and this was for the first time in the history of science. in the meantime we had the moon race that you heard about. it was largely a race for p.r. stunts and then the soviet flew around the moon, and then we will be the first to soft land on the moon. who would win that battle. it evolved doing things first. obtaining some data that was the first. and after soviet union, this

picture at the top is the first picture of the far side. and it's poor quality but it showed that the far side was significant than the near. and people thought why would the moon have a different far side than the near side. and the americans favored shoemacher and russians focused on getting physical measurements of various things than understanding the geological approach. so apollo went to the moon, and we landed on six spots. and you heard that science was an add-on and one thing that

scientists complain about using a rope and pulley and when they returned the sample container, and attach to a conveyor belt and it was a way to return samples to the moon. yet at the same time despite the fact that science was not an integral part of apollo. what we got from apollo fundamentally changed our view of the way that the solar system works. and it's an amazing story and i want to get back to that and it's revolutionary. and the things that apollo thought us, and we are undergoing revolution. and most didn't know it, and a lot of geologists didn't know it was happen. and there were two primary developments in the 60's. first was advancement of a new

idea of the a dynamic earth. the old idea of static forms and unformatism and new ways were given to surveys by ships and drilling the sea floor and seeing mid-ocean ridges. we got a new theory of the earth, and the spread of dust and continents forming and plate platonics shows us that the earth was a total different body than we imagined. i got my degree in 1972, that theory had just sunk in, i learned about geodeclines as a

geology student. and the other idea was that castrophies happened. and just because you have a process doesn't mean it wasn't be puncteated with a castrophy. and some were impacts and in the 60s was impact with rocks. and that work was to support the information from apo poepollapo. and we studied plateaus and giant floods from cannell scab lands. now these things were strangely disturbing to geologists because they were bible-base creatism and yet they couldn't deny that

the castrophies have a role to play in the geology process. and it had a lot to tell us about the moon, and it's a miniature planet with its own evolution, and that accretion was so fast and it melted the moon, and there was a formation of liquid rock around it. and the mantle was resurfaced. and you had gigantic impacts and big impact craters and some larger than 300,000 across. and in a nutshell you are