libya, that kind of development has led this movement to become more adamant. protestors have raised their level of demands to reforms. the people want to topple the regime. this is not meant as a sign of war necessarily. many people think they should open the front to israel. occupation. it does not make any sense. this is the situation we are in rightthe protests are alive and. i am hoping that more will prove the point when people take to

the street, hopefully in mass numbers again, to show that they are willing to risk their lives in order to fight for freedom and dignity. the army has an important role to play. one of the slogans raised by the protesters, a similar one raised in egypt as well, is that the people and the army are one hand. in a country like syria, with the susteren divide that we have and the fact that the minority community play a key role in t army, that slogan is not naive. that slogan is meant as a reassurance to that community that, if you're looking for guarantees on what will happen when the assads are out of power, you have a lot to say to the army.

no one is asking for them to leave the army. ifnything, we want them to stay. we want the army to play a role as a safeguard of the secular nature of the state, of the stability of the state. and to help ease their transition and protect minority rights and ease the transition from where we are from right now. we realize the army has a really important role to play. we want the army in its current leadership to feel that they are definitely part of the process and realize that their stake in the political future of the country will not change in our push for democracy. we want the political process to be open. we won it, on a day-to-day basis, to be free from army intervention. at the same time, we want the army to be there to get to the stability and to make sure this

process is not dominated by a false element. they want to keep the country is there a private system. we want the army to realize that there is a need to transition from this kind of a system, where we have a family treating the entire country as their own private system, into a country where there are political procses and there are political parties and there is some measure of accountability to the people. we want them to play a role in that transition from a to z. this is where we are right now. we keep assuring that message. we will continue to issue that message. we hope that the army leadership will get it. as a result of all the developments on the ground and the pressures of the internatnal committee -- this is the last point i will make before yielding the floor -- we

have been asked about alternatives. who will come? will they be the muslim brotherhood? is this a suny revolution? it has always been diverse. this is a revolutioby activists. the leaders on the ground in syria are in the decision-making process. all communities are represented. if you look at the damascus declaration, you get an idea of what we're talking about here. many -- there's a similar structure almost emerging, but where people are not joining as representative of their parties, t as independents. we are trying to fuel an alternative not only to the gime, but also to the old traditional parties. this is not a commust party thing. this is not a basque party thing. this is the movement of

independence, hoping that, to lead a transitional process to lead to formation of political parties that will lead to free elections and then, once thes elections happen, we will find out the true nature of the political system. they are all arabs and kurds, christians, and jews. most of the people that died in a protest movement were below the age of 30. we're talking about very young population with a very young movement. now we're talking about a very young coalition. it is called the syrian national initiative for change. most of the leaders inside the country we are not revealing. there are new people emerging that have been elected at the

local level. they are key figures in their communities. outside the country, there are people like me and my colleagues, a lot of other figures whose names will hopefully be provided in a list in the days to come there are spokespeople and out-of-country representatives for the movement. we will hopefully get popular support committees in order to make the representation more transparent and more inclusive of the diversity of the syrian movement outside the country. this is where we are right now. the alternative is being formalized. we are hoping that, with a key role played by the army, the international community also, through sanctions, asset freeze, and potentially also goi to

the international criminal court the oppression will continue, we will continue to accept a transitional scenario and an exit strategy. >> thank you. people have an exceptionally strong interest in what is happening in syria. syria has had for a very long time a powerful effect -- i could say for better or for worse, but it has been mostly for worse. such circumstances usually concentrate the mind and they generally lead to insight and

clarity about what is going on in the neighboring situation. that has been true ofany lebanese. i think it is e especially true of our next speaker. , a journalis originally from south lebanon -- our next speaker, a journalist originally from south lebanon. i forget whether you have an alternative site now. >> it is part of the same side, created just before the first friday of the demonstrations in syria. >> it is also a case that you

can find out what is happening in syria from what going on in lebanon. [laughter] she will be telling us both what is going on in syria and what is going on in lebanon. >> thank you very much. unfortunately, lebanon and syria are linked to a certain extent in a way that we cannot talk today about lebanon without talking about syria. >> move is a little closer. you have a lovely soft voice. >> is this better? see how his blood is reacting -- seeing how hezbollah is reacting and treating certain

incidence that show you that they are marking their territory inside lebanon. there were two incidents that pped after the serious uprising. heollah -- speak up? ok. is this better? hezbollah, two weeks ago, started a campaign in the south lebanon where they forced some shops to stop selling aohol. this is not a big deal. it is not like their closing liquor stores. but, inside the committee, they're telling people that we are the authority. they are marking their territory inside the committee. at the same time, they created a few incidents where news was

leaked to a paper which is a hezbollah-affiliated paper which published the fusefirst news of building on state property. this has been going on since 2006 when the reconstruction started. of course, people started building on state-owned property in the south. >> naturally. >> naturally? well, it was not that obvious before. but, after 2006, it came obvious. as the law was -- hezbollah was due in the reconstruction. why it was released now? they went down to the south to

stop construction on state land. it turned into a war zone. that is after people shot at the isaf. the isf st back. one shot another and then another. why this is happening now and why is hezbollah acting that way? its is the people who attacked the investigators, the women, the people. it is always the people who are at the front creating problems and hezbollah is always leading the ople from behind. this is also anher sign of marking the territory in the south, that this is our state.

these are our rules. you cannot sell alcohol. people are allowed to build on state land. according to the people who were interviewed by reporters, they said these are lands that we pay for with our blood. so they have a feeling that they have the right to the land and the state has nothing to do with the state land inhe south. this is not the property of the state. this kind of marking territory is also -- i think it is a big sign of fear that hezbollah is experiencing now because of what they see in syria. they know that syria will influence its power in lebanon. syria is key to hezbollah and hamas and every organization that is similar in the region. whatever happens in syria will influence lebanon. when it comes to arms smuggling,

it will the felly and flaws that. in lebanon -- it will definitely influence that. in lebanon, if the regime falls or does not fall, syrians in lebanon will be weakened. they cannot influence the government and parliamentary decisions alone. so they are feeling this concern and they definitely want the syrian regime to stay, obviously. they organized this big conference where every single politician in syria and iran who supported the egyptian, a tunisian, and a rainy uprising -- in syria, it is a different

case. they make statements about protecting the regime because the regime protests their existence. many people who are not hard core hezbollah supporters or members, they tend to be more liberal, leftist, communist people. these standards do not make sense anymore. to them, the syrian uprising is genuine. but hezbollah is telling the syrian people that their existence is more important than people'sreedoms, demands, reforms, or lives. the killings that the regime is exercising -- 500 syrians were killed in the streets and much more people were arrested and tortured -- and has allies telling everyone in the region -- and hezbollah is telling

everyone in the region that our existence is much more important an the lives of these people. this is definitely not something they would like to convey, but they have to because they have no choice. another thing that is now becoming very obvious to people in lebanon, for people who are in the middle, like the shia community and the committees, there are people who are hezbollah supporters, but tend to be critical ohezbollah. they are realizing the main thing for the people in lebanon and the people in the region in general, all of the aggression that hezbollah has been using to be in the opposition have not

been as efficient as the peaceful demonstrations that are actually becoming more effective in toppling dictators and regimes. in egypt, especially, it was more efficient. even in syria, the demonstrators -- so far, people are dying, this is the main slogan for the people, peace. i think it is a part of their political strategy. peaceful demonstration is definitely what they want to do. whoever will come and take over in syria, it does not matter. i do not know who it will be, but whoever it is, they will come through peaceful methods and they will carry peaceful methods throughout. i do not think that they will put up many fronts in the area

without peaceful strategy. hezbollah is concerned about that. suddenly, hezbollah finds that peaceful messages are being more effective than the military message. this is the situation of hezbollah now. then there's also the indictments coming hopefully very soon. no one knows when it will be published, but this will also add to the fears of hezbollah. so far, before this year in uprising, hezbollah did not care about the fdl indictments. even if they were to be accused, no one would ever be able to arrest anybody in hezbollah and send them to the hague. hezbollah and syria agreed not to cooperate with the tribunal because it is really an israeli-

american told to defeat hezbollah. now some people are saying -- i read somenalysis saying that whatever happens in syria and even if the regime does not fall or is weakened, they will do anything to protect themselves. they will cooperate with the people who have the capacity to protect the regime, the ternational community, the international organizations. they may cooperate when it comes to the tribunal. maybe, when it comes to their existence as a region, the alliances of hezbollah may be sacrificed for this. when it comes to the tribunal or other matters. hezbollah knows that they are important allies for the syrians, but for their own version, they might be sacrificed.

i would like to add one more thing. there is concern among the syrian people in the region, from lebanon to egypt to tunisia, everywhere, that there is a kind of hypocrisy when it comes to the western stance for syria. people are raising questions like why has the u.s. and the not taken decisive stance is like they have for libya? the west and mainly the u.s. are creating enemies inside the syrian opposition figures. but it know if you agree, have heard many people saying that the u.s. is protecting the

regime because israel wants to maintain this regime and the u.s. wants to help and protect israel. this is definitely not a good thing. the u.s. is not credible enough for the people on the street for the opposition. they do not understand because this is a pro-democracy movement. this is a peaceful movement. it is a dictarship that is an enemy to the u.s. what is going on? something has to be done. something has to change immediately. otherwise, there would be a big problem afterwards when this is over and the u.s. will look like -- will look very hypocritical to everyone in the region. this is major. i think i will conclude now. i am definitely in sure that you have a lot of questions about that. >> thank you very much.

that is a good segue to the remarks of our next speaker. i would just observe that our principal further explanation that we side with our enemies, are hostile to friendsr potential friends -- this is very mysterious at the moment. i think our next speaker may be able to explain this. our next speaker is lee smith. he is a fellow here at the hudson institute and is also an editor with "the weekly standard." he has written with many publications and still does. he publishes practically weekly in "the weekly standard." he also wrote a very fine book

published last year called "the strong horse power politics and the clash of arab civilizations." >> thank you. i do not know if i can is a vital u.s. interests? one of the first statements that

came out of the white house was the president, his first demint i believe, where in his first sentence, he warned the regime against bloodshed. in his next sentence, head-to the opposition to also refrain from violence. -- he also admonish the opposition to refrain from violence. this is astonishing. the fact that the syrians -- the syrian opposition was entirely on our been entirely peaceful and has remained so. the idea that this administration was warning them to avoid bloodshed was remarkable. there were a number of other statements that came out of the administration, some with attributions and some with not appear if you remember what the seetary of state said.

she was quoting lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who described the westernized president assad as reform- minded. then she rolled it back some saying that she did not say that. it is preposterous. it appears that this is still what this administration expects. it is what it keeps talking about. for assad to keep to the reforms that he has promised, as he rolled out tanks into syrian cities. this administrion is still talking about assad reforming, .ha it is preposterous. why is the white house protecting this regime? the reason is -- actually, to be fair, this goes back to the obama administration.

it has lasted for the entire assad regime. if you look at different statements and different officials and envoys and diplomats who visited damascus, who has spoken with this regime since the 1970's, the comeback with these different statements that assad is a man who keeps to his word. what these different promises that the former syrian president supposedly kept to to make u.s. policy making in the region possible is unclear. there are u.s. diplomats who boasted that he would not let them go to the bathroom for hours. it is astonishing what these people believe about this same regime.

we saw a brief respite from ts with the bush administration. this is only after the syrians were believed responsible for hariri.assination of her wear it was at that point that the bush administration believed that this regime was without remedy. nonetheless, the solution was not to go 180 and reach out and tried to engage the of that regime. the reason that they had tried to engage the regime was two reasons. the first reason is because the peace process is central to the obama administration's middle east strategy. in fact, that is their middle east strategy. the point is not just -- where most administrations and policymakers understand the peace process as a way to get

all the other arab stat on board, in a way to get the other arab states -- the obama administration understands that this is the way to go or the head of air brewers and win over the affection of arab and muslim -- over the head of arab rulers and win over the affti of arab and muslim people. the line was to go around the way u.s. policy makers typically work, which is to do business with arab states. of course, this is how diplomacy works. states do business with other states. with the obama cairo speech was about was going over the heads of arab regimes, for better or for worse, and for making the case that the united states would win back or win the affection of the arab and muslim polities, not their regimes but societies. the way to do this was to, not

necessarily win a comprehensive peace between arabs and israelis, b at least to show the good faith of the white house. that is what the peace process is central to the it ministration. it is about reaching out to arab and moslem masses. the city of point to that was, if the -- the subsidiary point to that was, if the administration could further the peace process, it would put some distance between syria and iran. the administration was not insensitive to the fact that iran was washington's key strategic concern. but to deal with iran, that was the instrument that this administration believed was most useful, the peace process. loosening the syrian from the

iranian access, by showing the syrians how much there waso gain by partnering with the united states and from jumping sides as egypt had done with the camp david accords, jumping fr the soviet side to the u.s. side, this is what the u.s. meant to do with the syrians. what we have seen over the last nth and half, since theiddle of march, what we have known all along is that this regime has very significant strategic interests of its own regarding the peace process and regarding its alliance with the iranians. its alliance with the iranians. we saw this during the entirety of the bush administration. people within the beltway. people within -- europeans, arab officials were warning the bush administration, you ed to brg in the syrians. why are you isolating the syrians? engaging the syrians is a bad

idea. someone needs to show the syrians what they can have. they need to be persuaded that it is their best interest to jump sides. the fact that the bush administration is not doing that is a major flaw. that is what the obama administration came to office to do -- to show the syrians it was in their interest to jump sides. what we've seen over the last month and a half, again, is that this rime will not reform. regimes whose snipers are packing off -- picking off its own children are not apt to make peace with the wrong populations, neverind the state of israel. it is preposterous that ts administration is still looking at this regime as capable of reform the reason they are is because there is no other middle east strategy. there is nothing else that they have going on. there is nothg moving on the palestinian track, aside from a hamas-fatah unity deal, which is

also bad for the administration and very bad for the peace process. when that happened, you could see this area track become even more important. -- the syria track become even more important. the administration needs to cut the syrians loose. there is still an infatuation with assad. what are we going to do with this guy shooting his own people in the street? we cannot really do business with them anymore. it is a serious conflict for the administration. i want to say that the same thing happened in june, 2009, after the iranian elections, when the green movement took to the streets and the administration was very slow to react. as someone explained in this the reason yorker,"

that the administrationas so slow to react was because they still wanted to engage the iranians. that is exactly what is going on today with the administration's relationship with damascus. it is still looking for ways to engage the iranians. it is not about -- it is about the administration's middle east strategy. that is all they have right now. at that company i will conclude -- at that, i will conclude an open it up for questions. >> i will make a couple of observations and pose a couple of questions. and our panelists can feel free to poke each other a little bit if they would like. i will maybe start with this la point raised by hanin -- to understand american policy. it is a great mysry, but i would hope that people in

lebanon and syria and elsewhere might be persuaded that it is a mystery. it requires an understanding which we do not exactly have. there are two aspects. one, there has been this extraordinarily long indulgence over many administrations in the notion that syria was, a, very important, and, b, a good and useful and productive relationship with them and for the region as ahole was just around the corner. this predates any apropos views -- it predates any serious expression of the hope to deal

with these things. back to the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, the number of u.s. secretaries of state who stood on the tarmac at damascus airport, in between visits to one or another, it probably sets up kind of a u.s. diplomatic reco. it looks at the syrian regime managed -- as if the syrian regime managed to be which a whole generation or two generations -- bewitch a whole generation of are two generations -- or two generations of american politicians and analysts. this is not a new thing. it's somehowhows, phaps either our particular credibility or some very great

skill on the part of the syrians. i would also say that it has been heightened under this administration for the reason that lee says, "plus." the cairo speech was remarkable, because it was not about the middle east at all, except incidentally. it was really about our lations with the muslim world as a whole, all 1.3 billion muslims. a clear admission of that speech is somehow to restore relationship -- the clear intention of that speech is somehow to restore relationship or create a relationship between us and all the world's muslims. somehow, everything else hands on that or derives from that -- hangs on that or derives from

that. the notion that all the world's tuslims really care abou that. that may seem far too global for people living in downtown beirut, but i think there is a very powerful aside to that. the other thing i want to say, centrality of syria is a claim to dogma in almost every account of events in the middle east, and it is repeated endlessly in the newspaper accounts. the centrality of syria, the importance of stability in syria, so forth. if you open the pages of the papers today, you will see those phrases used. the question of would pose is,

how central is syria? if it is so central to the region, what is the region going to do with regard to syria? their are two large players in the region, besides outside -- there are two aren't players in the region, besides outside forces -- there are two large players in the region, besides outside forces. let me start from one particular situation. the situation in daraa. over the past -- that is where it began. that is where the regime seems to think it could end it. daraa is not a village, but it's only 75,000 people. it is not that far from

damascus, but it is not -- it is on the border. it is notn the heartland of syria. white a jazz is taken on so much importance -- why has thi taken on so much importance? why have they decided to bring tan? it is horrible enough when they're shooting people with rifles and machine guns, but tanks? why? what is their thinking and what is the thinking of the neighbors? >> i will attempt to answer that question about dar. it is really heartbing to watch the situation unfold in daraa, and to watch the international community failed to come up with a condemnation of the events there. years ago, on a small tv program, i was interviewed about syria and the change and whher

it would happen or not. i said thaone day, we will be able to take to the seets and by peacefully for our freedom. e main goal be for us to shed light on the development so that we can prevent another hamas. hamas is a city in 1982 that was destroyed by assad forces because they tried to crush a rebellion in the city. there were about 200 armed people. they endedp destroying about half of the city and killing 30,000 people. we agree that these are terrorists. no one argued that at the time and no one disputed that at the time. killing 30,000 people to stop 200 terrorists is really not what the situation would

warrant. is the recipe the regime has been using from the beginning. when bashar al-assad spoke about infiltrators, to us, it immediately ran all sorts of alarm bells. this is exactly what he was afraid of -- throwing is accusation, ending up with a situation like this, the government moving full force against the resistance, justifying it like this again. we're clear from the beginning to try to document the type of movement on the streets to show that they are unarmed protesters and to show that they come from different backgrounds, and to be very clear about getting the information out as quickly as possible, so that the international communitrealized what was happening and realised the true nature of the movement, and not fa into the trap of regime rhetoric.

of course, we cannot mak the blind see. there are some people who want to see assad as a reformer. i do not think we can make them see. this is a situation that is behind us. >> since -- they may not be willingly blind. they mean just need an ophthalmologist. >> unfortunately, the ophthalmologist seems to need an ophthalmologist at this stage. we're talking about the serious situation in daraa, a humanitarian situation. the city has been under siege for several weeks. over the last week, the siege was cplete -- no electricity, no food or water, no medical supplies. tanks invading. artillery shells. gunfire. bodies in the streets. we can no longer get videos out

of this city. when there is no electricity, you cannot charge your cameras or your cell phones, which were used to take many of these imag we have seen. there are logistic problems along these lines, but we still get some images now and then, and we can still communicate sometimes with some eyewitnesses on the ground. we get really horrifying tales. it is very difficult to corroborate everything. on the basis of what has happened before, we can say that the situation definitely is scary. the fact that you might be witnessing an massacre -- a massacre while we continue debating the fine points of what american ideological interests are is somewhat disturbing. >> the proper reference point

here is nearly 30 years ago. they are preparing another hamas as a demonstration lesson. >> i think they chose daraa because it could be isolated easily they want to send a message to the rest of the syrian population. it is interesting to see the videos where the protesters are throwing stones and rocks at the tanks. they're not exactly being cowed. it is interesting to realize that, even as this intervention has taken place and hundreds of arrests have happened in the suburbs of damascus, the protest moment continues. people are protesting in other suburbs where the security presence is lightened because of

over commitment elsewhere. people are still willing to defy him. even when besieged by the army, they say, if the army wants to come, we will present our best. the majority of the population are extremely young. this movement is based on youth. the young people, when they break the barrier of fear, they can be irrational about it. th will not be afraid of martyrdom, basically. martyrdom is a very emotional part of our culture. once it gets endorsed, everybody has a certain detachment, emotional thing for martyrdom. we are tired of being lied to. when a syrian official comes out

and says there are infiltrators and armed gangs, the position deepens and hardens. our demands as the late. you are more people added to the blacklist -- our demands escalate. you have more people added to e blacklist. we cannot stand it. it will not be contained. it is quite did for a few weeks or days, it will be inflamed again -- quieted down for a few weeks or days, it will be inflamed again. this will end the way you wanted to end, with the regime toppled, with bashar al-assad in prison or in london, in a flat, attending royal weddings. there is no other solution. bashar al-assad asked to go. -- has to go. that is it.

>> thank y. is is great. i would like to go back to the first question. why is serious central -- syria central? there is something everyone should take into consideration and actively considered. you are talkg about the peace process and why the u.s. wants or might be expecting syria to be part of the peace process. i do not think syria would be interested in peace for a very obvious reason for me. i do not know if you will agree with me. i think conflict is very important in projecting the reme -- protecting and maintaining the regime. they survive on conflict. the emergency law allowed the regime to arrest people, to create a state of fear where everyone was not allowed to act

freely -- is not allowed to act eely. the state emergency is based on complex. that is why they support costs -- hamas. that is why they support the iranians. i do not think the regime is interested in peace. this is someone that everyone should reconsider. think about whether syria is tea or not. it is keep it is, -- it is key to islam. it is definite important as an ally. we either want to play a major role in the region, and they have -- they either want to play a major role in the region, and they have, but they are not now, or they are just wanting to keep some bargaining chips for negotiation. that is it. i do not think they can actually use these chips anymore.

that is my point of view. >> i think that probably true. it is actually forgotten that there was a deal proposed tween israel and syria, from which the assad's with true -- assad's withdrew. they never wanted to settle because of the advantages of having the conflict continue. >> i entirely agree with you, hanin. it is one of the problems that neither this administration or many before it, who have tried to drag syria into the process, understood. bring syria to the table only strengthens their hand -- bringing syria to the table only strengths their hand. it gives them prestige. we have been talking about this a lot. ammar and hillel, maybe someone

in the audience bono -- my question over the last few weeks has been, why do we continue to talk about what happens after this? there are people in this city who should contemplate this. the syrian regime, the assad regime has painted itself as an adversary of the united states. it helps to facilitate the flow of islamist fighters into iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops -- killing hundreds, thousands of u.s. troops and killing allies. this is clearly an enemy of the united states. why do we care what happens after? it is not clear to me when people say -- of course, i believe it is true that things can always be worse. no one has made a good case to

me wha can be worse than this particular regime. at least two more secret nuclear facilities with chemical warheads pointed at tel aviv, with its support for hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist outfits, with its alliance with iran, what could possibly look worse? a regime that really gets to the nuclear bomb? that actually fires those warheads o israel? the only thing that has restrained the mask is has been outside pressure on damascus -- has restrained damascus is outside pressure on damascus. >> this is one of the problems. for a long time, asked about the alternatives, people were paintings and areashat the situation would be worse and worse -- people were painting

scenarios that the situation would be worse and worse. i have been working in syria for many years as an activist. among my colleagues, i am not going to necessarily be elected, but i am a voice. [unintelligible] you know, considering his background. it is really -- they seem to identify as a christian syrian -- me as a christian sian. it is really ridiculous to have toefend ourselves at this stage. what is more ridiculous is that about thee ask me,

protests. civil ciety has been decimated. the only place we can breathe freely, relatively, is the mosque. all ima are appointed by the state and they have to sort of total line of the state. those who do not our immediate a removed or go through the security hell that -- are immediately removed or go through a security hell. we -- it seems there is a kind of craziness going aroun that, if you are religious in any way, shape, or form, you are an extremist, especially if you are islam. the jority of the people are

religious, with their christian, muslim, sunni, shia -- thyey are christian, muslim, sunni, shia. a liberal like me wouldish the situation otherwise. religiosity is still an important part of the fabric of arab societies. let us not conclude religiosity is extremist. this is something people have to really understand. if you're looking for alternatives to assad, the alternives have been staring in your face for years -- the dissidents, the opposition, the moderates, the liberals -- they have a very rational tone that is propeace, pro-west.

many people say this is tactical and will change once someone comes to power. for 10 years, we have been consistent in our message. our own vested interest lies in developing our country and building universities, not to get into war with israel. we are not capable of waging that kind of a war at the risk of the future of our country and at the risk of more and more destruction to the next generation. we're not interested in that. there are diplomatic means for getting this done. syrian diplomacy can work. at a last-minute, they balked. we won't balk. we want -- we are committed to the diplomatic process. we want to get this.

we have support in the international community. we know a lot of israelis want to get us back. we are not worried about that. what we're worried about is developi our country. we're worried about getting rid of the only obstacle in our path towards a better future, which is this small slice of people that use a sectarianism, conflict -- uses sectarianism and conflict to keep themselves in power. the days of assad are numbered. people need to snap out of it. i do not know how delusional they will continue to be after all these attempts to make them see the light. you have people being killed in cold blood in the streets. they are killing children, for crying out loud, openly.

that has been recorded very clearly for everyone to see. no one is disputing the veracity of these individuals. evybody says this is true. we know it is happening. we are sorry. well, snap out of it. we wanted to go beyond sorry. we want you to embrace the alternative. >> what to the people in the administration speak to you? >> i have not had a single meeting with an administration official since obama came to office. there were some people who did. the language so far has been nsistent with what you have seen with the statements out of the white house. we are aware of the situation. we condemn violence. we hope assad will reform. it is annoying. >> we have a technical definition for american action,

greeted largely through the libyan crisis, which is it -- created largely through the libyan crisis, which is a humanitarian crisis. it is killing children ordinarily an element of that -- i am wondering, is killing children ordinarily an element of that? >> i would ierpret that as a green light to avoid using fixed-winged aircraft. if use around towns with tanks, then that is fine -- you surround towns with tanks, then that is fine. >> they used shoppers already in the conflict in -- choppers already in the conflict in daraa. we have had reports of bombardments. i would not put it past them.

they got into a situation where the international community, especially after the failure to issue a clear indictment, that they feel encouraged, they feel empowered to do anything they want. unless the international community adopts a language of sanctions and implements sanctions against by charles ko'd and his regime -- against bashar al-assad and his regime -- >> we hear that there will be another -- that there will be sanctions that will focus not on assad. >> i would not agree. i also do not see the u.s. having much impact by itself at this stage. the eu is important.

here is where the money is, -- europe is where the money is, the bank accounts, deutsche bank, whatever. we have been investigating that for a while. an asset freeze by europeans and sanctions by europeans would definitely have an impact on the situation. >> to you guys know exactly where the money is? -- and do you guys know exactly where the money is? >> we have a lot of information. >> have you published that information? >> no. >> would you? [laughter] >> i'm game. >> show people what is going on. show them where the money is. >> i am ok with the idea. [laughter] >> let me return a little bit to the subject of lebanon.

on the issue of what might succeed, as a person known to worry about the influence of the muslim brotherhood in various places, i must confess one place i do not is in syria. that is for relish -- a rather cruel reason. what happened 30 years ago was that the regime suppressed islam. far moreffectively than anyone else has ever done, certainly more effectively than the egyptians. therefore, if one does not have to worry about that, one has assad to thank. it is not a current issue. the issue on lebanon -- if i understood you, in a different context, you had suggested that

lebanon is the bellwether for syria and that signs were promising for syria. is this because hezbollah is frighten? well-known scout leaders -- calculators oflat interest are withdrawing their support from syria. that is a promising sign. as far as lebanon itself is concerned, should there be a regime cnge in syria, assad falls, let's say there is a regime which is broadly representative of the divisions within the country, whciich

ammar described, important communities of various religions, what blessings or curses might that bring to lebanon, in your opinion? >> let me start with the bad news, then i will get to the good news. in my opinion, many people i lebanon are concerned about th reaction if this regime reaches the threshold or is about to fall, when it becomes a matter of existence for the regime and for hezbollah. there are many concerns that something might happen in lebanon in order to divert attention or to link lebanon to syria, and some people also are afraid that the front between

hezbollah and israel might be opened. i think it is too early for this to happen, because, so far, is not necessary. has a lot does not want to initiate a war with israel now -- hezbollah does not want to initiate a war with israel now for the simple reason that they cannot -- they can maintain their support base as long as they are protecting their community. initiating award does not protect their mmunity -- a war does not protect their community. their communities do not want another war. they might aept another war if israel started it. it has a law initiates -- if hezbollah and she is, that is the end of all community support -- if hezbollah initiates it, that is the end of all community support.

there are very aware of that. many people do not want another -- they are very aware of that. many people do not want another war. i do not think the conflict would actually divert attention. a clash between hezbollah and other factions -- there is no equal rights. this is far fetched. theirthey have to weigh existence, hezbollah, vis a vis their community support, they might actually do something dangerous. they would have to be pushed to the extreme to do that. so far, i do not think that is the situation. also, something happened with hamas, a very similar scenario when they launched rockets and bombs to the -- and bombed the

bus. this was also an attempt to divert attention from syria. it did not work. israel did not rct the way they were probably expected to react. this is another reason i do not think it will happen in lebanon. the goo -- we'll go now to the good news. i really believe that a chance within -- a change within the syrian regime, a weakened regime, or the fall of the regime, would weaken hezbollah, would weaken its allies, and that would be a boost for others who hav not interfered in other ways. they are getting a lot of accusations by the regime and by hezbollah of funding and sending arms to others.

i think it is a good idea not to do anything right now. this is dangerous. you cannot make strong statements unless you are a journalist. and it is ok. [laughter] >> i'm not sure it is safe for journalists, either. >> it is not. but jonalists are expressing opinions. as a politician, it is very critical. i think that it is good for some not to make strong statements. they are aware that any regime change will definitely be a boost. the ideal scenario would be a liberal government with liberal intellectual activists. even if that inot the case.

even if it is more sunni, not necessarily muslim brotherhood -- i do not believe that the muslim brotherhood will be the alternative. no matter what, it is better than this regime for anyone in lebanon. >> right here? by the way, please identify yourself. >> thank you to our panelists. this is very interesting. i am from the lebanon foundation. i want to bring you back to the administration and its policy. i want to say that i agree with a lot of what has been described here. you do not need to take my word for it. you simply need to read the front page of "the new york times" an"the washington post." do any of you believe that -- last week, there was a different tipping point.an

there is the announcement of possible designation by the administration, more willingness to see this go to the u.n. security council in geneva. have we reached the point where the administration is getting on board and head of the game, or at least catching up -- getting onboard ahead of the game or at hing up?tcin there are some who have been relatively quiet on what is happening. has that changed since the start? >> that is a great question.

have we gone through a tipping point? it is hard to say. one thing that we keep seeing coming out in comments from the administration -- and they say, we do not ow how much leverage we have. we feel our leverage is limited. i think that is less representative of how much leverage the administration really has, than how much the administration has already limited itself. if you read this article in the "new yorker" about leading from behind, if the government perceives its role, its international role as leading from behind, it is, by definition, going to perceive itself as limited in the amount of leverage it can exercise. i would like to think it is otherwise. i do not know exactly how it plays out. i am not sure how much the

administration is responding to what is actually happening in syria from day to day or how much it is responding to domestic criticism, or how the the rest of the international community -- or how the rest of the international community is moving. these sanctions were supposed to come up before tomorrow, before friday, but, as far as i know, they havnobeen announced yet. >> if there was going to be a turning public that would lead to something very powerful -- turning point that would lead to something very powerful, the clearest sign would be for us to go to the europeans and s, we need you -- that would be leading from bind, but it would be leading. the leverage that can be supplied by sanctions seems to be more conctrated in the

hands of the europeans. >> i agree. what i want to see from his administration is a clear criticism of assad's own handling of the situation. do not keep him above the fray. he is the problem. he is the heart of the problem. i want to see a clear description of the regime as being family based, rather than tiptoeing around it. >> whether it is the regime itself, whether it is the syrian ambassador to washington -- everyone should get the idea that the united states is no longer going to goingthat -- going to lend that regime prestige. canink the more clear thit be and the more clearly the regime gets the picture, this is where the united states is -- >> once that is formulated by

the united states, that the problem is with assad and the way he is handling this, that this is no longer acceptable, that this kind of violence is not acceptable at all, and not be equitable -- equivocable about this -- we need to have that kind of clarity on this situation. frankly, i do not think assad gets how much trouble he is in . -- in. until you have ear sanctions, -- you can implement sanctions that could really hurt the assad's, without having to go to the un. the u.n. might be a tough nut to

crack because of the syrian centrality and whatever, which still plays in the minds of many politicians around the world. they will not taken issue on the position. it is really -- i think the united nations security council is aware of the situation. there will have irresolution at they will have a resolution at some point. the european union, in cooperation with the united states, could do a lot of damage to the assad's. >> i would like to answer. >> doug, hold on to your question. >> quickly, about lebanese newspapers and media outlets -- a lot of lebanese media outlets are owned and funded b

politicians. they are being very quiet. thoseho are affilted with a party or politician. there are others, especially independent websites like ours, and regnal papers and tv who are takin ga -- who are taking a stand. we are writing a lot about syria. >> why don't you talk about the now syria site? >> we have written editorials and pieces. the main thing on the web site is a -- website is a live blog on syria, constant, minute-by- minute news in english.

we translate everything. most of the youtube videos and twitter coming from syria. writing opinions is one thing. coverage is something else. you have different news. when it comes to news, tv is politically-affiliated -- the tv that is politically-affiliated is not doing the coverage. there are others providing more coverage. there are some who are not providing as much as regional tv, like bbc arabic and al

jazeera. these regional and international channels, sometimes newspapers, are doing the coverage. it is interesting to watch. 1- days -- only 10 days ago, al jazeera changed its views. people were very upset with al jazeera. it was all over facebook. they were calling for al jazeera to do the coverage, because they know they are aware, like everyone else in the region, when al jazeera decides to criticize the regime, the regime will be toppled. whether we like it or agree with thit, it is true. it is very popular. it is the most popular media outlet in the region. when al jazeera picks up the

uprising, it is a huge help. it is funny. at the beginning, for four weeks, almost impotent. something changed. they moved to the other side. i am sure you realize. it is interesting to watch out jazeera. >> what is the website again? >> nowlebanon.com. >> revealing how the regime actually works -- of jazeera has been accused of smuggling hallucinogens to the -- to syria. there are major reports of crackdowns with of jazeera logos -- with bags and al jazeera logos on them. there was a cop attacked by

protesters. he said bbc aric was there and urged the protesters on. apparently bbc arabic has taken an active part in this. this is showing the kind of coverage that we get, the kind of propaganda that is being put out. >> so, despite -- i am a senior fellow here at the hudson institute. there were clear divisions within europe on attitudes toward intervention. i would be interested in whatever like you could shed -- thet you could shed ion attitudes in europe right now toward syria.

are any of the officials in europe inclined to take the a device that -- the advice that ammar abdulhamid offered about ways to pressure the syrian government? >> i am here in the united states. i am more engaged with the europeans than i am with the administration on this issue. there seems to be a lot of interest. we have had several phone chats and conversations with officials in the european countries who are interested in knowing what we advise and what we suggest. >> are there some countries -- some countries who are very sympathetic to intervention in libya. others are not. some are entirely opposed. >> the french and the chairma

have been very critical -- german have been very critical, and clearly so. have placed importance sanctions -- they should place important sanctions on the regime. we will see if they can get a consensus. there has been soft language coming out of the german, french, and dutch officials. i know that sanctions are being seriously considered. if we can add the wake of the united states, process -- the process will move more quickly and the sanctions will be tougher. >> yes? >> thank you. joe with the lebanese formation center. i think, to what lee said about

understanding that our interest is in the removal of the assad regime, the fact is that this administration [uninllible] it is important to the president and administration to have multilateral action. the doctor out multilateral sanctions -- they talk about multilateral sanctions. multilateralism would involve the arab regime. where tdo the arab states, like qatar and turkey, stand? >> hanin, do you want to -- >> sure. it is a great question. nobody knows, actually, where

these countries stand now. qatar -- you can sense a change when you look at al jazeera. they're more proactive. turkey has just been advising the regime, bringing them books on reform. [laughter] what about our great ideas on how to run a country? that is it so far. saudi arabia is also quiet so far. i think they might take a different stance if they see the u.s. taking a different stance. they do not want to be alone on this. if you are in saudi arabia, you do not want to lead on this. syria is more nearby than anyone else. you have iraq between syria and saudi arabia. they do not want to complicate

things, but they might follow the lead. i am sure another regime would benefit saudi arabia. the rest of the gulf states are in the same position. lebanon is in a very vulnerabl position. no one can say or do anything. >> if turkey took a vigorous role, it might actually be able to do sething. >> i believe so. >> qatar's posion is more like neutrality at this stage. you can feel, in the coverage, a sense of aloofness. when you look at the egyptn situation, they were part of the revolution. here they are trying to be

"objective." of talking about how th jazeera threw them out of syria -- -- talking about how al jazeera threw them out of at must have they come from the top. >> the situation with al jazeera is related to [unintelligible] as a result, assad demanded an apology from the emir. it was insulting in the way he handled it, even though the government was willing to sell mi-apologize.

he tells us what to do. i think the [unintelligible] yesterday, there was a statement by a qatar official saying, we are ok with the regime, bute are neutral. >> this should be a syrian solution. >> it is the neutron eddy. saudi arabia -- i do not think they want to see change. they prefer the status quo. the saudis are difficult to theonbo -- to get onboard for any kind of change. if the u.s. was onboard, they might realize they should get onboard.

turkey's role is important. this is the case for erdogan and his party to show their regional productivity. for a long time, there were trying to be moderator's -- they were trying to be moderators. now they are being tested. there was a conference held in istanbul a couple of days ago by turkish parties. there was a lot of opposition. there was kurdish and libearl ral opposition. the event was given a lot of noise. for now, turkey is hedging its bets as assad emerging as

some kind of reformer. they seem to be uer the same delusion that the obama administration is under. i do not think they will stay under that delusion. what happens then? will they stand by? if the reports -- this could become a chaotic situation. turkey's position on this will be very important. to me,t seem slike er -- seems like erdogan has committed himself to be so much on the side of reform and change, that for him to backpedal will be a defeat in turkish political terms. that might impact his own party

in upcoming elections. he is on the spot right now as far as the syrian situation is concerned, unless he takes a clear line that is commensurate with the stations -- statements he is making. >> thank you very much. i think we're almost out of time. i want to thank you for this very interesting discussion of an extremely dangerous and sad situation. i invite everyone here to thank our guests for this discussion. [applause]

>> the, the black-tie dinner, featuring obama and seth meyers. featuring your comments. live on c-span. follow along with our video player. with live hd video. >> a look at iowa and new hampshire. with how the candidates are preparing for the caucases. >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals instead of

words. i write paragraphs at images. >> >> the great thing about being a journalist is the variety we get to experience. >> guzy will talk more about her craft on sunday's "q and a." one of the many shows online at cspan.org/podcast. >> now, howard schmidt, the special assistant to the president. he spoke at a global security summit. this is about 25 minutes. >> thank you very much for the kind introduction. thanks to all of you for letting me participate in this

event. it is wonderful to see everyone gathered in one place to look at these issues that would benefit from and recognize that there are many challenges when it comes to security and privacy right now. my comments will be about one piece of this, and we will be in better positions to help society and help commerce, helping the government, in working on a common problem, and i will talk about the national strategy, and the identities in cyberspace. anyone here who has ever been in government, there is no shortage of acronyms. there are seven or eight

different things, like mstat, but this is the mstic. for those not familiar with my office, shortly after being inaugurated -- they put me in charge of cyber security. and they still have this and the national security council. this is one of the key things that really set this aside. any of the efforts taking place out there, this was encompassing the bookends that affect the economy, jobs, and alsoesses, but they're national security and law enforcement and public safety issues that we deal with. the composition of the office is just as unique as the title itself within the government. this is comprised of experts from across the government,

homeland security and the department of defense. the department of justice. we have a great number of people bring levels of expertise. the one thing that this gives us as the needs change, as these products, policies are developing, we have the ability to bring in new talent to deal with new challenges. and as we have seen in the last 15 months, we actually do have life cycles for projects. the projects are created and we get the things necessary to create the policy, and then we move on to the next issue. it does not involve the creation of yet another series of memos, as we have received in this area. sometimes you are judged on the number that come out and not much work -- not how much work

that you actually accomplish. we will move on creating strategies and executing on banks. this is a nice segue for a deeper discussion about the national strategy. when we made this announcement on april 15, at the u.s. chamber of commerce of that, for the adviser to the president on the economy, there was a bigger put people there we have to talk about the national strategy for trusting and entities in cyberspace. this may be one of the best ones going. and the fact that this was led by some of the works that the national institute of standards and technology -- this is a true indicator of how important that this is to the economy and businesses as well as national security.

but when we convened at the u.s. chamber, with the private sector in attendance, it showed very clearly that this is not a government-led effort. working with the private sector creates the system -- this is the key to its success. many of you participate in some form or fashion with what considered to be an open process, as we went through with the idea of creating some trusted identity in cyberspace, last summer. getting feedback from many people in civil liberties and day to day citizens, to look at , what is it that we need to put together as a strategy, and once we create this, who do we hand this off to to execute? what does this mean and what is

this trusted identity in cyberspace? i had a meeting with a typical question and answer session, and the question was, how many people have only one idea that they have to match? and then, everyone chuckled. and then we got the five were less and then they were laughing. we went to 10-15, and like many of us, -- we are often managing 20 or more ids and passwords. if you think about beginning to a normal day, this is a little bit abnormal but someone indicative, you get up to check in on something that came up overnight, i am doing something that requires me to log in using this password.

and today happens to be the day that your pay statement comes out, you have to make certain that this worked out fine. you do this with the id and password, and these are difficult to remember. we have a tendency to use the same ones over and over again, notwithstanding all the experts saying, did not do this. we consolidate one, and if someone compromises this -- they can read the financial news service. you could use is to empty someone's bank account. and this becomes problematic. you also have to fully understand that in today's environment, until we moved to a place where the computer systems are better at configurating themselves, we

will continue to be at risk from somebody winding up with something in a computer system that would take the best intentions that we had, relative to the strong passwords, and make this worthless if someone captures this. when we look at this, this is a challenge to deal with. the system that we developed that does here, this is rich and robust and we have unbelievable accomplishments that the technology has given us. we also recognize that the threat factors, the factors that we see out there, these have changed as well. at one time, the whole issue was going after the university networks. but what happened is, we have made private sector investments to build the resources across there. and as we move everything behind

a firewall, distributing the information, with these networks and the ability for the customers to come into the network, for these transactions -- we also got better about protecting us. there have been some incidents that took place, where there have been successful intrusions. we make them work better and then we move on. what happens to the adversaries to recognize that this is not as easy as it used to be to go after the big networks? the easy target is the end user. any of us who have tried to do this -- we understand that education and training is part of what we have to do. we should never be putting the end user in a position where he or she has to decide if this e- mail about 2011 health benefits is protected?

these things are based on the user id and passwords to get access to the corporate network , or to give access to private information out there, of the financial value. we start to look at the spectrum, and then we look at the end user. invariably, people are using a weaker password. 46% of people never change the password, and others use the same password across multiple web sites. including those with financial value. these are the things that we are looking into working on. when you start to look at the cost for the individuals, and i think that we can go out with a business perspective to look at the help desk, dealing with

those sorts of things. if you look at the end user, the averages between $4,000.2000 dollars to recover from an incident in which the credit card was compromised, or the identity was stolen because of the online that. and we have to end up accounting for this some way. these things did not happen in a vacuum and they have costs associated with them. we have the estimates of what this costs us, as the end users. in the end, we can do a lot of things to make we're doing more effective. it was estimated in a report from 2006 until 2008 alone, if

you look at the increase on commerce since 2008, this has been significant. the estimate was about $17 billion lost to the economy. none of us want to see this sustained. so where will we go with this? the first and now want to see is an environment where i can go to a local store, and i can get my own identity within -- with in- person proofing, or something that just says, i am not a dog and here are my credit card numbers. i also have the ability to use this in different formats. if this is something on a global device, a soft-spoken or hard token, i want to have a choice based on my level of concern, and based on these kinds of transactions i carry. that choice has to be out there.

i also use my computer to interact with other computers. you look at the things we are doing today, when we have machine authentication. but there is no intervention at all. i want a computer acting on my behalf to be acting on my behalf and not something that someone has programmed into this that is compromised. why go to my e-mail account, i can do something with those services at that moment. and then i am able to take out my mobile device, and then have six digits with the one-time password. and even if my computer is compromised, if we build the system correctly, and if these are somehow compromised, this does not give someone the

advantage over hijacking my transactions in the future. this is a tough thing to do and there will have to be a development of new technologies. but we believe, collectively, the benefits of creating this network is going to outweigh any of the learning processes we need to go through. we also need to make certain that this is convenient for people, because this does not work if i only use this for one environment. i look back to my own family members, when i had a key chain full of little things i stand when i go to the grocery store, to make certain that we receive the benefits for marketing, to customize things the way that we want to do them. to actually enhance this, so

that when -- when we look at the things that we will do, we replace the insecure password. but as we develop this we look to improve privacy. everyone that has ever interacted with the financial transaction that needs to take place on a recurring basis, and not because of my work that i have done over the years, i say, why do you need all of this information? what are you going to do with this and how long will you keep this. al is this going to be protected? and so often, the answer is, this is just a policy. developing a system that builds on the basic information and privacy principles that -- they have come out with is what we have to start looking at. if i want to buy something, i

want to have the ability to validate that this is really me and i am credit worthy, that every month i will bill you this amount and i agree to this. and that is all that they need to do. and if we design the system correctly, if i said i will no longer do business with this company were they go out of business or whatever the circumstances may be, i have a level of confidence that the information that they have will no longer be accessible to anybody. and i can say, the i am closing the account and all the information comes back to me. this is going to be a major part of this. one thing i have asked many people here is to help to build the system. we have built a system and we have concerns about the privacy and has been principal.

this gives us the ability to still build something and accomplice the privacy enhanced the things we have been talking about. the other part of this strategy, and the execution of this -- this is not mandatory. this is not a driver's license on the internet. people cannot into this if they choose. if i want to criticize products, i still have the ability to do this with the level of anonymity that i have today. this is critical to make certain that we preserve this. we have to make certain that we, as the government say -- this is not going to become something that is not enhanced in privacy -- but also making certain that we understand as we build this system, that the private sector disrespecting us as well.

and if i want to do interaction with the company, totally anonymous, i should not be pigeonholed into a corner. and once again, this will be a challenge. we have to focus on that as we move forward. and then we look at the great advances that we are having, if this is the health initiative -- look at the extensions of the national strategy to move into this area as well. anyone with the ability on this device to check the alarm system at home, or any of the things that the multiple devices give us, imagine doing this in a more secure manner, or you don't have to worry about somebody turning off your electricity when you are on vacation. this has been built into the ecosystem. and once again, the private

sector is the place to have this take place. the government -- we will benefit as the government. i hear this from some agencies, when people ask why they cannot look at any of the information from the day-to-day business with the government? the answer i get is, we are not certain that this is you. there is no mechanism from which to do this identity. but still this with the government, that the department of defense, we have these cards. there was a memo that went out, that we will require for these to be used. this will be the way that we do business, internally. this choice has to be there and it has to exist.

this has to be something that people who are not knowledgeable of technology will use, this is something they'll be comfortable using. and there is no crowd the better understands this, and then the people in this room. i remember my personal experience. like many of us during that time, i would have to go to the bank and stand in line with paychecks from the city, so not only was this an inconvenience, you build a couple of minutes in line to cash a paycheck, but this also created new risk. so when the first bank card came out of me to go to one machine, a couple of miles away from where i was and get the $25 out of there, this was great.

but it was better when this was federated. i could go to another place and do the same thing. we continue to work on security features, we continue to work on preventing fraud. look at what we're getting this year. we have to build a system that brings us -- gives us the same capabilities in a more secure manner that enhances privacy. taking into account the lessons that we have learned. one conversation we had not too long ago was about green chip technology. this is a way that this could be compromised. let's make certain that the next generation bills this out of there. the middle tax will not be successful. we have a proximity reader that can basically use this to compliment -- compromise. this is what we have to look at

and this is what we want the private sector to lead. not just the capabilities but the other pieces of this as well. give us the ability to do this. what i asked today is, you have helped us to get where we are with the strategy we have today. but this is only part of what we need. we need for you to help execute with this. greeting strategy gives us focus, but we really have to do is execute on these things. we look for your leadership, your technologies, and we have to finish this job. we had a strategy, and a lot of the meetings about this. but we do not have any concrete proof that we have made progress.

i am happy to say that the national program office already has some pilots teed up to make this real. this includes the state and local governments, and the private sector. we need the investments and the dedication to say that we will make this better. we all benefit from this. and if you look at the data that my colleagues from commerce have talked about, the last holiday shopping season, we had an increase of $23.70 billion increase in online sales during this season. for those of you in this area, you recognize that this winter was not like last winter. trying to go out and buy some shoes that you could wear in a couple of feet of snow, you could not do this. the stores were closed.

but we can do this on line. the capabilities that we can continue to have, the opportunities we have as an economy. i think of the places i have been around the world. although you cannot go down there regularly, you have the ability to get a different pair of shoes delivered. the benefits are great, if we do this right. to move this forward, there are three workshops that are planned, over at the department of commerce. we're looking to bring in researchers, the nonprofits, the people who should care and do care about this issue. the specific workshops are planned, because there has to be a good governance model in place. we don't want someone who says to give us all the personal information. i will bring you a good

identity. and then we have a bigger problem. we will make certain there is a process in place. how do we make certain that the companies are trusted. how do we know the things we care about my privacy prospective are built into this. and then we look specifically at the privacy. this is -- the chance to get this right. so what are the various technologies that not only exist today, but the thing that is there in someone's brain right now, or someone's white board in their office, this has yet to become an engineering or design piece that would help move us forward on this. part of the pri -- purpose of these workshops is to get some consensus around what is really important, and how we move this forward. what are these investments that we need to make from the private

sector? there is a web site set up, you can go to whitehouse.com. i mean whitehouse.gov. don't ever make that mistake. you can go to this information and we can give you more information on the dates and location of these workshops. and i will ask you to participate. in closing, what we can collectively do, is a better job about authenticating, when appropriate, on line. make certain that the information that we exchange, we have better control over as the end users, and the recipients of the benefits of technology. the baseline for security and privacy, and in a world it gives us the ability to do this on the international basis, to really

realize the benefits of this, to make certain that this is an experience the end user will enjoy. this is not cumbersome more difficult, some of my family members that would not know the difference between a floppy disk and a frisbee, they would say that this is too hard for me to use. it should not be this way. we have to make certain that we are working together to realize the vision. when the president signed this national strategy, it was the idea that this was a step forward to make certain that we're doing things more securely and smarter, and i think working collectively, we can do this. you do your part, secure your part of cyberspace, and we will all benefit from this, particularly with the implementation of the strategy for trusted identities in

cyberspace. thank you for letting me make these comments today, and have a great rest of your day. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, we have washington journal. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. the congressional hearings and policy forms. and then the supreme court oral arguments. on saturdays, we have the communicators. and then, the prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. you can watch our programming in the time, and this is oliver will. this is a public service created by america's cable companies.

>> president obama talked- about ending the oil industry subsidies. then the republican and address with james lanford from oklahoma and discusses his party's plan to cut government spending and reduce the debt. this is 10 minutes. >> after the worst recession since the great depression, our economy is growing again. we gained almost 2 million private-sector jobs, but i also know that a lot of people are feeling is positive as those statistics might suggest. it is still too hard to find a job. even if you had one, you are having a tougher time. the rising cost of everything from groceries to gas. gases them more than $4 per gallon meaning you could be paying upwards of $50 or $60 to

fill up your tank. while rising gas prices mean a pain at the pump, they also mean visit -- bigger profits for oil companies. the largest oil companies announced they made more than $25 million in 2011. that is up 30% from last year. now, i do not have any problem with any company or industry being rewarded for success. the incentive of healthy profits is what helps drive our economy forward. i do have a problem went on warranted taxpayer subsidies that we have been handing back to oil and gas companies to the tune of $4 billion per year. when oil companies make huge profits already and you are struggling at the pump and we are scouring for spending we can do without, these tax giveaways are not right. that are not smart. we need to and then. that is why earlier this week are renewed my call to congress

to stop subsidizing the oil and gas industries. understand i am not opposed to producing oil. if we are serious about meeting our energy challenge, we need to operate on all cylinders which means pursuing a broad range of energy policies including responsible production here at home. last year, the american oil production reached the highest level since 2003, but i also believe that instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, we should invest in tomorrow's. already we have seen how the investments we're making a clean energy can lead to new jobs and businesses. i have seen some myself. there are big companies making fuel-efficient cars and trucks and to promote these kinds of vehicles, we implemented a historic high fuel economy standards which could save you as much as $3,000 at the pump. i note in this tough fiscal

environment, it is tempting for some to want to cut our investments in clean energy. i agree that the only way we will be able to afford the things we need is that we cut the things real not and live within our means. our views to cut things that will help america when the future, that will help make america more secure come and help clean up our planet in the process. and investments in clean energy today is an investment in a better tomorrow. that is an investment worth making. thank you for watching and have a great weekend. >> my name is james langford from the fifth congressional district of oklahoma. when i listen to my constituents, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline is at the top of the list. prices at the pump have doubled since president obama took office making everyday life like driving to work, picking of kids at school, and visiting family more expensive.

even worse, the rising price of fuel is costing jobs and hurting our economy. higher energy prices have hit virtually every american products and industry making it more expensive to manufacture products commission to goods, and more expensive for farmers and ranchers. higher energy costs make everything made in the usa more expensive and send more good paying jobs to overseas. americans are looking for leadership to tackle the rising gas prices. president obama has only offered a tax increase on energy and the prospect of increased supply. for two years, his administration has yet knowingly increase prices by choking off news sources of traditional american energy and smothering new energy regulations. his latest proposal, hiking taxes by billions of dollars, will not lower gas prices and will make the problem worse. in my state and many others,

thousands depending on energy production for their paychecks. the president think he may is punching ceo's, but it will hurt the everyday consumer of energy and apparel the jobs of millions of people in america. there is a better way. republicans are focused on expanding all-american energy production to help lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil demand create millions of american jobs. next week, the house of representatives will begin this process by passing legislation to create jobs which is part of the american energy initiative, an ongoing effort to allow the private sector to create more american jobs. quite simply, if the president chooses to tonton real, long- term solutions for energy and gas prices, we will take the lead. two weeks ago, i was proud to cast my vote in the house for a budget that promotes economic

growth and job creation to put this on a pass to pay down our debt and reserve -- preserve medicaid for future generations. our national debt is worse than most people realize. we must solve our budget problem, not just talk about the crisis. the president's budget proposal fails to offer a credible plan that meets the nation's challenges in a serious manner. he considers it radical and extreme to balance the budget by during it by what every american business does in tough times, they reduce spending. we need to be honest with the american people. washington should not overspend and then demand a tax increase because we cannot make the tough decisions. we cannot ignore the fact that tens of millions of baby boomers are beginning to retire while medicare is already teetering on the brink of insolvency. we must stabilize and protect

medicare and medicaid. let me be clear. the republican plan would not affect current medicare beneficiaries or any american 55 or older. to address the living and solvency of medicare, we're put in place a plan to save medicare for those under 55. we want them to have access to the same kind of medical retirement options that members of congress and of federal employees benefit from. the president's proposal protect the status quo, and unsustainable system that will bankrupt medicare and lead to future painful benefit cuts for seniors and putting this on the backs of future generations. the world is watching to see how we will handle our debt. everyone wants to know if we will just pile on more debt with no plan to ever pay it off or if we will find a way to permanently work on our national debt. the president wants us to raise

the debt limit with no real reform to stop future washington spending binges, to let washington are even more money from the chinese and handed the bill to our kids and grandkids. this to be as dark moments in american history when the president would intentionally declare that times are tough so i think will make life tougher to make life easier on me. we have responded differently. the american people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit unless it comes with meaningful steps to cut washington's spending and start working us out of debt. no more blank checks and huge bills on our children so someone in washington can retain power. on gas prices, the budget, and the debt limit, we will continue to offer real solutions to lower gas prices, create jobs come and insure that the next generation still has a shot at the american dream. our nation has been through

difficult times before. we can do this. if we work together to solve these problems instead of just talking about may god bless our families and our great nation. thank you for listening quacks like today, the white house correspondents. black tie dinner starts with the red carpet arrivals at 6:45 p.m. and later remarks from president obama and seth myers. we will have your comments from facebook and twitter live on c- span. follow along with our interactive video player featuring a photo gallery, poles, social media comments and allied hd video. sunday on the "road to the white house," several potential republican candidates were in new hampshire for a summit on spending and job creation. you'll hear remarks from former gov. mitt romney, former

minnesota gov. tom clancy, former senator -- tim pawlenty, rick santorum, and others. >> are bringing new politics and public affairs every morning, washington journal, on the news of the day continue with policymakers and journalists. watch live coverage of the u.s. house and congressional hearings and policy forms, also oral arguments from the supreme court to you can see our signature interview programs. on sundays, newsmakers, prime minister's questions come and q&a he go you can watch our programming any time on c-span .org. washington, your way. created by america's cable companies as a public

service. >> and the the future of the consumer financial protection board. this portion is about 20 minutes. promised, our guest of the u.s. public interest group. their sclsurem advocate. last year, a lot was made with the passage of dodd-frank the financial reform bill that went into law that was signed by the president. what's the status of that law as the certain elements are concerned? >> well, congres is scomplplementing the new law which was passed after in 2008 of course the economy collapsed. worst collapse since the banks caused one in 1929. and the law is very complex. it deals with too big to fail banks, with the safety of banks, with investor protection and it creates new consumer protections. so it's being set up by the regulators. parts have taken effect, parts are being set up right now. >> the parts that have taken effect include?

>> well, as of the day the law passed on july 21, some of the requirements that banks have certain capital standards, some of the issues have taken effect. but most of the law requires the regulators to impose new -- issue new regulations. and so there have been hearings from industry and consumer groups and others aboutow those regulations should take effect. probably the most important part of the law from the stand point of consumers is that one reason the economy collapsed is banks had engaged in predatory practices, credit rates that were unfair, tricks and traps, predatory mortgages, putting people into mortgages thawere really unfair to them and that they qualified for something better. and even on your deposit account banks had overdraft fees that were gouging consumers. and so congress established a new consumer financial protection bureau but it doesn't open for business until july 21, and so starting from

nothing they've already hired 200 people and they're preparinfor the rollout of the full agency on july 21. it's the first federal agency that has only one job, protecting consumers. the other bank regulators protect the banks as well. >> and the person who is heading up that effort? >> elizabeth warren, a ofessor from harvard who has devoted her entire career to investigating the effects of unfair practices on the middle class came up with the idea and is setting it up for the president. >> as far as where it is due to come on line, is that still the case or is there going to b delays? >> well, if we had our way, if things go as planned it will take effect on july 21. but congress is considering delaying the agency, defunding the agency, and weakening the agency and there will be votes this week in a subcommittee on some just incredibly outrageous proposals to take one of the best ideas in years and tear it

apart. >> before we go on to the meat of those proposals, ms. warren was on the daily show this past week talking about those efforts and was asked about the pending legislation. here's how she put it. >> right now there are bills pending in congress to delay the agency, to defund the agency, to defang the agency, make it toothless so it won't get anything done. and bills in both the house and the senate to kill the agency outright before it is ever able to take one step on behalf of the middle class families. >> and one ofert efforts, if i -- efforts, if i understand it correctly is leadership. it comesown to one person. that could change into a board of people? >> the original idea was that there be a -- congress passed the law that created it as a director which makes it equivalent to the big regulator

that imposes safety and soundness rules on the banks. you have the occ has one director and we wanted this age stoy have one director. the situation is one proposal would dilute it down to commission. now, we're getting read dwroy start up. we're 83 days from july 21, and they're meddling with its entire structure. that's the problem. >> as far as the proposal who is spear heading this effort? >> i think the unbelievable thing is that the big banks that caused the wall street crisis are all supporting the effort. the chamber of commerce is supporting the effort. the effort to change it to a commission is being pushed by the chair of the house financial services committee mr. spencer baucus of alabama. and there are other bills in his committee as well. they'll consider them all in votes. >> why the concern over a committee rather than one person? >> i think the concern is that you are taking the agency and changing its structure right as it's getting rolling. it is trying to get set up. we would have the president

have to nominate five people. they would have to get through senate. and they would have to get started. it would delay the agency even further. if this were done back when the bill was being considered- and it was discussed while the bill waseing considered, and it was ultimately rejected, it might have workebecause then there would have been some planning. but we need a strong direcr to compete with the occ, the agency that failed us. but we also don't need the agency to be wrecked while it's still being built. so there's two issues. >> as far as the director should elizabeth warren be that director? >> absolutely. i don't think there's any leader of y civil rights or consumer or labor group in the country that doesn't think that professor elizabeth warren is the first and the best choice. it is going to be a fight in the senate if that fight is waged in public with the people of the united states participating, i think she has a very good chance to win. but she has not yet been nominated.

no one has. >> does she have supporters or strong supporters within the white house and democrats on capitol hill? >> well, i think she does. i think the president has been a strong supporter. the secretary said some very positive things about her the other day on capitol hill. she has many friends. she has some peop that say they would never stand for her. but we think that she has the best chance. and she would be the best director. >> as far as the vote is concerned, that's scheduled for next week? >> the vote on the director is not scheduled because no one has been nominated. the votes on whether the -- before a director is even nominate, they want to change it to a commission. before a director is even nominated, they nt to kill the agency. they want to make it easier for the other regulators to take away the agency's consumer protection rules. so there are a lot of votes. but the vote on the director won't occur until someone is nominated. >> our guest, mr. wins ski of the public research group with

us until 9:15. if you want to talk to h about the financial reform law the votes pending that could change things. if you want to give us a call, the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. also you can send us an e-mail and twitter. one more thing. something next week concerning a company and how much they have to disclose as far as c.e.o. pape. pay. >> the banks and other big companies in the united states are also pushing a vote that will occur in tuesday on the house financial services committee to weaken another provision of the wall street reform act. the law says that a company will have to disclose the ratio betweethe c.e.o.'s pay and the middle employee's pay. half make more, half make less. they're claiming this is a bureaucratic nightmare.

it's ridiculous. they simply don't want to report what i calculated with one spreadsheet calculation this weewas that chase bank's jamie diamond makes $19 million a year. the average american makes $49,000. he makes 424 times what the average person in this country makes and companies don't want to report what their average -- what their median employee makes compared to their c.e.o. it's a piece of information that tax parse, investors, and consumers should have. ? >> because? >> because it makes a difference in the way that a company is looked at. if you don't know how much you're paying this guy or this woman, you don't have any real idea of how it compares with other companies. it's a very simplele way to say here's a company that's doing well that's only paying its executive 50 times what it is paying its median employee. here's another company that's

not doing so well. why are they paying their chief executive 600 times? it's a very important and easy way for investors to make choices about where to put their money. >> is the disclosure to the investing public at large? >> it will be reported for public companies. but anybody will be able to get access to it. >> isn't it more important for the shareholders? >> it is absolutely important for the share holders but i think that shoppers will also want to look at it. they may not want to invest in a company that is paying some fat cat 600 times what they're paying their basic worker. >> that's basically it. i think it's important to everybody. >> who introduced this amendment and the vote on tuesday? >> the vote on tuesday is a new representative, nan hayworth of new york, wood stock, i believe. and the original proposal i believe was by senator robert menendez to insert this into the wall street legislation. and it's supported by again

labor groups, conmer groups and investor protection groups of all sorts. >> our first call for you comes from hilton head, south carolina, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead and mute your telesion. caller: good morning. i had a question about frank and d.o.d. weren't they the ones that started fannie mae and freddie mac and the procedures for them to evolve to have the meltdown that we had? and then now they're going to run, and they're running the regulations with the new law that they've put into congress and why now -- why trust those people at this point? yo know, since they let it get to the level that it was at to begin with. and the rest of the country i -- you know, it's just in turmoil because of their

regulations. because their laws are going to go in effect today. and i don't quite understand that. thanks. >> well, there's a new narrative being pushed by a number of opponents of wall street reform and they're claiming that fannie and freddie, the housing operations that provided liquidity and were partially government regulated, partially government backed, and partially investor operations, they had a very complex relationship, they're blaming them only for the crisis. and most people think that's just a false analysis. by the way, senator dodd is no longer a senator but mr. frank is the ranking member of the house financial services committee. >> host: st. joseph, missouri. you're on with our guest. democrat's line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. under the dodd frank, isn't that law that's going to take effect on july 21, doesn't that make the banks now not too big

to fail? also, doesn't it deal with speculators getting in there and jacking the prices up and also elizabeth warren is the right choice for that job and i know she's a democrat. thank you. guest: i thinkhe caller is exactly right. the wall street reform act addresses a number of issues including preventing too big to fail, including trying to end speculation in the markets that raises prices of oil, it raises the prices of food, and it also as we've discussed creates the consumer financial protection bureau an idea of professor elizabeth warrens. >> georgia, you are next. howard, independent line. caller: yes, sir. for years i was heavily blaming the democratic party and i'm part of a grwing number of people that are equally disgusted with both the republicans and the democtic party.

i have a question. the people that bum bled these mortgages and gambled them away on the stock market, i have not heard anything about one of them being prosecuted for this stuff. why are these people not held accountable for the disaster that they ha created? guest: i think that's a very good question by the caller. and i think that anybody would agree with him that there needs to be a much more aggressive posture towards bringing these people to justice. there are some real problems, however, with securities fraud and these cases, and matters of proof. the business lobby, the chamber of commerce has gamed the system for so many years, it is very difficult today to bring these people to justice. they've also taken away the rights of consumers. this week, the supreme court made it much, much harder for

consumers to band together to protect themselves when a company like a banks or a cell phone company takes small amounts of money from each of them. so youave to look at what's been happening in washington with all these vast amounts of corporate money thehave anged the laws so that you don't make -- it's just not easy to put the bad guys in jail a more. host: the huffington post has this. guest: i think that mr. frank right that it's taking a

little longer for the agencies. but they're doing and thorough and thoughtful job and they're doing it with less ney than they thought they would have. other agencies that are under the congressional appropriations process haven't gotten enough money. the securities and exchange commission, the new derivatives rules will be under an agency called the commodities futures trading commission, and they've had their budgets weakened not as much as we would like but they're working hard and that's really the step. in terms of the consumer bureau, i have to tell you i'm over there visiting and making suggestions to them as are other consumer advocates from americans for financial reform which is our coalition, on a regular basis. i look at them like a new peace corps, or something like that. the division or the work that they're doing, the ide that they have over there, it's just tremendous how hard the agencies are working to combhplement these laws. >> host: if these various things in the house go on and get

passed, what's the likelihood in the senate? or guest: i think the senate is a place that will slow tngs down. chairman of the banking committee has made some very strong statemes theapts to protect wall street reform an he said that some members of the senate and the house want to let wall street run wild all over again. i agree with senator johnson on that and he will work hard. other leaders of the senate i think will work hard. but believe it or not, we have over 20 senators, are sponsors of a bill to absolutely repeal the entire law. it's astonishing. they haven't forgotten what happened, pedro. they reject that the banks were responsible for destroying the company, which is absurd host: i ghess what i'm asking if they pass in the house is it a dead issue because it goes to the senate? guest: the senate will probably kill it but it's astonishing that it will even get that far. but what happens in the house is part of a strategy to for them to try to win later on,

later on they're hoping to win in 2012 and they're hoping that after 120e they'll be able to pass it in theenate. host: los angeles, california. republican line. john. caller: my big concern in all of this is for the average saver. now, interest rates on savings accounts and money market funds are well below 1% and in addition to paying people nothing, this sort of gives them a reason to search o higher risk in hopes of getting a higher return. so that puts them back in th stock market perhaps for a lot of people don't belong. now, three years ago -- it's been three years since the federal reserve took the interest rates pretty much down to zero for companies to borrow money at next to nothing. so they're not going to do anything to help. should there be perhaps a rise like a government subsidized

u.s. savings bond or something where small savorers, say under 100,000 or under a million can get a decent return on their money without having to put it in very risky things? guest: i think the caller raises a very good question, and there's no question that monetary policy of the federal reserve is part of th issue here. it's not only regulation. it's monetary policy as well. i think it's an interesting proposal. it's one that should be looked at. people should also understand that if you're chasing just better rat on deposit accounts, that there are a lot of questionable oers out there. i mean, if aeal sounds too good to be true even if it is insuredt may be too good to be true. it may be from an institution that is looking for fast cash because it may be in trouble. host: this goes back to our discussion about c.e.o. pay. the twitter comments says

guest: how much money you're allowed to earn? host: i guess this goes back to c.e.o. o pay. >> it's a >> very good point. but nothing in the law caps how much they can earn. there are other provisions of the law that dsay that executivcompensation has to be reviewed by the government for financial firms. but nothing in the law prohibits a sports star or a corporate executive from making a lot. but shouldn't it be disclosed if the company is publicly trade snd and particularly if sunday, and discussion on the legislative agenda as they return this week. also, and look at how the 2012 presidential election in shaping up in the early voting states of iowa and new hampshire with

democratic strategist michael bocian and republican matt mackowiak. also with eric olson on the mexican drug war. >> president obama has recently made announcements. you can track their careers including their earliest appearances on line on the c- span video library. washington, your way. like today, the white house correspondents annual black-tie dinner starting with the red carpet rivals and later remarks from president obama and "saturday night live" seth myers. live. on c-span.org, follow along with polls, a photo gallery, and

live hd vidio. -- video. >> now a discussion on the future of broadcasting. senior executives from npr at the university of missouri school of journalism. this is one and a half hours. >> this represents the face and the voice of publicly supported journalism. demler -- jim lehrer, i am proud to say, is a graduate of the university of missouri school of journalism. he is also the author of 20

novels, two memoirs, three plays. he is also the partner in a television and video production enterprise and he has collected so many awards that i think he needs another persona to go around collecting them. if with kapadia ever makes its way to the school of murder culture of the university of missouri, i am sure they will find some interesting experiments that were done in the clowning of undergraduate dna when you were there because one man could not possibly have done all that you have. i am delighted to introduce jim lehrer. [applause]

>> this is one event where i really feel is appropriate for me to be here. this is an event sponsored by the university of missouri school of journalism about the future of journalism in public media and i have been laboring oar that -- with that, more or less, for 40 years. i think i've finally got to the right place at the right time for the right reasons after all these years and i'm delighted to be your monology. i also would attenuate quick misery story which was demonstrated. is it was a real or is it -- is it missouri or missour-ah? one time, intentionally, i began by saying, "good evening from st. louis, missouri."

and then when i ended it i said, "thinking and good night from st. louis, missour-ah." i only got one phone call the next day who then wrote a language column in "the new york times" sunday magazine about missouri, missour-ah. i said it was about a stand west. in the west, there are two big cities, kansas city and st. louis. in the west they call it missouri. in the east side they call it missour-ah. i just made that up. [laughter] he put that in his column and it becamse gospel.

i say it myself now. the onylly time i get caught is if i am with someone from kansas city or st. louis. missour-uri becamse ah who invented missour-ah tigers. i don't know. anyhow -- i know. i know. i know. look, my second mission beyond that story is to set the stage for what you all will be talking about. let me do that as straight as i can. and journalism all levels,

internationally, locally, serious journalism is in trouble. there are too few resources being donated to its practice, particularly in prince but also in television, radio, and even on the web. the reasons are well known to use of land must anyone who is alive and well and paying attention. newspapers of all sizes and persuasions are hurting financially because they have lost circulation, readership, and thus advertising, commercial television networks, are all having a similar set of problems and it is thriving but not necessarily in terms of income or revenue. there is plenty of information available for everyone as well as a a flood of opinions and

entertainment about them permission and the mechanical ways and means to deliver it all. ipod come and your age, -- ipod, tweeters, and twits, and whatnot. they are being used to tease and entertain and only inform across the surface rather than below. i have a good source on why this is a problem. thomas jefferson told people when this country was founded that the only way this democratic society that we created was going to work was is if there was an informed electorate. the only device that was ever created for the information process was, of course, the first amendment. you, me, a lot of people in this room, the journalists, i think

-- and it is not happening. we are hurting in this area right now and this is what we have come to talk about. i believe there is a major role for public medium to play in making sure that serious journalism performs its responsibilities and its duties in the serious journalism area. we must fill the gaps that are being created by some of our resource-starved colleagues. it is not only opportunity, but a responsibility in the public media to do more than we are doing. i mean every element in the public media. all levels. public, television, radio, all geographies, and we all, everyone of us, has to step up to the plate, more so than we have done. we have to declare that public

media is here and in the serious journalism business. we have a mission to perform in our community, state, where ever we operate and we must get at it. we must raise awareness, the money come and the resources it takes to create or expand what we are doing at the local, regional, national, and international level. we must be willing to reach out within our own public media world and cooperate with each other to do joint projects. we must form partnerships with any and all journalism organizations, commercial as well as non-commercial to spread the reach of our serious journalism and that of others who are in the same business. it is neither bragging, that is a word it picked up from one of my daughters, to say that we at the pbs "newshour" are already at it as hard as we can go.

you would get the details later this morning from linda. they would be the specifics about that. we have been prepared and remain prepared to change and rethink everything we do in order to adjust to the various changes in the world of journalism. when i say "journalism" i mean serious journalism. i hate that i have to put that were in front of it, but i do. there are all kinds of journalism. the business we are in in the business of public media is in is serious journalism. i would like you to know that with all the changes we have made and will continue to make, there's one thing that will never change. many of you have heard me say this before, but it cannot be repeated too often. it is and how we go about the practice of journalism at "the news hour." i was in aspen for a seminar in

journalism and i was asked if i had any personal guidelines for the practice of journalism and if i did, could i share them? i did, in fact, do that, and here is part of what i sent them. "do nothing i cannot defend, do everything with care, assume there is at least one other side or version, assume the viewer is as smart as caring as i am, assume teh same of oall people, private lives are a private matter, carefully separate opinion and analysis from news stories, do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, no one that should ever be allowed to

attack someone anonymously, and finally i am not in the entertainment business." those of the guidelines to practice to this day and we always will. finally, one more thing i wanted to do which is to close my welcoming to you are performing a buzz call. the reason for that is very relevant to what we're doing today. before i went to the university of missouri, i went to raise small junior college in south texas and in the victoria on the gulf coast. in order to get the money required to go to missouri later, a workday hours a day at the continental throughways bus depot. one of my duties was to call to the buses over the pierre system. "mashhad your attention and

please, this is your last call for the 8:10 p.m. a liner to houston. now leaving from lane 1 -- ganada, el campo, sugarland, missouri city, all aboard. do not forget your baggage, please." if i had not done that, i would not have been able to go to the university of missouri because it could not have afforded it. you should know that is the first time i was ever paid money to speak into a microphone. thank you very much and have a great seminar. [applause] >> thank you, jim. you got us off to a rousing start. good morning, everyone, and welcome. my name is barbara and i am the journalism share for the

university of missouri and i am proud to say so. i am from ohio, so what do i know? it is a delight to see all of you here. thank you to dean mills for jointer tornadoes. thank you to all of our speakers you have made it here today. i also want to say my own thank you to ed and his family for creating the endowment that makes this symposium possible. thank you also to our colleagues from the eric free heim -- freihem library at the national press club. i'm glad to see some and a view shared interest in the future of public broadcasting. some of you have been connection because you work or have worked in public broadcasting or at the federal communications commission, congressional

oversight committee, or a policy organization that studies the communication system. in the interest of full disclosure, i also have worked in public broadcasting. earlier in my career, i was the head of news and national public radio and oversaw the creation of "morning edition." that is one of the things i am most proud of. some of you are here because you are viewers and listeners who have become alarmed about the headlines about a partisan divide over the value of public broadcasting and efforts in congress to end federal funding. if you're concerned about the possibility of a deep cut its are even the elimination of federal funding, you're not alone. as you will hear in detail, 69% of the public opposed the plans to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. that was true matter what your political persuasion. among democrats, independents,

and republicans, a majority of each group opposed eliminating the federal funding. when the recent budget agreement left funding for the corporation for public broadcasting mostly intact, many of you probably he they sigh of relief in. as we learned today, the debate over federal funding is far from over. new funding is only one of the issues facing public broadcasting today. like the rest of media, public broadcasting has been changed by the digital revolution. the producers of news and information programming, which is the focus today, need to adapt as speedily as the colleagues in commercial media. to help us understand the changes and opportunities that lie ahead for public broadcasting, we're very fortunate to have assembled a roster of a knowledgeable executives and innovative journalists. the printed program receives

outlines the agenda for this morning, as long -- along with a list of on-line resources about public media. there also publications available at the registration table outside including a white paper route for the aspen institute and my foundation last year called, "rethinking public media, more local, more inclusive, more interactive." that is also available online at nightcomm.org. we will have a conversation with the ceo's of four organizations and the general manager of a local station. then we will take a short break and we will return with journalists and producers working at the national and local levels to utilize digital platforms to engage new communities. by the end of the morning, helping come away with a better understanding of the kinds of transformation that age to take place for public broadcasting to

fulfill its mission. that mission was expressed in the public broadcasting act to be responsive of the interests of people in a particular localities and throughout the united states and constitute an expression of diversity and excellence. we have just heard from jim lehrer about what public broadcasting matters. no one could stated more persuasively. now to lay the foundation for our discussion, we will hear from tom rosenstiel who also has a misery connection. he is the vice chair for the committee of concerned journalists that is part of the missouri school of journalism. you know him as a frequent commentator on transience media and someone that is not afraid to criticize malfeasance. from his organization's annual report on the state of the news media, he has information about

audiences and content which he will now share with us. please welcome tom rosenstiel. [applause] >> thank you, barbara. the things for having to follow -- no thanks for having to follow jim lehrer. in the next few minutes, i want to share with you some information that we have from surveys and a content analysis and lays down some facts about public broadcasting on both radio and on television. first, i went to make a couple of quick points this is about the impact of a high-technology generally on journalism. the technology has come in many ways, disconnected the audience and revenue.

advertisers and revenue sources no longer need the news media to reach their audiences which is creating a major revenue collapsed in the news business. the second is that one of the things that distinguishes public medium, and particularly in journalism, is that it is somewhat relieved from the immediate commercial pressures that other commercial medium have to face. i think we have some empirical sense of what kind of difference that makes. in the public media, we have a different product and we also have, over the last 15 years a very different audience trend. the public media has either grow or held on to its audience much better than commercial media has. this is because, i think, of some long-term approaches they taken to the content that they

produce. the fact that jim's principles have not changed a whole lot has something to do with it. long-term in the marketplace, that has benefited public broadcasting. the third point i want to make is that much of the new technology that has transformed the news landscape is it distributive and discursive in nature. is not substantially repertoir ial. we're not seeing an enormous expansion in the number of organizations that are going out and turning over rocks to find things out. what are the facts about public media?

one is that the audience is holding about. about 11% of adults listen to npr regularly, three times per week or more. that 11 percent is remarkably consistent across all age categories and demographic categories. you do not skew older as much as other media outlets. this was in 2010. -- not have the data from "the news hour" because we use the new name in our survey. the results came back in a way that suggests that people did not recognize the new name without yours in it. [laughter] the number people have answered that they were regular viewers made it pretty clear that there were talking about pbs programming of any kind said the data i will give you for "the news our" is from 2008.

about 5% of adults listen to the news hour, just the one program at least three times per week or more. of that audience, it has not changed in the last few years which really distinguishes the "news hour" from what we are seeing anywhere else including cable news. npr news skews more independent and democratic than republican. a 14% of independence, 14% of democrats, and 6% of republicans identified themselves as the regular npr listeners. that ratio of 2 to 1 party is similar from cnn, msnbc, and is lower than fox's partisan tilt

which is 4 to 1 and lower than the primetime talk shows in cable news. the only outlets that reflect without partisan tilts are local ones because they reflect the community. "the news hour" skewed 2 to 1 democrats to republicans which is not unusual. we probe of the reasons why people go to different news sources. npr stood out as the only news organization in which the number one reason that people said they went there was for all

the different categories, for the mix of all things in the news organization that they provide, which is to say everything from breaking news to in-depth reporting to news and opinion, and entertainment. and was also one of two outlets of the 20 or more that we've created that was in double digits for every category. we do not have the data for "the nweews hour" becasue ouse of the naming issue. npr ranks first among those who say they want news without a point of view. they want the objective reporting. that is more than any other resurveyed and in the sample overall, 62 percent say it they want the news this way.

it was also much higher than the norm. npr ranks among the few news outlets whose believable little -- believability rating is holding up. "the news hour" has held up though it is down from 2008. it has been stable for the last seven years at 23%. most all other organizations are declining. many americans offer no opinion so it is not 25% out of 100%. there is some challenging information here.

npr has the biggest partisan gap in his believability. 37% of democrats say they believe most of what they hear on npr, 29% of independence, only 16% of republicans. that is the democrat versus republican gap of 21 points and rising. that number is similar to what we have a for fox and msnbc. the gap for "the news hour" is smaller but still among the higher ones. what do consumers get from npr? i was paid this out, but one thing they get is for news. it is in a much higher amount than elsewhere. a 31% of the time on npr is devoted to foreign affairs which compares with an average of 3.5%

on the rest of radio news. the news hour? 30% devoted to foreign affairs comparing to 19% non-commercial evening newscasts, 16% morning, and 13% on cable news. is public media biased? the public perceives that it is and there is a believability gap, a partisan gap. i would say that this is unanswerable. to much about bias is in the eye of the beholder. i can assure you studies that we have done that show pbs and npr were more neutral than most other towards obama in his first 100 days. a 50% of the stories on "the news our" and 52% on npr. 28% positive on npr, much less

than 37% in the media generally we of data that suggests in the campaign coverage, could the news and our" cover policy and less on the horse race. the same is true of npr. i have data that npr and "the the average length of a pbs segment is more than twice as long as that of commercial television. to some, that might suggest a bias towards being boring, to some, it might suggest nuance and detail. these things are in the eye of the beholder. you can analyze the sources interviewed but that doesn't tell you about the questions asked of those sources. ultimately, it is impossible to say that bias is not to some degree a matter of perception

but the journalists at both npr and the "newshour," many of whom i know, believe deeply in the idea of getting the facts straight and striving for fairness and trying to throw the pitch down the middle. when they fail to do so, i believe it is a sin of omission, or a failure to live up to their principles. they are not doing it as a marketing strategy to maximize an audience or pander to an audience. be said of all news organizations today. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, tom. there's been an awful lot of opinion and guesswork thrown around in the debate over public broadcasting so it's good to have the facts. i'm going to invite our first panel to come up and take their

seats, and we will get started. thank you. and now, if everyone is settled and seated, thank you. and i'll introduce our first panel to everyone, starting on my far left, your right, is patrick butler. pat, i will probably call you during this, is the president and c.e.o. of the association of public television stations, which is the washington representative of public television stations, and lately you've also been doing a combined effort on behalf of public radio, as well. next to pat is paula cerger, the president and c.e.o. of pbs. next to paula is joyce slocum who is the interim president and c.e.o. of npr.

she's been the general counsel there for several years. next to joyce is bill cling, the c.e.o. of american public media, both a national producer of programs and also has under its umbrella 44 public radio stations across the country. and next to bill is karen mathis, who is the general manager of wamu here in washington. welcome to all of you. thank you. i'm going to start, pat, with you, because we're going to of all by talking about the federal funding debate, crisis, and what lies ahead. and as i asked you when we were talking a little bit before this session, what happened in the budget deal? we were hearing that public radio and planned parenthood

were definitely on the table, definitely going to get cut. the deal gets made, we look in the newspaper, and the cpb, which is the funding corporation, congress gives the money to the corporation for public broadcasting, the corporation for public broadcasting gives it to stations and producers of public media. the cpb budget emerged pretty much unscathed. so what happens? >> i've always maintained, barbara, that this is not a partisan issue. i mean, there are more republicans who'd like to defund us than there are democrats, obviously, but not all republicans have felt that way, and greg walden, who's the chairman of the house communications subcommittee, has been at pains to say that the house of representatives is one half of one third of the federal government and that what the house of representatives does is

only the beginning of a debate and not the end of it, and what has happened in the course of this challenge here is that the democrats in the house and the senate have been quite firm in their support of public broadcasting, as has president obama. and so, when you have a tripartide negotiations at the end of the continuing resolution process with speaker boehner and majority leader harry reid and president obama in the room, the forces who were opposed to public broadcasting are outnumbered. so i think it's been a -- an encouraging affirmation of the fact that we are held in high esteem across the political spectrum, as tom was suggesting, and that once these votes are

actually counted, there are -- i think there are going to be plenty of republicans in both the house and the senate who agree that public broadcasting is valuable, is essential, and deserves continued federal funding, even in an era when budget deficits are very difficult to control and everything needs to be examined quite carefully. >> so, is this all over? are we gearing up to fight again? >> oh, no. it's not over. there are a good number of people in the congress, in both the house and the senate, who are quite committed to defunding public broadcasting and this is going to be a continuing battle for us for quite some time, and so we -- having finished the fiscal year 2012 funding process, we now go immediately into the 2012 probations process and we'll have to fight this all over again, but the fact that

we've been able to mount a vigorous grass roots campaign of people around the country who are big fans of public broadcasting and i give a lot of credit to bill clint and the 170 million americans organization that has created this grass roots effort. that grass roots effort, the station managers and the lay leaders at local communities, as well as what we've been able to do here in washington, has been a very good strategic alliance that has yielded the good result that we've had in the last couple of weeks. >> paula cerger, your pbs did some polling using a bipartisan polling consortium, and you found what about public attitudes? >> quite significant support for public broadcasting, and i think

that as we -- as i listen to pat, i think that, in my view, to answer the question of what happened, i think you could sum it up in really one word, and that's constituents. there were a lot of people country that reached out to their members to say that this is something, this is a service, public television, public radio, that's extraordinarily valued, and we saw that in the research that was done. after defense of our country, the value that the american public places on use of tax dollars for public broadcasting came in second. so i think that there is tremendous support. when you put it into perspective on the public television side, 15% of our funding comes from the federal government. the rest of it we raise community by community. but that 15% is hugely important because that's money that our stations then leverage to raise the rest of the support for the work that they do locally.

it helps to pay for a lot of their transmission expenses, local expenses, and 15% is an aggregate number. so in communities like washington, the percentage of federal funding that comes to support our stations here is less than it is in parts of the country where it could be as high as 50%, where communities are sparser, there's less ability to raise the kind of money to provide the same services that would happen in this community. so it's a tremendously important piece of our funding and i think that most people understand that this private/public partnership that we have worked through over the last 40 years is something important to maintain, and i think that came through very loud and clear, not just in the surveying that we did in advance of the debate on the hill, but also as we watched the number of people that reached out to their

legislators to let their opinions be heard. >> bill cling, public broadcasting hasn't always been so organized in stating its case. how do you -- what do you think public broadcasting needs to do going forward? >> when you say "organized," i think pat referred to the 170 million americans. this is a piece of research that was done by a variety of people, including the station resource group, that tried to determine how many people access some form of public broadcasting in the course of the week, and that turns out to be more than half the american public. one of our problems is that we are loved almost too much, that people are willing to voluntarily support public broadcasting, but they haven't been engaged to do anything more about it. and this time we said to them, federal funding is important,

it's not just the base funding of about $450 million a year, it's a question of what should the government's role be in public broadcasting. if you read the "new york times" story about the bbc last sunday, you saw the debate about 3.6 billion pounds, not dollars, but pounds, at risk at the bbc, and the way in which the british people rally around that. so having them rally on what we call a grass roots basis to let congress know how important this is, i think made a difference. there were 500,000 letters and sent to congress, uncountable numbers of phone calls. but pat referred to the leaders, community leaders, who seem to have more clout. these are people that know the cell phone numbers of their

congressmen and their senators, who can make the call, get heard, and i think that's our next challenge, is to get those people who support their congress people, their senators, but also strongly support public broadcasting, to make the connection and to move forward, not just to defend the $400 million. the public radio portion of that hasn't gone up in real dollars since 1980. so the role that federal funding is playing at a time when media is changing so dramatically when we've gone from being radio to public media, when we're distributing content in so many other ways and when all of our colleagues, as you heard jim lehrer say, and tom rosenstiel, are beginning to weaken in terms of their ability to do original

journalism. we've bot to step up and we've got to do more and you can't do more with an appropriation that stays static for 30 years. so i think looking forward, barbara, is probably the answer to your question, trying to determine what the right amount is and making that case that you can't really be trusted with your government if you're not well informed, the famous jeffersonian quote, is the key. >> joyce, how does federal funding affect npr and the member public radio stations? is it similar to what paula was reporting, or is it a slightly different situation because of the way the funding is structured? >> npr gets very little federal funding. what federal funding we do get is not general budget support, it's for specific grants that

have deliverables attached to them. but public radio in general, on average, gets about 10% of its funding from the federal government, and that is important funding, and as paula pointed out for public television, it's most important for smaller, rural communities that, in many instances are underserved or perhaps unserved by any other source of journalism. and that federal funding is critical in supporting the local journalism, and that is an amazing resource for the american people. i have mentioned a couple of times a story we heard about martha, texas. >> marfa. >> marfa, and jim lehrer and i may be the only two who know where that is. it's a small town in texas, served by kots, a public radio

station, and that station was critical in the wildfires that sprang up in informing people where roads were closed, giving them evacuation notices. they were ahead of even the texas department of transportation in letting people know where they could safely travel and where they couldn't. those are the kinds of stations be really in dire straits without federal funding. but it's important for all of our stations. it's an investment the stations leverage for the rest of their funding. >> could i add something else, barbara? >> sure. >> i'm going to leave the impression that npr would be unaffected if federal funding disappeared. you, i think, get $60 to $70 million a year from stations and the money that stations give to national public radio comes from grants from the corporation for public broadcasting that are set aside -- they're called national programming grants -- that only can be used to buy national

programming. they buy programming from american public media, public radio international on the radio side, from national public radio, and if the money doesn't come to the stations, the station's ability to pass $60 to $70 billion on to npr will change dramatically. it will affect larger stations just as much as the small ones and it will affect npr in a much bigger way than the impression some people have that it's a tiny amount of money. >> thank you. karen, you're at one of the local stations. what does federal funding mean to you? and how have you reacted? how has our station reacted to the potential loss of federal funding? >> bill's correct. the major stations will be impacted, as well. our revenue pie is about 5%. our corporation for public grant is around $1

million a year and even as large as we are and as well resourced we are, in this region, our average individual gift is about $135. so the loss of the federal grant, we'd have to instantly acquire 7,400 brand new contributors to supplant that money and hold on to them. our retention rate is 66%. 7,400 brand new contributors right off the bat, increasing getting about 2,500 new contributors annually after that, just to supplant the federal money, let alone trying to fuel the programmatic aspirations that the station has in its other general operating pursuits. so it's quite critical. my concern about this latest legislative challenge is quite different from what we've experienced before. i've been in public radio since

1982. the sustained nature of the attack is different. in past years, we knew there has been a threat to public funding almost every year. sometimes there are peaks as there was in 1994 and 1995. but this kind of sustained attack where we had to battle random bills that came up, the fight for the continuing resolution, now the battle for the 2012 budget. there's an issue that's going to come up about removing the tax deduction, federal tax deduction for non-profit, so that's definitely going to impact us. and there's a challenge with keeping our constituency mobilized over a long period of time rather than just gearing up for one big battle. i spent 10 hours on capitol hill day on the hill talking to friend and foe alike. they all commented about the

ground swell of support, calls in the thousands. and that made an impact but you can only say the wolf is at the so many times for so long. so my concern is about keeping our constituencies energized, informed. we have information on our web site about federal funding. we have to strike that balance between not saying too much where people just being inured to it and don't want to hear anymore, but keeping them energized so they'll mobilize when we need them. that's my concern. >> thank you. anything else? yes, pat. >> to caryn's point, what we don't want to do is perpetually be in the position where year for air and this is the perils of pauline situation on a constant basis with congress. and the cure to that, i think, is making sure that they understand, as some do not now,

the essential nature of what it is we do in public broadcasting and the fact that americans, in their millions, 170 million, value what it is we do. i think there's no reason why we shouldn't have a broad, broad consensus on federal funding of public broadcasting. as jim lehrer and tom and bill have been saying, it is essential to the objective of having a well educated, well informed citizenship, which is up to the task of self government in a very difficult world. and if that's not essential, i don't know what is in a country like ours, and it's our responsibility, as leaders of these organizations and as the station managers who do this work day to day, like caryn does

so well, to make sure that people understand that what it is we do is essential, that we do it well, that we do it in an unbiased way, that we cover the waterfront in terms of opinion, in terms of geography, in terms of cultural background, in terms of anything you may want to say -- generational and so forth and so on -- but we are truly public and represent the public and reflect the public and when we can show our friends in congress that that's what we do, i think the broad bipartisan consensus that i'm looking for will be there. >> i'd like to add on a moment to what pat just said. i think one of the challenges that we also have ahead is, for this debate, we did hear from some on the hill that expressed interest in helping us by helping us become commercial. and that was viewed as a way of getting us off this cyclical

challenge with federal funding. and on the television side, there are many examples of cable channels that started out with the aspiration of being the commercial version of public broadcasting, and when you look at how those channels, arts and entertainment,a&e, bravo, history channel have evolved, their focus shifts when the mission or the final outcome is based on shareholder return. so a&e is now largely "c.s.i." type of programs. bravo, which maintained its position as a cable channel that was focused on the arts, instead of going down its own path, and even history channel now where their number one program is "pawn stars." i say that carefully so everyone understands what i'm saying. it's just different.

if your true purpose -- and i say this in many of the talks that i give about public media -- if your shareholders are on main street and wall street, it takes you down a very different path. so when you look at news, you do see the consequences and pressures that tom referenced during his remarks of what happens to news organizations that are suddenly responsible for a bottom line. and they're still doing news, but it is a different focus than the kind of work that we try to do on a day-to-day basis when we are constantly challenging ourselves and on our best days, i think, achieving the work that no one else is doing. we were created to fulfill, in part, to fulfill what is in the public interest that is true market gap from commercial media and i think helping us to become

more commercial is not necessarily going to take us down a path that is going to serve this country well. thank you. i want to shift subjects slightly now. and tom addressed the question of bias, which is one of the -- we essentially heard two arguments. one is, we're in a fiscal crisis and we can't afford this anymore. even the president's own deficit commission came out for zeroing out public broadcasting. but the other argument was that public broadcasting is biased, and as tom said, bias is in the eye of the beholder. so, bill, i want to ask you to start us off on this. how do you affect the perception that public broadcasting is biased? >> well, i don't think i have to do much about it. i think we were branded quite well by the last debate in

congress, that public broadcasting is liberal. what we discovered, and it's the same thing that mark thompson, the director general of the bbc said when he was here about six months ago. he said, if you look at individual stories, the stories are well done and they tend to be straightforward. if you look at story selection, it's a different question, and the hardest thing to do. what stories should be covered? news changes. news is about change. so if you talk about change, that tends, to some people, to be liberal. if you simply report that the world went on today and nothing happened, then you have less of a problem. but from my perspective, the issue is governance and i think if there were one word that i would say about this entire

panel on this entire issue, it's governance. where is the governance of the corporation for public broadcasting? how strong is that? they're giving out a lot of federal money, what are the standards, what are the measurements, how are you determining whether the product should be supported or not. the boards of our production companies, the ones i know best in radio, national public radio and american public media, are they talking about this? are they looking at and examining and determining whether they are straightforward or not. bias could be as simple as an anchor interviewing somebody and saying, "hmmm." change the tonality and you change the bias in the word. the governing bodies that have to look at what is the intention, what kind of people

are being hired, what is the management like, and you come right on down to the station. 60% of our stations have no community governance on radio. they are largely parts of other institutions which have a board of regents or something at some point but rarely meet anybody that has anything to did with the public broadcasting or public media company. so the importance of that governance sunned the importance of having a community-based board that is made up of people who will demand these kinds of standards, to me, is the key. and before we finish this, i'd like to come back to the question of where we go rather than just defending the status quo. what could it be? >> we'll get to that, i promise. paula, one of the contradictions

in obtaining government funding is that it could be seen as compromising the independence, especially of the journalism that's being performed. i think jeff jarvis who's a blogger and media critic who has a way with words suggested that npr should just give up federal funding because to have government funding creates the appearance of political strings and pressure. so how do you respond to that? is federal funding going to automatically create timid journalism? >> no. i think a few things, and let me speak specifically about television and then my radio comments -- i'm interested in caryn's comments on this, as well, as she wrestles with the same issues as such an

extraordinarily important station in this market. on the television side, 15% of our funding comes from the federal government. the largest percentage of money comes into our stations comes from individual philanthropy, the support of viewers like you. and lots of contributions from smaller contributions. and i think that the fact that we are very anchored in communities -- in many communities we're the last remaining locally owned and operated broadcasters, ties us to our communities. on the t.v. side, we have slightly different governance. i came from a station in new york where we had a board and a community advisory board. we talked to them a lot about issues of coverage and they were tremendously helpful to us. at pbs, we spend a lot of time looking at editorial issues. we're just in the process, with tom's guidance, of concluding

of our editorial standards and practices which we review every five years and this establish a particularly interesting time to look at those standards with the change in new media and how you really reconcile issues at the same time of really trying to encourage the connection to local communities that i think social media offers. we have an ombudsman who is sitting in the room and he operates quite independently. i rarely talk to him. nice to see you here, michael. >> and they're not speaking. >> and there are many times that i read his material and i think, wow, you know, he got it right. and he is our connection to the viewers and the users of our content, and they have a vehicle through him where they can express their opinion and he, in turn, expresses his own. and it's helpful. all of our producers look at his material. so i think the fact is that the

lion's share of our funding does come from individual philanthropy. if we get that wrong, the thing that is the most valued asset we have is our brand and the fact that we are a trusted brand, and if we violate that, then i think everything else unravels, so from my perspective on the t.v. side, i don't spend time worrying about government influence affecting our journalism. our journalists are fiercely independent, both our colleagues at the "newshour" and certainly our colleagues at "front line," which is our significant investment in investigative journalism, have tackled very difficult subjects that make people uncomfortable, and that's our role and that's what they believe is their mission both in broadcast as well as online. >> yes, pat? >> mike pence, the former chairman of the house republican policy committee -- house republican conference, actually -- has worked with me over the last five years on

trying to pass a federal shield law to protect the confidentiality of journalism sources. he believes that the news media are the only real check on government power in realtime. that's his phrase, not mine. and he believes that the work that we do as well as the work that the "washington post" and others do is really essential to the proper functioning of this democracy, to the accountability of office holders and so forth. it is an interesting question about whether government funding will tend to compromise independence, but, in fact, we have more than 40 years of experience in this field now, and i think we've built a very good record of independence, of accountability, of balance and fairness and so forth that is

there for anyone to see. so i think this is not a theoretical issue anymore. this is 40 years of experience that we've had that's worked out pretty well. >> thank you. joyce, we know that npr has certainly been particularly singled out for some of the criticism about liberal tendencies and bias in coverage and so on. npr's gone through a lot of turmoil in the last six months beginning with the juan williams episode and going through the departures of the chief fundraiser and then the president, vivian schiller. how are you -- how is npr doing now? and how are you coping with the aftermath of all of this? >> well, npr is doing great. and all you have to do to know

that is to turn on and hear nbc listen to wamu and the npr reporting. our journalism has not missed a beat. the issues have been on the management side of things, and we have learned from what we've gone through. i think we're a little bit more about our processes now, but most importantly, we have gotten our management out of the limelight and put our journalism back in the limelight where it should be. dick bier is here and mark stensle is here. they are a team of people that produced the incredible story on the guantanamo bay detainees that we heard this morning. i heard part of jackie lighten's six-part series on prostitution in nashville. when you see what we've done in north africa, what we've done in

japan, the reporting is incredible and anything but timid. we do have careful editorial process. from the beginning, people challenge each other, they their own thinking, strive for accuracy and fairness and balance at all times, but it is -- it's definitely courageous reporting that's going on. >> and npr has undertaken an examination of its standards and so on, correct? >> yes. we are in the midst of a review of our news code of ethics and we will have a draft of that soon to present to our board for their consideration, and final approval, and as paula does, we also have an ombudsman that works with our public. >> and she's here, too. >> she's here. there you are. hi. and like wise, i don't get to talk to her a lot. these fiercely independent, as well. and we're also considering the addition of a standards and

practices editor position. so we are -- we work very, very hard to ensure that our coverage, as i say, is accurate and balanced, but we are -- our journalists are incredibly the reporting that they do. >> caryn, from the station's point of view, how did the npr situation affect you? how did your listeners respond? and what have been the station's own considerations in dealing with a city where there's a lot going on? >> interestingly, it really caused a rallying of support. i think when you take the temperature around the country, a lot of stations were in fundraiser and they're having record fundraisers and that is testimony to what joyce is saying about the quality of the journalism remains unquestioned.

and people value that and support it. i think station managers were just concerned about what was going on at the top, but i think npr recovered quite quickly, and we're all powering forward. we have a number of a local member station a mile and a half from h.q., we have a number of collaborative projects, major giving, technology, web and other digital distribution platforms and all that's moving forward. so i think the practical day-to-day work relationship between member stations and npr are moving ahead fine. >> i want to add something to that. it has had a trickle-down effect. the minnesota legislature, for example, where we have a number of stations, there is a caucus that is holding back or cutting funding significantly

for arts and cultural programming because of what they claim to be the juan williams affair at national public radio. so the story hasn't gotten out clearly despite the efforts that many of us have made to talk about the importance of looking at journalism for the sake of journalism, or looking at arts and cultural broadcasting for what they can be. the board of directors of minnesota public radio spent an hour of their board meeting, which is a very rare amount of time to spend, examining the of bias, and is there any basis in which to think that the news leaders of the organization who were part of the discussion are missing something, that they are not examining the story selection or

the possible ways that bias could creep in. tom rosenstiel was part of that. and the board left very satisfied and also feeling awfully good that the discussion had occurred, that the stations around the country are beginning to look much more carefully to make sure that any charges that could be made are not accurate. but there is an overhang, and there probably will be for some time. i think we got a bad brand in terms of all of the coverage, as did planned parenthood, all of the coverage of npr and public radio, and some of that will affect us for some time. >> thank you. we have about another seven or eight minutes before we go to questions from our audience. i hope you'll be thinking of those questions. and i'd like to turn, now, to the subject of digital media and

competition. and paula, you referred to this. there is -- people will say there is so much choice out there, there's so much that's available. why do we need public broadcasting? you started to address that, but continue to talk about some of the things that you're doing to extend the brand of public television. >> i think this is actually nice we're shifting to this part, because i always say that if it were not the money, this would be the most fascinating time for public media, because the opportunities are so extraordinary. and i think jefferson has been quoted twice. i think an engaged citizenry is tremendously powerful, and really looking at the opportunities of social media to try to bring viewers into a more proactive role in information is

important, but also professional journalism is important. and i think the two operate side by side. and we have, over the course of the last few years, spent a fair amount of time thinking about and experimenting and doing work in this space and i'm glad hari is here because i think on the news side he's probably doing some of the most interesting work in public media and he's taught me everything i know about twitter, and i'm trying really hard. i hope you're proud of me. but it is fasnalgt -- fascinating to me, and i had a discussion with a friend not that long ago, that for a lot of people there is the feeling that social media is frivolous and it's about where i had lunch yesterday. and if you really look at some of the work and even outside of the whole journalistic space, people like neal degrass tyson

who has worked with us on series, he uses social media to try to get a handle on subjects and topics and engage discussion before he stands in front of a large group to give a speech. and if you talk to him about how it has changed the way he interacts with his audiences, that he interacts with the people he is trying to connect with around science information, it's actually quite profound. so i think the opportunities for us in public media are huge because we are such an interesting organization that's both national and local. we have stations in every part of the country, and we have the ability to achieve scale through our national organizations. so the real challenge for us and what we've been spending a fair amount of time thinking about is how do you really link the two pieces together so that you have true local connection within

communities at the same time that you use the national work as a way to connect together, and so, online, we have just spent effort building out the architecture for video online, both as national distribution but also as a place where every station, no matter if you're in a big market or small market, can connect your own work there. we're spending a fair amount of time thinking about how we can help our stations build up their local journalism, and there are things you can do scalable the architecture of it that will enable stations to put more of their resources into the actual journalism rather than creating the platforms themselves. so i think this is, in fact, a really interesting time, and as we've been talking about, particularly related to the journalistic standards, we did a

of work this year. i think five years from now as we look back, this is just going to continue to accelerate and evolve as we look for ways to think about professional journalism and engage citizenry and try to bring them together to truly meet the information needs of the community. >> things are changing so fast, you may have to do it more often than every five years. >> that's true. >> i'm going to quote from vivian schiller who we mentioned a few minutes ago, who i think it's agreed that she did a marvelous job at npr of bringing it into digital innovations, and last week she was speaking at harvard and she had this message for public radio. she said, you are now competing in the big leagues and are no longer the scrappy underdog. you must become your own disrupters. if you don't aggressively reach out to new audiences on new platforms, someone else well.

there is no such thing as lasting media loyalty, especially in this age of media promise cuity. bill, i suspect you may agree with that. >> in part. i think you'll win on the basis of brand and if that brand represents quality. so, yes, you're going to have bits and pieces of content floating around in every conceivable digital platform but who do you know what you can trust and what you can't? jim lehrer, in his opening remarks, talked about what i would call derivative reporting, which is blogging about what somebody else reported that somebody else reported that someone somewhere reported. it's not a pulitzer prize winning reporter doing direct journalism. if you've got that kind of quality, we have something linda fenton is going to talk about

later called public inside journalism that draws from expertise from the audience in a database of 100,000 around the country and makes journalists more efficient and helps them get their stories to be more accurate. that helps the quality of what we're producing and that improves the brand, but you have to be able to know what to trust, you have to be able to have somebody doing the quality original journalism rather than everybody blogging about what everybody else thinks everybody else reported. >> caryn, same question, but applied to a media market like washington, which is very rich in news sources -- newspapers, very aggressive television operations, one of only -- i learned from tom rosenstiel -- 31 all-news radio stations, which is, i believe, the number one station in the market.

so you've got a lot of competition. how do you, as a public radio station -- what's your role in this media ecosystem? >> that number one commercial news talk station that shall remain nameless, we -- >> would you say it's on top? >> wamu beats them in audience, average quarter-hour audience in morning drive in the 18-year-old to 34-year-old audience. think the content, the quality, we have a different mantel, i think, than our commercial colleagues. information dissemination is one thing, but knowledge building is a completely different thing. we are about helping you understand from your backyard to the globe. i tell my staff, i want wamu88.5 at the kitchen table level of helping people figure things out and navigate the world, whether

it's a new budget plan, a health plan. we've got our great local education reporter, kadifa cardoza right now doing a five-part series on childhood asbestos -- obesity. and when you go to wamu.org, there's a wizard where kids can put things on a virtual plate to see how calories add up and the activity they would need to burn that off. so community engagement is key. and i think another telling figure -- twice a year we get an aggregate audience report from arbitron that shows all of our platforms -- podcasting, all of that. so we're at about 770,000 people consuming all of our content and all of the platforms on a weekly basis. 165,000 of that 770,000 is on

platforms other than channel one. so it's been a stretch. it's been a ramp-up for individual stations to figure out a way to be on every emerging platform but you don't know where your next listener is from so you have to be there. >> pat, and before pat answers, can we get ready? we are going to have hand-held mics and think of your questions and as soon as pat is finished, i'll return for questions. >> in my previous incarnation at "the washington post" for 20 years, we created washingtonpost.com back in the mid 1990's, and i see a lot of fellow post alumni here in the audience, but the initiative here, the mission was to create some world class journalism that people around the world could actually enjoy through this

new -- then new platform called the internet. and we now have, i think, 12 to 13 million regular viewers of washingtonpost.com, so exponentially, more people are reading "washington post" journalism today than ever before. the same thing can happen with public television and public radio, because of this trust factor that we've been talking about here. and there is a flight to quality that i think is going to be very useful to us as time goes on. "the washington post" has not spent a time outside of the washington area to promote washingtonpost.com. these millions of people have come from around the country and around the world because of their faith in this franchise. the same thing can happen, i think will happen across a lot of platforms that are going to be available to us in this new century for the public broadcasting people who are at the national and the local level. >> great.

we'll be hearing a lot more about these digital platforms and new experiments and the national-local partnership is one i'm particularly interested in. now we're ready for some questions. when the mic reaches you, please identify yourself and there's a question there. wait for the -- >> hello. >> you're on. >> hello, i'm llewellyn king, the host of white house chronicle which appears on some public television stations and a large number of public access stations and i'm one of the tired old comedies of british journalism, so loved by public broadcasting. [laughter] i just want to thank the organizers for bringing together the high priests of public broadcasting because if you work

and produce as i do, as an independent producer, a television program, we get no money. we don't even get a post card at christmas. we've been on the air for 15 years, and we don't exist. and we talk among ourselves as to why we don't exist. we can watch our programs on varying public television stations, but we get no recognition from the larger public television. and we're never asked for any input which seems to me quite extraordinary. do we get no money, we actually pay to get on the satellite. so our situation is the orphans of public television and i wonder why we are treated as orphans if our programming is sufficiently valuable to be aired. thank you. >> i guess that would be my question. >> yes, paula. please add llewellyn to your christmas card list. >> i will. the thing about public

television that i think most people don't understand in pbs is, we're not a network. in fact, we're the network model sort of upside down. the decisions that are made in public broadcasting are made at the local level. we do aggregate a schedule and we distribute it. we do all the things that scale for stations. we do put together scheduled programs, we do maintain the satellite interconnection. we have done a significant amount of work on pbs.org but there is a significant amount of programming that goes directly to the stations, that the stations purchase, and that is the situation with your programming. and that enables stations to really think about what will work for them in their local market and what is of interest to them. we have limited funds of what we're able to distribute and so we put our resources at pbs around a smaller amount of programming that we distribute

out to all the stations, and then if you travel from market to market, you see that when you visit a public television station, you visit a public television station. they look very different. and i think that, as i mentioned earlier, part of the strength of what makes us so different and unique is that we are the ultimate local organization. >> next question. we have a hand here. >> thank you. i'm correspondent for japanese public broadcasting. coming from the country where the public broadcasting is doing a major role in journalism, i'm surprised to see all this conversation that npr and pbs, they are doing a great job and telling the public the importance of public broadcasting. my question is, is there any way that pbs and npr could combine

together and build a new, stronger public broadcasting in this country? that's my dream. >> what a good question. the question is, can -- why do we have a separate public radio and public television system, and why can't they -- why can't we all get along? we do get along. >> we get along wonderfully. >> i would say that -- they are very different business models, one from the other, and the reasons for them being separate are historical, but we are more and more collaborating on projects and combining forces, and doing some relationship exciting things, and i that will that continue. i think combining the two organizations as businesses is hugely -- would be hugely complicated. i don't know that it would

necessarily create a stronger combined organization. but i do know that we are -- you know, we are really interested in working together to best serve our public. >> we've done a lot, particularly over the last few years, together, both in areas that you don't see. we work together, for example, on corporate underwriting in trying to bring those resources in. so on the business side, we're working together. we have been working together on some of the architecture for the work that we're doing online. but more apparent to the viewer is the work that we have been engaged in in journalism and "newshour" and npr have come together on projects. "front line" and npr have come together on projects with other organizations like republicca. so i think that npr has very deep reporting capabilities that we do not have the public television side, will never have

on the public television side. it makes no sense for us to construct a system like that. it makes more sense for us to work together and really try to leverage the assets of both course,tions, and of online, everything does come together, and that's where i think a the loof-- a lot of the partnerships have taken place. i think the way that we're a little different than nhk, and i want to commend nhk for doing such extraordinary coverage both in japan but more importantly to the rest of the world of what has happened in your country in the last month. the journalism from nhk makes us all proud to be a partner of yours in the whole public media world. i think that we're also doing partnerships with you. i think that there's lots of really great opportunities. "front line" did a piece about a month ago called "post mortem" which was on the coroner medical

examiner's systems in this country and the challenges of it. and the reporting that was done between the "front line," npr and republica related in a week of journalism for "all things considered," a very powerful broadcast event, as well as a lot of material that was available online. so i think those kinds of models and partnerships are clearly what we will be doing together and i think it is no coincidence that between public television and public radio this year, we have taken more than a third of all the peabodies that have been awarded and i think that kind of quality journalism brings organizations like ours together in natural ways. >> this will be our last comment. be a lot like trying to merge the nhk and the bbc. you think about that. i think the thing that i'm concerned about is the challenges that have come up this year give us an opportunity

to really rethink and relook at how we're structured, what we're funding, why we're funding what we're funding, and look at what could public broadcasting be. public broadcasting is going to be probably the last person standing at some point in terms of journalism. newspapers, i love newspapers, i'm carrying one with me, but they're weakening and they may not make it through the digital transition. some of them may, lots of them not. radio, television, cable, increasingly polarized. you make much more money being polarized than you do any other way. and if that's what's informing our country, then who's going to provide the accurate information on everything from healthcare

social security to wars in the middle east, et cetera. and it leaves us nowhere near as well developed as we need to be to do it. what you work with at nhk is unbelievable in terms of what we work with here in the united states. somebody has to say, how important is this. and when you're cutting things in the budget the way we're cutting them in the united states, to think about, does it make sense to cut public broadcasting's $450 million in order to cut back on the knowledge that the people need to make the decisions on what the government should be cutting or what the government should be funding. cutting the "voice of america" $8 million and cutting out the mandarin service, which the chinese have said maybe we'll have a pledge week and we'll pay for it, it's so important to us, but we need to look at what is

the because i don't see any other alternative and maybe a few of the strongest newspapers. and it's not $450 million. and i'm probably the only one in this environment that's saying we should be talking about tripp eling or quadruple ling that amount of money, so that the issues that the congress is trying to cook with are understood by the people that are going to have to vote and decide that. it's foolish, it's pound foolish to not -- not to do that. >> ok. well, i think we'll have to bring this discussion to an end. and thank you so much to our wonderful panel for being here today, and we will be back in, let's say, 10 minutes to continue the discussion on digital platform. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning substitute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up on "the communicators," intel corporation vice president peter cleveland. in about 45 minutes, live coverage of the white house correspondents' annual black tie dinner, starting with the red carpet arrivals. >> live today, the white house

correspondents' annual black tie dinner, starting with the red carpet arrivals at 6:45 with remarks from president obama and "saturday night live"'s seth meyers. live on c-span. and at c-span.org, follow along with our interactive video player, featuring polls, a photo gallery, video clips, social media comments and live h.d. video. >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals, instead of words. i'm basically writing paragraphs. they just happen to be with images. >> with four pulitzer prizes, carol guzy has won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing about being a journalist is the variety, that we get to experience so many parts of the human condition on so many different levels. >> she'll talk more about her craft sunday night on c-span's "q&a." you can also download a podcast, available online at

c-span.org/podcast. >> this week on "the communicators," our guest is intel corporation vice president peter cleveland, who talks about the obama administration's efforts to improve american innovation by assisting the u.s. technology community. >> well, we're pleased to welcome to "the communicators" peter cleveland, vice president of the intel corporation, and he's also in charge of their blobble public policy group. mr. cleveland, if you could, start by giving us a snapshot of what the intel corporation is, what it makes, where it's located, et cetera. >> intel corporation was found beside 40 years ago in silicon valley. and we are primarily a microprocessor company, but we're getting involved in all sorts of different types of products, software solutions, hardware solutions. we produce the chips inside of net books, servers, desk tops.

but our chips also run medical devices. they also run g.p.s. systems in cars. you see them all over the world. and we are a great american manufacturing success story. we have been profitable for decades and employ 43,000, 44,000 americans in our domestic manufacturing base. so we help found silicon valley and we're going strong there today. >> so you still manufacture heavily in the united states. >> absolutely, in california and oregon, in arizona and new mexico. we employ 43,000, 44,000 high-tech, high-wage workers. they're the heart and soul of intel. and as we expand our manufacturing facilities, we count on them to build our next silicon process technology, our new architect. as we go forward, it's our american manufacturing base that's key for us. >> also joining us in our

conversation is a technology reporter from "the hill" newspaper. we'll get to his questions in just a minute. but president obama, in the last couple of months, has been talking about his innovation agenda. and he's been referencing this in several speeches. here he is from last month at penn state. >> and anywhere you go in the country you will find inventors and businesses that created products that are now sent all around the world. but innovation has also flourished because we as a nation have invested in the success of these individual entrepreneurs, these inventors, these scientists. in this country, from the moment you have a new idea, you can explore it in the world's best labs and universities. you can develop it with a research grant. you can protect it with a patent. you can market it with a loan

to start a new business. you've got a chain that takes a great idea all the way through, and that's something that we, as a nation, have always invested in. it's how we as a people have advanced ideas from the earliest stages of research to the point where you can hand it off and let the private sector run with the ball. it's how investments in basic research led to things like the computer chip and g.p.s. and millions of good jobs. so in america, innovation isn't just how we change our lives, it's how we make a living. and to support american innovation, what my administration is trying to do is not just hand out money. >> peter cleveland, is it important for the government to get involved in technology innovations? >> absolutely. president obama gets it. those remarks right there explain how investing in innovation and job

competitiveness is crucial. and there's a partnership that goes on between the private sector and the government, whether it's patent reform or immigration reform or the r&d tax credit. the president has set sail on the right course. he's not perfect. there are areas that we work with him. but the private sector and the government coming together to push innovation makes all the sense in the world. >> well, in your kind of hometown newspaper, the "san jose mercury news," william shoemaker had an op-ed this week. he he is a professor at the university of mississippi and also associated with the independent institute in oakland. he wrote, "while public investments in technological investments sounds like a good idea, the dangers will be directed for politically popular projects, rather than those with the highest economic value. remember jimmy carter's quest for a new synthetic fuel, or bill clinton's dream of getting detroit to produce a car that

would go 100 miles on a gallon of gas? untold federal treasure was wasted chasing those wills of the wisp." >> at intel, we would disagree with that. the national institute of standards, the department of energy, they do crucial work. they produce the seed corn for great companies like intel. so we collaborate with them. when president obama raises spending levels for these types of agencies and departments, 7% and 8% consistently since he came into office, that's a real plus for silicon valley and tech companies, like intel. >> speaking of research and development funding, we've seen a very political discussion over increasing the amount of r&d funding available from the federal government. how do you view the president's budget requests and the way it handles that money? >> the president has made a series of good decisions to invest in nanoelectronics research, to extend the r&d tax

credit permanently. but this is a hard slog. tax reform is an area, for example, where we are going to have to work with the administration on statutory rates, on the territorial tax system, on effective marginal rates. nothing is ever easy. he has the right ideas, the right principles, to push science, to push engineering. however, we'll have to work in the context of a republican-held house, a democratically-held senate and a democrat in the white house to reach good compromises that encourages open platforms, open systems and open standards, so that companies like del or microsoft or intel or apple, the heart and soul of american technology, can flourish going forward. >> can i step back and ask you, we've really seen science itself become splitly charged in a lot of ways in the --

splitly charged in a lot of ways. how is this important to our economy as a company that's really sort of at the nexus of scientific innovation and creating jobs? >> we have to do better. we sponsor something called the intel science talent search. we just brought in 40 of the brightest kids in the nation who present projects on a vast array of topics, and we awarded $100,000 to a new winner. the k through 12 education system is crumbling. and states and the federal government have to adjust curriculum, have to infuse technology into the classroom so that students learn faster and more efficiently, but particularly in these hard areas. the dropout rates are unacceptable. and i'm probably be charitable when i say that the system is crumbling in these areas. we really have to invest in education, particularly stem

education, science, engineering , education and math. >> is this more money for universities to do research? what specifically are you advocating? >> a better cooperative environment between the federal government and researchers at unchtses, so there's less -- universitieses, so there's less litigation about disputes about who's inventing what, higher standards for teachers. bringing technology into the classroom so there's an immediacy to the learning and curriculum that's going on at the 212 level. we're losing kids in the 8th, 9th and 10th grades and other nations are surging ahead. so we have to do better in this area. >> peter cleveland, your boss, the president of intel said last year that american tech was on the decline and one of the reasons was because of our education system. he's now serving on the president's jobs council. has he seen improvements? has he seen a difference?

>> he has 38 years of experience. he knows how to run a company effectively. and i think the president reached out to him to seek his counsel about steps that we can take to improve the workforce. what can we do in the immigration area? what can we do to reduce patent ed case, so that -- education so that they work more efficiently? it's a brick and more tar process. you have to invest in education. you have to take regulatory and statutory steps in government so that the private sector can expand its head count. so paul is a good candidate to talk to the president. and president obama visited our campus recently in oregon, and we were thrilled to host him there. >> do you see a difference between this administration and the bush administration in its approach to techs? >> i think there are subtle

differences. the president -- the current president, i think, believes in heavily investing in science. and you've seen that with his series of budgets. when i talked about these various departments and agencies, we continue to talk to him about tax reform. president george bush had some good ideas in the area of tax policy that would generate momentum in the private sector. and so when we talk about statutory rates or talk about a territoryal tax system, which inteel advocates for, i give george bush high marks. and in many other respects, president barack obama has done a fine job as well. >> one of the areas, and i want to investigate some of those areas you just mentioned, but one of the ongoing concerns for tech companies has been the h-1-b visa issue. why is that still an issue? >> i think the politics of immigration are whit