how're you doing? >> welcome to the iowa fair. >> thank you. it is good to be at the iowa fair. >> i come here every year. i get the iowa chop. >> it romney. how are you, sir? >> good. >> high. wonderful. thank you, buddy. how are you doing? >> we want you to win. >> hello, how are you? the bank to see you. how are you today? -- good to see you. how are you today? are you in the home-building business? your son is. give him my best. how are you?

hi there. good to see you. take care. hi. how are you? thank you so much. i will follow you, senator. watch out. there are folks right behind you there. hi there. isn't that something? i used to do a little work for them a while ago. nice to see you. is this your grandson? >> iowa state alumni. >> i am it romney. >> i see you on tv. >> am i on tv? sorry about that. hello there. i am mitt romney. i am running for president. >> i know. >> bid to see you. -- good to see you. hi there. how are you doing.

hi. how are you? good, thank you. how are you? great day for the fair. i am mitt romney. >> i am her dad. >> good to me year. how are you? good to see if. -- to see you. >> i just missed zero. are you going to make it for the labor day parade? >> i do not know the answer to that. >> hello. >> how're you doing? he is a good man, isn't he? hi. how are you today? hi there. how are you today? have a good day. how are you? hey there. how're you doing? good to see you.

hi there. i am mitt romney. good to meet you. hi. how are you? nice to see you. thank you so much. hi there. how are area? good to be here. it is just about time to get some lunch. how are you doing girls? one, two, three period. all in one family? are you grandma? terrific. congratulations. arent grandkids wonderful? >> they are. >> i love them. i have to shake hands. ed nice to see you. hi there. how are you doing.

hi there. how are you? you get in frontier. they know you. hi. how are you? is that your grandson there? let's hear it. [duck call] very bad. >> sounds like washington. [laughter] >> i. houri it? -- how are you? >> would you mind signing my but? i would be half -- signing my book? >> i would be happy to. what is your name? is that your brother?

no, cousin? how about this guy over here? that is your brother? good to me you guys. is this your mom and dad here? how are you? nice to see you. i appreciated very much. have a great day, guys. hi there. how are you doing today? thank you for being here. how are you? i am mitt romney. let's shake hands. good to meet you. how are you sir? i am running for president. thank you. i appreciate that. good to be here today. thank you so much. very kind. how are you?

i am terrific, thank you. i there. i am mitt romney. i appreciate that very, very much. how are you? terrific. how're you doing? what is your name? are you 18? you are almost ready to vote. >> one more if you do not mind. thank you, sir. thank you very much. thank you sell much. -- so much. >> when are we going to get a pork chop? hi, how are you? is that your friend that just went by? say hi. i will take it. erie ago.

take care. -- here you the hon. take care. >> the of the thing we care about is all the money that retirees are losing in our iras. i can tell you that rainout. -- right now. we need to do something. because they do not talk about people losing their ira is. >> it is happening a lot right now. >> senator, good to see you. thank you for showing me the ropes around here. hope that works. thank you.

>> where are you taking me? of, my gop booth. ok. i see.

[shouting] [laughter] >> what are you doing out here? >> i cannot stand the heat. >> is this value prep for a debate? >> exactly. i like to get out and see the folks, get a chance to talk to a few. how are you doing? >> good. >> is this your family here? good to see you. >> good to see you. good luck this year. >> captain america? congratulations. thank you. i appreciated.

>> will your wife be at the debate? >> she had jury duty yesterday said she is not going to be here. i have the seat that normally would have been for my wife for a friend. >> that is great. >> i think i will skip the ride. there is enough up and down in politics not to do it physically. how are you doing? good to meet you. >> you handled the crowd well. >> thank you. >> i put a note in your pocket. >> of bed. was that today? do you want me to call it -- dead. -- good.

was that today? do you want me to call you? >> i appreciate it. >> you are going to lower the market on these things. >> thank you. you're the best. [laughter] >> i've blocked you in this morning at the hotel. good to see you. i'm sorry i got you in this morning. -- blocked you in this morning. thank you.

welcome to iowa. bye-bye. >> i really appreciated the way you handled the heckler this morning. it was terrific. >> thank you. thank you so much. hi there. how are you? there is a john deere tractor. we had better get out of the way.

>> where is the best corn? nebraska or i/o what? >> i will give you cornflower -- nebraska or iowa? >> i will give you corn for nebraska. go huskers.

>> governor. >> thank you. quite sour we doing? -- >> how are we doing? >> the fare is nice today. not too hot. good day. thank you.

>> i have a picture of you to pointing at each other. i cannot give it to ap. >> holy cow. look at that. >> governor. >> that sounds good. air conditioning. >> i am going to be going to new hampshire for a couple of nyour events. what do you like in new hampshire? >> i am partial to lake winnipesaukee. that is where i have a summer home. it is a great state. there is a north country in new hampshire.

it is a lovely part of the state, particularly if you're going to be there in the fall. the leaves are brilliant. >> i got to meet senator kelly. >> she is terrific. she is the best. you know, well, that corner veggie dog is pretty good. >> it looks pretty good. >> that is quite a hat.

hi. i there. houri doing? >> umar the man. -- you are the man. >> are these your grandkids? how are you doing. you are eight. you're going to school this fall? but gray? that is exciting. -- third grade? that is exciting. >> i am a reagan republican. >> i appreciate your help. i need your help.

look at that. that is the best thing at the fair. do you want a bite? that is delicious. that pork is great. >> that and iowa corn, the other white meat. >> pork chop on a stick. where did that come from? >> good luck to you. >> where are you from? >> i live in the morning. -- des moines. i worked in insurance. i am retired. >> why is that? you only look about 50-55. what about your daughter?

>> i love water. we go to florida in the winter. we have a lot of lakes in michigan. we have the great lakes. i love being around water. >> very good. thank you. >> we had better let you go. we are getting more air time than you are. >> how do you win that? >> you hit the hammer. >> well spent money. >> thank you. >> how are you? you have got to try the pork chop on a stick.

>> pork chops on a stick, funnel cakes, cotton candy, just some of the items at the iowa state fair, including fried butter. our coverage of mitt romney continues here on c-span as he wraps up his visit to the iowa state fair. we will air this again for our west coast viewers. let's listen in for just another moment. >> are you still working on a ranch? angus? >> crossbred. they dispersed it two years ago. >> is that right?

i worked on a ranch. >> gatt? yeah? >> that was better. good to see you. nice to see you. thank you. >> pork chop on nasdaq. >> it does not get better than that. >> so, as he heads inside to the principal insurance building, a reminder that we will have live coverage all day tomorrow here on c-span and on c-span or radio as more of the republican candidates attend the soap box area. former senator rick santorum, congressman ron paul, and the

chair of the democratic national committee. newt gingrich and michele bachmann will be live all day tomorrow beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern time. just a reminder, live coverage of the ames straw poll taking place at iowa university. nine names will be on the ballot. six of the candidates are actually participating. the speaking part of the program will start at approximately 1:00 eastern time. we will have the results at 630 and a complete wrap up sunday morning on washington journal. a reminder, you can keep up with all of our coverage on c- span.org. president obama is in michigan today, talking about battery technology. we will have live coverage of his remarks at two 40 p.m. eastern here on c-span. right now we want to take you to an event we covered earlier on

the role of women in the media. this event is hosted by the american association of university women here on c-span. enjoy the rest of your afternoon. >> we try to be short, fine, picture-heavy, upbeat, but very

informative. we have 20 reporters running around creating free electronic newsletters every day. we try to parallel that in our events by having short, fine, personality-oriented programs. we could not be more delighted with the mass media figures we have on stage. you will notice that they are all wearing black. either that is very in or they had a lot of money in the stock market. speaking of which, we are being covered today by c-span, because obviously there is no other wonews in the world. we could not do this without a tremendous help of our staff on the ground. i see many of them here. we have publications every day

on the association's and nonprofit world, the tech world, the legal world, the real estate world. we also have a vacuous and immensely popular social publication published by my wife, margot. margot, i did not mean that. we thank the alliance for women in the media for being a media partner of hours on this event. and ladies, d.c. and, as you'll see in a moment, e-touches. and our sponsor for today, i would like to call forward cindy miller of the american association of university women, who is going to spend three minutes giving you some data and some views about women in the media. cindy miller of the a a u w.

>> good morning. thank you so much. we're so excited to be a sponsor here today. the american association of university women is a 130-year- old organization. we currently have 100,000 members and donors strong across the country. we are an organization that believes that a woman who has a college education and is arms with -- armed with the facts is a powerful woman. we love men too. many proponents, cup -- mel proponents, come on board. we would love to have you. i feel i can speak a little bit more intelligently about women in media because i too am a woman in the media. i managed the production studios at disney-mgm for many years, so i know what you are facing.

let's talk about the fact that we are a group that likes to dig around and find facts about different topics. today, women in media hold only 3% of the top positions in the industry. that means that 97% of everything we know at the highest level is dictated by the male perspective. 75% of syndicated writers are men. some of the most promenaded -- prominent newspapers have only one or two women columnists on staff and 18 or 20 men. on radio, 85% of people on air and behind the scenes are men. of directors of major films, 96% are men. sunday morning news programs are also all hosted by men. women and people of color own less than 5% of the television and radio stations, and in studies conducted worldwide,

looking at how many news stories are about women, the figures are only 21%. that is not to say that everything is dismal. we're making great strides banks to women like these. we are proud of the breakthroughs we have made with women in media. elizabeth campbell holds a powerful role that is dear to our heart in media. it is time that we join forces to make this more the norm and not the exception. in social media, women are on the rise today. the most influential blog in the united states is the huffington post. 80% of the twitter accounts with the fastest following are women. and barack obama and ashton culture are the only man to break the top 10.

we are proud that we are making strides. we are honored as an organization to be here and we hope you enjoy your presentation. we will be around after the session if you'd like to chat with us, and we are raffling off some books, so you may see some staffers in between. thank you very much. >> cindy miller, american association of university women, thank you. speaking of twitter, our hash tad is biznowomen and our handle is biznomedia. so, we have the women in black. you have heard of the men in black. good morning, judy woodruff.

>> good morning. >> we like panelists to self- introduced because we find that is likely to be more accurate, and it saves us research. where are you from, judy? >> i was born in tulsa, oklahoma. i was raised as an army brat so i lived there for five years. i move to germany, the new jersey, then back to oklahoma, then north carolina, then georgia where i finished school. >> how did you stumble into washington media and politics? >> why did i choose politics? >> how did you stumble into it, or was a carefully organized? >> i had a professor in raleigh, n.c., where i spent my first two years of college, who was a fabulous inspiration. she saw that i was interested

in political science and lured me away from math, where i was headed, and got me interested in politics. after that, nothing would stop me. i got an internship with my congressperson in washington and never looked back. >> could you tell us the high points of your life in the last 30 years here in washington? >> marriage with al hunt of linder news. having an incredibly fortunate career -- of bloomberg news. having an incredibly fortunate career with pbs, cnn, and back to pbs and what is now the pbs news hour. >> and what do you do exactly, for people who live under rocks? >> i am senior correspondent and co-anchor for the nightly pbs news hour. >> judy woodruff, thank you for being here.

>> gracia martori, do you have some italian ancestors? >> all of them. i think you also have some italian ancestors. >> not that i know of. >> that is unfortunate for you. [laughter] >> maybe i will have some italian descendants. i do not know. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> where did you grow up? >> i grew up outside of massachusetts -- outside of boston. i joined in net in 1985 and have been with them sense. -- gannett in 1985 and have been

with them since. >> to use your origins to go to cape cod all the time? >> i only wish. we are huge red sox fans. [applause] we love massachusetts. we have a house on cape cod, but we do not get to it as often as we like to, but our children are definitely using it in a very significant way. [laughter] >> what are the metrics to impress us about the size and reach of caganet? >> we have $5 billion in revenue, 30,000 employees domestically and in the overseas markets. about 21% of our revenues are digital bignesses, which is not

very widely known. those include things like career builder, the largest employment site in north america. >> when did you become president and ceo of? >> february, 2010. >> amazing. thank you very much. [applause] good morning to paula gerger of pbs. where are you from? >> originally from baltimore. i move to new york after graduating from college. i have been back in washington for five years. >> as many times as i know many of us have heard this, we still cannot get our minds around it. what is pbs do? why should we not confuse it with npr? [laughter] >> we have images. you know, those nice pictures. [laughter] we are a confusing organization. we're the largest nonprofit

media organization in the country. we of 350 member stations that cover 99% of u.s. households. one of our flagship stations is weta here in washington. it is a broadcaster, but it also brings to the national audience the news hour. we are glad you saw the light and left cnn to come back home where you belong. i love cnn, but we love having to be on the news hour. she really brings extraordinary perspective and particularly some of the work she is under the past couple of years on the millennium generation, which i think is some of her best most recent work. but also, weta brings ken burns and when i fall to a national audience.

-- gwen eifel to a national audience. >> the plan of action is, we actually started a little early. around 9:15 a.m. or so we may be concluding. we will see how it goes. we want to make this interactive. someone has put these beautiful legal pads on the desk in case you're taking any depositions today. they will be bringing the blue books out a little later. we want to at some point walk around the audience and if you have some questions, we will not necessarily wait until the end for them. seek recognition and i will be in the shadows watching for you. i want to counsel the panelists that we really want a conversation here. a slice of life as if we were

looking in on a living room. feel free to interrupt, agree, disagree, expand, throw chairs, raise our ratings in any way you can. >> that is what we do on the news hour every night. he-touches, remind us what that is and your own background. take it away. >> i do not get the questions. >> where are you from? >> this is what happens when you are moderating a panel of women in media. e-touch is an event management software solution. the comment about my address was interesting. i was thinking about a leopard. i am and serial of entrepreneur and i change my spots fairly regularly. we have been a software company since 2007. this is about my fourth

iteration of my entrepreneurialism. lots of changes and trying to stay slightly ahead of what is going on in the market, which is something you guys are all too familiar with. we are based in connecticut. we are a global company. on a much smaller level than ganet but we are growing. we are -- software is an industry where there are very few women ceos, so it is an interesting journey for me. what an amazing panel. you guys deserve a round of applause for showing up at 8:00 in the morning on this very hot day. well done. [applause] lots of questions, really. there is so much to talk about. there is so much going on in the news and in media for women.

one of the questions i had was about the cost pressures that media is under. given what is going on in news rain now, you're not alone. we are all under a bit of cost -- news right now. you're not alone. we are all under a bit of cost pressure. pbs does a great job of maintaining quality. cost pressure makes quality real challenge, but we are not having to put up content every day to the world. i am interested in how you're handling that and what methods you're using to overcome it. >> for us, quality is really the guy starts to our organization. to ourtar organization. there is a temptation to cut corners or compromised in economically tough times, but

from our perspective, that is what makes us unique in the media landscape. someone just spent me -- sent me a great article that talks about how there are now 19 programs on pawnshops. there are five programs on cupcakes. there are endless programs on hoarders. i am looking for someone to put them altogether. even animal planet now has animal quarters. >> in envisioning hoarding cupcakes. very tempting. >> but with at the animals. that would be ugly. but for us, really looking at technology as one opportunity to operate efficiently and stay very focused on putting the resources into the content. that is what makes us unique. thinking very hard about --

aside from the funny comment about hoarders -- there is great television on other networks, and cable. for us, we are constantly challenging ourselves to think about where the marketplace is covering different subjects and steering away from that, and really focusing on those areas that the marketplace has not taken up. that is the role of nonprofit media, i think. the thing by being very focused on the work that we are delivering, taking advantage of technology that does give us opportunities to produce content at a lower cost per hour, and in the new ways to bring in revenue to our organization -- in our case, we have the opportunity to bring in contributions from individuals across the country using the techniques we have used for years, but also now we're opened up through the web and other sources. i think trying to keep that i

entrepreneurial spirit, to keep thinking about new ideas for revenue is part of what is helping us get through that. >> yours is a non-profit company. mine is a for-profit company, but our answers are remarkably similar. there is a choice now -- there is a plethora of choices now for users and readers to get information. the challenge for us is to find ways to get those people to spend time with the news and affirmation we provide on our television stations and through our myriad websites, mobile products and print publications. quality, differentiated content, you need content is very important to garner that mind share from -- unique content is very important to garner that mind share from users. we too understand the cost pressures of being a public company, being a for-profit

company, and so we too have had to look at opportunities to use new technology. with 23 television stations. we used to do production in each of the stations. some are small and their resources are limited, so their graphic production may not be as good as some of our larger stations. the consolidated all of those graphics in denver, colorado, and now our smaller stations get the same quality, which is an improvement on the quality they had before, as our larger stations. again, using technology to do a lot of things more smartly. before, we never really shared content. if we were covering tornadoes in

misery and we had a newspaper there and a television station in st. louis, they would go through their coverage and do it only for themselves. now we are creating a culture of sharing content among ourselves so that we can improve the quality of our print products by having the great coverage that our tv stations can provide. we can improve the coverage from usa today because we have feet on the street and global coverage where news is happening. it is really sharing reformation across the company with each other, -- sharing information across the company with each other, doing things in a more consolidated way and using technology to help us be more efficient so we can spend our time and resources on generating that quality content that we need. >> the media world traditionally

has been fairly silent within their own companies. would you say that technology is facilitating that ability, or is the pressure on media generally causing you to have to think that approach? >> it is cultural change, business necessity, but it is also really understanding that when you are one of many choices and not the only choice in the marketplace, you have to have better compelling content, and in order to do that, we can take advantage of all of the assets that we have. we of 22 television stations. they can provide us with great video content around a lot of things we could not have if we were not sharing out across the company. >> from the perspective of the news hour, technology has meant an enormous change in how we reach our audience. we had a web page for years and

years, but in the last few years it has become an absolutely integral component of who we are as up program. as we think about covering the news through the day and the news hour, i believe, and pollen is this very well, we stand alone -- paula knows this very well, we stand alone in one hour covering the stories we think absolutely have to be covered that day. on the web page, we're able to expand that, dive deeper, offer more detail, and frankly, for those of us on the air where our main job is reading the news and interviewing guests, reporting the news, on the web page we are able to do some analysis. i white -- i write a weekly blog. there are interviews and stories that would not make it on the

air. all of us in media these days are facing more complicated news. the world has gotten harder to understand than it has ever been. at the same time, those of us in the media have shrinking resources, less resources to cover a story that is arguably more complicated than it has ever been. all of us have to think smarter. we have to think streamlined. we have to think, who is our audience? what are we trying to do? at the news hour, we rely on the mantra of jim lehrer said many years ago we would wake up and not have to think about who we are, why we cover the news, just what are the most important stories of the day, and how are we going to go after them? we do not have to think about an ankle. we cover the most important stories, and that is it. >> news hour has done

extraordinarily well. part of that is unable by a technology. there is an opportunity -- part of that is enabled by technology. there is an opportunity to build partnerships with organizations such as pro public a -- pro publica, printer organizations and npr. the ability to share through an internet connection, a laptop, the possibilities this offers to really expand journalism and enrich it -- yes, we do have less resources. would we like to have more? absolutely. but the current economic climate as well as the current climate in media in general has allowed

very direct ways of operating and bringing work to the public, which i think is exciting. at the end of the day, i think we all benefit, because by bringing together different perspectives and different organizations, i think it is exciting. >> just to add to what judy was saying, we have to follow consumers and readers wherever they want to receive their content, whether that is on the mobile device, and tablets, in printed form or on television. one of the things we have had to change is that you cannot just write a story for print products and expect to see that same story printed on every other platform on every other device. we also have to use our devices differently. we use our smartphone in a very different way for very quick updates purses and ipad or a tablet where it is more of a -- vs and ipad or a tablet where it is more of a lean back and

digest kind of way. on the website, there is more opportunity for analysis and in- depth reporting. it is incumbent on us to understand what each of these platforms are all about, how consumers use those platforms and can be effective in communicating in using content that is designed and taylor for that platform. >> in my world, we talk about stickiness all the time. we think that is a relatively easy problem to solve in event management software. but it is a huge problem for people in media, particularly with what i observed in my own kids, their ability to stay involved and engaged in one thing for any given period of time. it is below. i think there is a real shift -- there was a time when you got on the train and 90% of the men

were reading the newspaper. -- 90% of the people were men, and half of them were reading "the new york times," and half of them were reading "the wall street journal." >> a couple were reading "usa today." [laughter] >> i am talking about way back. >> there is an impression that people are consuming media differently, but they are consuming a lot of media. one of the priorities -- i think you and i have the same job, except we have alamelmo. >> we have deal chicken. >> we think constantly about where people are.

where are they consuming media? how are they consuming media? i think considering content and trying to ferret out what content fits which platform is something we have wrestled with. we have a large audience under five and a large audience over 50. we want to make sure that we hold on to the very large audience under five because the content that we produce is curriculum based. we went through a fairly rigorous process where we really tore apart our entire kids schedule, worked with our producers -- sesame street is now in its 44th year -- 41st year, and that is because it continues to reinvent itself and think about how children are learning, but we thought about

the content we're delivering in broadcast but also how can we take the power of what you can accomplish on line in terms of helping children develop basic skills and really a ploy that in a way that gives kids an opportunity to test the skills they are learning. it is a much more engaged education process and the results of an extraordinary. we're the no. 1 destination for kids on line in video. kids are spending an average of 45 minutes a session -- an average -- and if you spent time in the internet world, you know how large those numbers are. that is the ultimate stickiness. you're looking at ways not only of reaching a lot of people, but making sure that when they're interacting with us, they're not just clicking away on television or clicking away on the

internet. some of this holistic approach in thinking about kids we have applied to prime time. but the news hour has done in particular in really bringing together the journalism of what they present on the air with what they're able to do online and on tablets, and three radio -- through radio, i think you then have a much greater opportunity of connecting to people as they want it. >> endorsing everything paula has said, once young people get used to getting in formation, learning something on television, one of the challenges is how to keep them

on the learning track as they get older. i did this project looking at the younger generation a few years ago. looking at their attitudes, their values, how close they are to their parents, how they are the most a first generation in american history, how technology is changing them -- the most diverse generation in american history, how technology is changing them. we found them remarkably well informed considering the fact that there is not the dedication to picking up the newspaper every morning or watching a newscast every night. they are getting information. how are you doing that? -- how are they doing that? one consultant said, what young people tell us is we figure that if the news is really important, it will come to us. even people who are not genetically inclined to follow

the news are hearing what is going on through their cell phones, they're smart device, whenever they're tearing around. they are seeing it on facebook. that may sound shallop to us, but in -- shallow to us, but in many cases, they then have the opportunity to get more affirmation right away, in a moment. that is why i think technology is making this generation much smarter and more informed. >> you are referring to the next generation project. did you notice any notable differences gender-wise on how people are behaving? >> surprisingly not. i went in looking to see differences of attitude. again, in terms of closeness to parents, we found young men and women equally close. parents, when you ask them about what is important to them in life, we found an equal number

were interested in having a family. a lot of young men say they are interested in having a family and a stable life. they have been influenced in that way. a significant percentage say something else, i am not ready to settle down. but in terms of the role technology plays in their lives, young women are every bit as effective as young man. diversity does not know any gender barrier. i went in looking for gender barriers and did not find them. gender differences, i should say. >> to your point, paula, i think we have found that media consumption is at an all-time high in the country at this point as some of the studies are pointing out. one of the things we abound about television viewership is that while folks are watching television, about 80% of them are also using some other device in the same room, whether they are on facebook, twitter,

interacting in talking to each other, and what that is actually doing is increasing the level of television viewership because it is not just a passive experience any more. it is becoming a more interactive social experience. we're finding the with the social tools that are out there, for instance, nbc came out with a show called the voice on monday night. it has become a hit. we have 13 nbc affiliate's. three of the top five affiliates that have produced the best of your ship for the boys have been our affiliates, -- viewership for the voice have been our affiliates, and that is because we have engaged the audiences with contests, discussions, social interaction, a social media, to really get people to be more focused.

we see that as being much more successful, much more important to a younger audience, and that has enabled us to drive younger audiences. unlike you, we do not have a big crowd under 5 who looks at our product on a consistent basis, but we are seeing the age of folks because of social media tools is coming down, and at usatoday.com, we are finding that our tablet application has a group of viewers that are a decade younger than our traditional web user. it is one of the most successful apps in the ipad store. we're very pleased with the viewership and demographic of that viewership. >> i think the voice is a wonderful program. what is interesting about the

story you just told is that as a linear viewing experience for an older audience that may not have other expectations about media consumption and just enjoys sitting on the couch and watching that show on a big tv in the living room, that is a beautiful show. we haveour online audience the e age is 35. they are not doing it. we are absolutely seeing the same things that you are, which is people are consuming media in many different ways, and it is surprising for most people to hear that television viewing -- pure television viewing -- is at an all-time high. one might assume because of all of the other media options, television must be suffering and people are staring at their bones. would you describe is what is happening figure.

they are watching tv, on line, certainly a different environment. i have to get out of the habit assuming that if my kids were on their phone during the movie that in men that they did not like the movie. i would say, if you do not like the movie, we can turn it off. >> moving to a slightly different tact in your life and career as has women in business. we used to be a management company. i observed there were not many women keynote speakers. i thought that this would be my cause. we would find, identify, and secure keynote speakers for our clients. i found that was a difficult task.

most women would say, i will be on a panel, i will be in a breakout session, but i do not want to do the keynote. what is your impression of how women move into a place where they are comfortable with the limelight? it is a very different mind set, i think, from being the person who is the center of attention. >> i think we have come a long way. i see many women who are eager to stand in front of an audience to tell their story, talk about the work they do. when i started out -- here is how long i started out as a reporter. i was tired of college as a secretary in the newsroom of a television station in atlanta. i had been there for a few months. my only goal was to become a

reporter. i kept on saying this to the new director, and his answer was, well, we already have a woman reporter. which they did. [laughter] she did the weather at 6:00. my point is, today, more than half of the anchors at local stations around the country are women. i know we heard some statistics earlier. there are more women showing up on the air behind-the-scenes, producing shows, recording, they are covering the war in afghanistan, at the pentagon, everywhere. do we have enough women in management? that is another topic, but in terms of getting in front of an audience, women are more willing to do that than they have been. i think sometimes women need to be encouraged. women have a tendency of -- i do

not know as much as i should. i fine young women coming along have a lot of confidence in their ability and what they know, and i think it is just a aster of time witbefore you see many women. before we take positions of management, executive positions, i would like to see more women doing that. that is a more complicated subject of why there are not more women like paula and gracia. there is an issue there. but in terms of standing in front of an audience, speaking out, we have come a long way. >> i have been fortunate to be with gannett for 20 years. one of the things that attracted me to the company when i first joined, looking at the board makeup, looking at officers of the company, looking at people

in positions of influence, the management team, at that point, continuing through the time i was with the company, had been focused on reflecting the communities that we serve. there were a lot of tremendous role models at gannett when i joined. the banking industry was not exactly a bastion of gender equality when it came to hiring. i knew women that had a tremendous impact on the communities that they served. we would have 15 people on the border of directors and only three of them would be women. in the senior management teams, women there as well. the great thing for me was reading the annual report before i joined the company. the chairman pointed out that we had 5000 openings that year for

new employees. 47% were filled by women. 20% were filled by minorities. so, for me, gannett was a tremendous place to be, a company that was always focused on reflecting the community that we served, always had great role models of women being in positions of influence and power and importance in the communities that we serve. >> i think part of what we think about pbs, diversity, in every aspect of our organization, is one of our core values. we really do attempt to reflect the communities that we serve. i thought you said that well. on the board, staff, management team, in the work that we produce, procurement, as we

think about organization that we do business with. it is part of the metrics of how it every manager in our organization is evaluated. i think if we are serious about seeing more women, more people of color in key roles in organizations, then you really have to put it front and center every day and stay focused on it. i think it is good business, makes us a much stronger company. having a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives really has been critical to the work that we do. we try to live this every single day. >> getting back to being on the air, in front of an audience, we think every day on the news hour, as we put our guest lineup together, whether it is the economy, politics, we think, who is out there? we think about women,

minorities. and it is not just in the back of our mind, it is in the front. does that mean that every single line that is perfectly the verse? no, but over a span of a short period of time, we want to reflect the country, and we want to reflect the people who are in the area. whether it is economists, politicians, people in elected office, what ever it is. we are looking to be diverse. that is our mission. we believe, as a news organization, we believe we are holding up a mirror to the country. you cannot do that, frankly, if it is all white guys. >> present company excluded. >> do they made the comment that she would like to see more

women leading organizations. for those of us trying to be leaders in our companies, could you share any words of advice? you have a cfo role. i would love to hear from you, advice, women who want to be able to lead organizations. >> i wish i could give you this grand plan of how i knew my -- where my career was going to go, but i have to tell you, i was much more focused on doing the job that i had at that moment, doing it to the best of my abilities. i always have tremendous faith. the thing that attracted me to gannett was that there was an absolute meritocracy. there was not a family there. there was not a certain pedigree

of people who thought that they were better than others. it was very much a meritocracy. i learned quickly, do the job that you are given an to the best of your ability. somehow, miraculously, people would notice that and give you additional responsibilities. one thing that i also realized in my career, and it is true more of women, we tend to worry about getting out of our comfort zone. and i really prepared for that position? i find that is not as true with men. with women, it tends to be true a little bit more. you have to force herself to come out of your comfort zone. i remember when our then-vice chairman came to me and said, our investor relations person has left. why don't you handle it? i said, sure, not a problem.

i thought, what have i gotten myself into? if i do something wrong, the stock price is going to plummet. but it was a great opportunity for me and enabled me to one in my skill set. the other thing is, really being able to learn something from somebody you encounter along the way. from every relationship i have had, every person i have met in my organization, i find something i can learn from. sometimes i learned what not to do, but mostly, i learn how to be a better executive, better leader of people. >> paula, what i heard a little bit there is women in risk- taking. by nature, we tend to be not as willing to take risk as men have traditionally been.

it could mean standing on stage when you are not quite prepared. do you think the appetite for risk is a factor in women's success? >> i am not sure. particularly, as more and more women rise into positions of influence and you are no longer the first. i think it was sandra day o'connor that said it was not good to be the first. you also do not want to be the last. for those women who have risen up, who are the first, you feel this enormous pressure that you have got to do a better job than anyone could possibly do because you are not only representing yourself, but you are somehow representing women of all kinds. i spend time trying to mentor

young women and men. i believe it is a special obligation, for all of us who have been fortunate to have been given opportunities, to remember what it is like when you are a graduate from college and you do not have relied figure out, and you should because everyone else has had their life figured out. how many of us have their life figure that when they left college? maybe you did, judy. you are always the overachiever. but i do think that for so many people, -- whatever words of advice i could share is to not be afraid. i think men have this issue. maybe they do not verbalize it. moving out of your comfort zone and trying something different. particularly, if you feel like you had worked on your whole life plans.

sometimes, opportunities come to you that may seem so off the path that you thought you were on. to have the opportunity to take that leap, try something that seems risky or not quite in a nice, neat boxes is terrifying. but for many of us, to continue to rise up, to have opportunities, you have to be willing to take that risk. for me, the saddest thing is to look at organizations where people have been in their job for a long time, have been afraid to put their hand up, be willing to try to is -- try something different. the people that are able to then go on and lead organizations are the ones that have been willing to do whatever it takes. if that means standing on the stage, or agree to take on an

assignment were you actually may not know all the information. i think recognizing -- there was a man that i knew a number of years ago who told me -- and he was a successful man on wall street running a successful company. he said every time i go into a new job, there is a voice in the back of my head that says, what if they find out? i cannot tell you how empowering that was. everyone has that thought. recognizing the fact that, unless you have such an overriding ego, everyone has that voice in the back of their mind. if you can just quiet that voice and recognize that you bring a lot to any new opportunity. >> really important to think about. this takes us in a different direction from what you were

asking, but one thing that has reminded me and, i think, many of my fellow journalists, putting things in perspective. whenever we get frustrated with the fact that the industry is changing, the challenges have more often to something that nobody expected, resources are down -- we think about the problem that we face in media in this country. they pale in comparison to what journalists face around the world. i want to take a moment to put in a good word for an organization i have been involved in, the international women's media foundation. it is devoted to offering opportunities to women in journalism and communications around the world. in 20 years, we have been able to identify women who are literally risking life and limb in places far away from here.

in most instances, from mexico, latin america, asia, south america, china, the african continent, the middle east, on and on. women who are risking everything in order to tell the story. we recognize them something that we call the courage in journalism award. we do these programs every year. our executive director happens to be right here. say hello to eliza gross. this is a global report on the status of women in media. this is something that our organization collaborated with with other organizations. iwmf.org. an important but easy read about

the important role that women play. yes, we have it tough in the united states, but women around the world are facing incredible obstacles, and they are putting themselves out front. the to be encouraged to speak up and look power in the eye. that gives us the courage that we need to have in this country. >> in the concluding thoughts about anything we may have missed? questions? >> we have had the privilege of working with a few traditional media companies. we have heard how the company's arby's roast-challenged.

one other thing that i see with traditional companies, they appear to forget the people investing in advertising with them want to see a strong return on investment. for a long time, traditional media was the only game in town. part of the challenge now is having to reinvent how we are going to match advertisers with the users that you are bringing in. i am curious what your doing to address that, and what you see as a result? >> i think i should handle this because we are advertising- based. >> if you're going to have resources, you need to be able to bring them in in many forms. >> i am going to be rude. i have to run. the markets opened in 10 minutes. thank you. i am so honored to have been here. >> do you woodruff.

[applause] -- judy woodruff. >> you are protected by the first amendment, judy. just make the report totally positive. >> with regard to the issue of metrics around advertising, you are right. what we hear from advertisers is they want to understand the roi associated with the advertising dollar they spend with us. in areas like digital and mobile, there are more established metrics that we can share with those folks who choose to advertise with us to show them the return they are getting on their investment in a more meaningful way. on the television side, we have always had nielsen help with ratings, other metrics the weekend provide on -- we can

provide on television viewing, understanding the demographics of that viewing. it has been more difficult on the traditional sign, but we have been working with a number of folks to come up with some standard metrics to better address the issue of return on investment of those marketing dollars. but absolutely an important question when there are a lot more quizzes these days. >> we do not take advertising. we have underwriters, so we do have relationships with corporations, which are important to us. we get the same nielsen numbers that the commercial broadcasters use. we are looking very carefully at all the ways we are showcasing material. as we look at the web, not just measuring clicks, but

understanding the impact of messaging. for us, people associate public broadcasting because it is not a cluttered environment. we do not have ads every 10 minutes. people that associate with programs in public broadcast are doing it as a way of extending their connection to our organization, but also, in reaching the people of watching public television. we think carefully about how we are presenting that information to prospective corporations. and we are always looking for ways to build those partnerships. stations across the country. a number of our stations are involved in doing events with donors during our fund raising drive. a lot of them will use it as an opportunity for volunteers. we are constantly thinking about how we can strengthen those

partnerships and deliver back to the company that are supporting us. >> i should also add, we own a company called point roll. they serve up an amazing number of ad campaigns for the fortune 1000 companies. the metrics that they can provide around those advertising campaigns, -- 30 different metrics around the results that those advertisers and marketers is getting is phenomenal. >> how about a couple of quick questions? >> i am wondering what your organizations are doing to address the issue of news literacy. helping people to think more critical about the news they are getting, being able to differentiate between their find news and the proverbial blogger in pajamas.

>> we are thinking a lot about it. as we are looking for ways to help people decide for news, one of the big initiatives we are focused on is helping both kids and parents understand how to navigate, particularly, the internet for information there. from our perspective, being able to not only help kids develop basic literacy in media, which will be even more important as we move forward with such an array of access point for data, we can begin to make an impact. we have a fairly large project that we are involved in nationally called pbs learn media. it is a project to bring out our digital assets, video as well

as animations, and others coming into the classroom. if you think about the content that we produce, there are a lot of direct classroom applications. we have been involved in the last couple of years of taking a very large library and breaking it up into small segments which can be used in the classroom, correlating with standards that the teachers are using. and then handing them out free to schools with broadband. as part of that thinking, we are looking at tool that we can give to teachers to use around media literacy. we partner with organizations that have the same concerns and issues. helping kids -- and frankly, going back to the parents, figuring out how to navigate through these spaces. it will be critically important. helping people to analyze truth,

fact, sources, all of that, will be critical for democracy. >> at gannett, we have been involved in education programs where we provide newspapers to schools, promote literacy through schools. as well as through our fell anthropic arm, -- philanthropic arm, the gannett foundation, much of that work goes to literacy initiatives and other initiatives to promote reading, of viewing, addressing those issues that have been identified as priorities in those communities. to your point about cutting through the clutter of misinformation, one of the interesting things, we are all inundated with so much information. far more than any of us can really deal with on a daily basis.

obviously, that was not the case many years ago. some of the research we have been doing talks to the fact that what a lot of consumers and viewers are looking for is someone to curate and added that content. that had been the traditional job of our editors at newspapers, a broadcast patients. there is so much information. what is real and what is not real? that is why we believe the trusted brand we represent in those communities -- if we make a mistake, we print a correction on the front page, or in the broadcast. whereas we all know, if a blogger states something inaccurate on the internet, i do not see much of a correction. so looking at those trusted barrett -- brands that have credibility, standing for a

certain level of accuracy and veracity in content. >> this has clearly been a great talk on diversity and the media. today, with our economy, technology collaboration, participation is sort of the executive order from the white house on open government. we are engaging young people in social media for the first time ever. we cannot do that as greatly as you and your resources. would you be interested, gannett, pbs, in learning how we can collaborate more to expand

use of the media to our youth to expand economy? >> we work with a lot of organizations. both for children as well as adults, shaped by a panel that we put together to try to extend our work. frankly, to take the good work of other organizations and bring into a wider audience. we've you part of our role as a megaphone for that. >> as well, at gannett, we are very much involved in national association of black journalists, other minority journalism efforts. through our foundation, we have been supportive of all those efforts in kind, as well as indirect contributions. i would very much welcome any interaction. >> we encourage you to stay for

the post-game schmooze. these are role models, not only for women, but for anybody in this country. i am sure we have not seen anything yet. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house and senate are out but leaders have finalize the deficit reduction committee. nancy pelosi naming the members

becerra clyburn. republicans made their pitch yesterday. mitch mcconnell selecting jon kyl, rob portman, and pat to me. john boehner appointed jeb hensarling, dave camp, and fred upton. the house and senate are back the week september 6. in just a couple of minutes, we will take into holland, michigan. president obama is touring the johnson's control plant, and energy corporation. they will be talking about job creation and clean energy manufacturing. we will take you there when the president's comments get underway. in the meantime, what washington -- "washington journal" viewers had to say this morning. poll.

democrats are evenly divided on the tter. that only hints at the dissatisfaction aimed at political leaders in washington who must specify in excess of $1 strode in more in deficit reduction by later this fall or trigger across-the-board cuts in defense andon-defense spending.

now we want to hear from you. can or should washington do more now we want to hear from you. on the economy? we will start with william on the democrats' line from baton rouge, louisiana. hi, william. caller: tariffs need to be put on all imports. they need to close tax loopholes, raise revenue, get rid of medicare part d. and -- host: you would like washington to be more active? caller: they definity need to

get on the ball. this is absolutely pathetic. i watched the entire debt bate.ng the bde senator merkle of oregon and sanders of vermont were the only people who spoke. the rest of them, they always ask the question, how did i get here? then they look around and say how did thesether people get here? none of them should be there. host: riverdale, georgia, daniel on our independent line. can or should washington do more to help the economy? caller: yes, good morning. they should do aot more. i think the president should callongress back giin, because

people have been out of jobs for a year-and-a-half. the so-called deal should have been a bigger deal. just kicking the can down the road through december and then they will, with this committee. we need a jobs bill. we need infrastructure. they need to start building roads. host: when you say a jobs bill, what would you like to see in that? caller: i am not talking about just words. if states have people ready to start with construction work, the state's need to come up with sothing. the president as well as the congress. congress oppose the disapproval rating is at 70%. they disapprove of what congress is doing.

[inaudible] unemployment will be 9% for awhile. if anybody tells you they know what's going to happen, they're not telling the truth. host: robert tweeted -- back to the article, confidence in obama to make the right decision for the country --

david is a democrat in oregon. you are on c-span. can or should washington do more to help the economy? caller: of course, they should. if the government is not going to do anything, who's going to? host: what should be done? caller: first, we have to have these people stopped. electing the government opposition parties to run the congress. is congress it makes no sense.

you would not hire a teacher who is opposed to education. you would not hire a builder who is opposed to building. you would not hire a policeman who did not believe in a lot. why would you hire congressman who are opposed to government? it makes absolutely no sense. we have an idiic public voting, a public that is being misled by fear and all the wrong things that they are using to motivate people. host: we will leave it there. joe, american hero, tweets -- warren is a republican in chester,. caller: i think the government should do more to help the economy. st: what you mean by more? caller: i think president obama started this whole mess when he

said people are not going to get their social security checks. [inaudible] every time the government gets broke, they manipulate the people with statements like this. that's exactly what they are doing. if the government owns land west of the mississippi, why don't they sell land with instead of tang people social security checks? it's like the government cannot do without anything. host:lula in atlanta, democrats line. can or should washington do more to help the economy? caller: sure, they should do more. >i would like them to start some wpa programs, but i hear everybody blaming the president. at first they called him a

dictator and names like that. now they want him to get out and be a dictator when there is nothing he can do without the congress -- nothing. pass the laws and he signed them into law. up until then he can do notng. they are just ainstverything that he has tried to do. that he has tried to do. i hear that his election will be in jeopardy because of the economy is in the tank because of the republicans. not because of the president. not because of the president. it amazes me how people to think. host: here are some facebook comments we are getting as continue the conversation on facebook as well. mr. jenkins says they should let it collapse?

you can participate as well and continue this conversation on our facebook page. facebook.com/cspan. this is one of the few cases when we don't put the hyphen. now from redding, pennsylvania on the line. caller: i have feelings on what can be done to help the economy.

i wish they would get out of the way. the executive and legislative departments both. we look at the bands that were put on oil drilling after katrina and thousands of jobs were lost in the gulf. we look at the preference that is given to people like the job czar that president obama appointed from general electric and general electric's closing their electricalmaging manufacturing plants in the u.s. and shipping them over to china a few months ago. the overlapping regulations that are put on our various industries. like you have epa and department of fisheriesnd wildlife, bls, all involved with the same things. over regating industry. just let the government get out of the way and let industry do

its thing. jobs will be created. jobs will be created. at the same time, to protect ourselves, i think the only job of the government is if the industry screws up, do nothing more than set down cost of replacing what they lost. exit. exit. and then let industry to its own thinand it will be relevant. why are so many things going over the tracks? over the tracks? new balance , because of its fair wage laws and everything, they will have to close their plant and probably go to china. host: there was an article in the wall street journal on new balance and the four remaining plants and about a thousand workers that it still has in the u.s. they are trying to hold on. their word about the free-trade agreements. >> yes. that is the government again getting involved in that, right?

it is areaty made by the u.s. government. host: thanks for your comment this morning. new tests for ben bernanke. his decision to open the door to an easier monetary policy.

>> we are going to take you live to holland, mich. to the johnson controls energy plant. president obama getting ready to speak to the group. >> thank you. [applause] thank you, everybody. have a seat. hello, and johnson controls. it is good to be back in holland, michigan. [applause]

a couple of people i want to thank in particular, your cdo steve is here -- ceo steve is here. one of the finest senators in the country, carl levin is in the house. [applause] so i just had a chance to see what you are doing in this plant. it is very impressive. elizabeth was giving me the door and she was very patient with me. i think i understood about half of what she said. [laughter] at a time when americans are really focused on our economy, when americans are asking about what is our path forward, all of you at johnson controls are providing a powerful answer. this is one of the most advanced factories in the world. you are helping america lead in

a growing new industry. you are showing us how we can come back from the worst recession we have had in generations and start making things here in america that are sold all over the world. and that is why i am here today. i said it before, i will say it again. you cannot bet against the american worker. [applause] do not best -- bet against american ingenuity. [applause] the reason a plant like this exists is because we are a country of unmatched freedom, where ground-breaking ideas flourish. we have got the finest universities, the finest technical schools, the most creative scientists, the best on japan norris.

that is why we are home to the most dynamic and successful businesses, large and small. [applause] and that is why, even in these difficult times, there is not a single country on earth that would not trade places with us. not one. we have to remember that. but we also know we face some tough challenges right now. you know what they are. you live them every day. in your communities and families. too many people were out of work. struggling to get by with fewer shifts, fewer customers, paychecks are not big enough, costs are too high. and even though the economy has started growing since the recession started in 2007, the fact is, it is not growing fast

enough. now, some of what we are facing today has to do with events beyond our control. the economy, if it had been improving through 2009, 2010, and then suddenly it was hit with the unrest in the middle east and said gas prices through the roof. europe is dealing with all sorts of financial turmoil that is lapping up on our shores. japan's tragic earthquake hurt economies around the globe, including ours. cut off some supply chain that were important to us. all of this has further challenged our economy. and as we have seen, it is playing out in the stock markets, wild swings up and down, and it makes people nervous, and it affects the

savings of families all across america. now, challenges like these, earthquakes, revolutions, those are things we cannot control, but what we can control is our response to use challenges. what we can control is what happens in washington. unfortunately, what we have seen in washington the past few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock, and that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our ability to take the steps we need for our economy. it has made things worse, instead of better. so what i want to say to you johnson controls is there is nothing wrong with our country. there is something wrong with our politics. [applause]

there is something wrong with our politics that we need to fix. we know there are things that we can do right now that will help accelerate growth and job creation, that will support the work going on here at johnson controls, in michigan, and across america. we can do things right now that will make a difference. we know there are things we have to do to erase a legacy of debt that hangs over the economy. but time and again we have seen partisan brinksmanship get in the way. as if winning the next election is more important fulfilling our responsibility to you and the country. this downgrade you have been reading about could have been

entirely avoided if there had been a willingness to compromise in congress. [applause] it did not happen because we do not have the capacity to pay our bills. it happened because washington does not have the capacity to come together and get things done. it was a self-inflicted wound. [applause] that is why people are frustrated. maybe you can hear it in my voice. that is why i am frustrated. you deserve better. you guys deserve better. [applause] down, you, from the ceo's working hard, taking care of your kids, parents, maybe both,

may be trying to save for your kids' college education, retirement, donating to the church or food pantry, trying to donate to the community. you are living up to your responsibilities. it is time for washington to do the same, to match your results and decency and to show the same sense of honor and discipline. that is not too much to ask. that is what the american people are looking for. [applause] and if that can happen, we know what is possible. we know what we can achieve. look at this factory. look and what is happening in holland, michigan. every day, hundreds of people are going to work on the technology that are helping us fight our way out of this recession.

every day you are building high- tech batteries so that we lead the world in manufacturing the best cars, trucks, and that does not just mean jobs in michigan. you are buying equipment and parts from suppliers in florida, new mexico, ohio, wisconsin, and all across america. so let us think about it. what made this possible? the most important part is you. your drive, your work ethic, your ingenuity, management, the grit and optimism that says we have an idea for a new battery technology, a new manufacturing process. we are going to take that leap and make an investment, and we are going to hire some folks and see it through. that is what made it possible. but what also made this

possible are the actions that we took together, as a nation, through our government. the fact that we were willing to invest in the research and the technology that holds so much promise for jobs and growth, the fact that we helped create, together, the conditions where businesses like this can prosper. that is why we are investing in clean energy. that is why i brought together the world's largest auto companies, who agreed for the first time to nearly double the distance of their cars could go on a gallon of gas. [applause] that is going to save customers thousands of dollars at the pump. it is going to cut our

dependence on foreign oil. it will promote innovation and jobs. it will mean more job postings, more groundbreakings for companies like johnson controls. that is how americans believe the world in automated production. think about it. and by the way, we did not go through congress to do it. but we did use the tools of government, us working together, to help make it happen. now there are more steps that we can take to help this economy grow faster. there are things we can do right now that will put more money in your pockets, will help businesses sell more products around the world, will put people to work in michigan and across the country. and to get these things done, we

do need cuts. they are common-sense ideas that have been supported in the past by democrats and republicans. things that are supported by carl levin. the only thing keeping us back is our politics. the only thing preventing these bill from being passed is the refusal of some folks in congress to put country ahead of party. there are some in congress right now that would rather see their opponents lose than see american win -- america win. and that has to stop. it has to stop. we are supposed to be on the same team. especially when we are going through tough times. we cannot afford to play games, not right now. not when the stakes are so high

for our economy. and if you agree with me, it does not matter if you are a democratic or republican or independent. you have to let congress know. you have to tell them, you have had enough of the theatrics, you have had enough of the politics. stop sending out press releases and start sending out bills that we all know will help our economy right now. that is what we have to do. they have to hear from you. [applause] let me be specific. i will give you some examples. you have to tell them to extend the payroll tax cut some middle- class families will continue to have more money to spend. we passed this in december. the average family received $1,000 from that tax cut. you need to get it again because the economy is still weak. it is going to help you make

ends meet, but it's also going to mean more customers for business, it will increase demand, it is right for the economy, and i would sign that bill today if it came to my desk. [applause] tell congress to get past their differences and send me a road construction bills the companies can put tens of thousands of people to work right now, building our roads, bridges, airports and seaports. think about it -- america used to have the best stuff -- the best roads, the best airports, the best seaports. we are slipping behind because we're not investing in it because of politics and gridlock. do you want to put people to work right now rebuilding america? you have to send that message to congress. [applause]

send the message to congress to come to an agreement on trade deals that will level the playing field and open markets to our businesses. so we can sell more goods to countries around the world. [applause] we've got a lot of americans driving kias, but i want folks in career driving ford, chevy is and chryslers. i would like to see that. [applause] i want to see billions of dollars more products sold around world spent -- stamped with three words -- made in america. [applause] those trade bills are teed up and ready to go. let's get it done. tell congress we need to reform

the passage system so that entrepreneurs like the ones who developed some of the technology here can turn their ideas into things more quickly so companies like this one can better compete against companies around the world. we should not make it so difficult with someone with a good idea to translate it into a business. tell congress that we've got hundreds of thousands of bright, talented, skilled americans who are returning home from iraq and afghanistan and i propose connecting those veterans looking for work with businesses that need their skills. you of 24-year-old san and 25- year-old sutter leading platoons and handling equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they come back here and can't find a job. let's put them to work. [applause] these are things we can do right now.

these are things i have already proposed. we have worked out the glitches. the legislation has been drafted. let's get it done. given the weaknesses of the economy, we need to do even more than that. over the coming weeks, i will be putting out more proposals, week by week, that will help businesses hire and put people back to work. i'm going to keep at it until every single american who wants a job can find one. we do have to pay for these things. in order to pay for these things, congress has to finish the job of reducing the nation's budget deficit in a sensible, responsible way. not just with more cuts this year or next year. those cuts would weaken the economy more than already is and

we've already cut a trillion dollars in discretionary spending. what we need is a long-term plan to get our nation's finances in order. that is the only way we can invest in places like this. that is how we can fund the research at the department of energy. that's how we can fund the community college that trains folks to be able to work here. that's how we can fund the infrastructure and technology that will help us win the future. by doing what you do, what families do, think about it -- when things are tight, you cut out those things you cannot afford, even if it is tough, to pay for the things that really matter. the colleget out fund for your kids. you stop may be going out as often. you don't stop taking care of your parents who needs care, you

cut back on some of the things that you don't really need. it's the same principle applies to government. by the way, in your own families, i'm assuming you don't just keep all the stuff you like and tell your spouse you got to get rid of all the stuff she likes or he likes. [laughter] that would not work in my household. you don't just cut out the stuff that's important -- you don't just keep all of the stuff that's important to you and cut off the stuff that's important to your kids. the same is true for us as an american family. we cannot ask the people in this room, working families, middle- class families come to bear the entire burden. we're not going to balance our budget on the back of middle- class and working people in this country. everybody has got to do their part. [applause]

everybody has got to do their part. everybody has got to japan. that is there -- everyone has to chip in. that is fair. you learn that in kindergarten. that's what all this fuss was about and washington. are we going to deal with our deficit in a way that is fair? that means closing tax loopholes for billionaires' before the cut college loans for young people. [applause] and that means ending government subsidies for oil and gas companies that are doing very well above for you cut health care for seniors. [applause] that means making sure the biggest corporations pay their fair share in taxes before we got the investments in technology and clean energy that made this factory reality.

that's just common sense. it should have bipartisan support. these are things we could be doing right now, and that's how we can jump-start this economy and speed up the recovery and get more folks working. while making sure we get our fiscal house in order, we can do both. i will be laying out more proposals in the day ahead and i will keep after every idea and every serious proposal to help us grow this economy until everyone who wants a job can find one. but i want everyone to understand, the problem is not that we don't have answers, the problem is that folks are playing political games. go. got a long way to we did not get into this mess overnight. it's going to take time to get

us out. that's the truth. but that's no excuse for inaction. it's time to put aside ultimatums, it's time to stop drawing lines in the sand. in the aftermath of this whole debt ceiling debacle, with the market's going up and down like there are, there's a lot of tar -- there's a lot of talk in washington that i should call congress back early. the last thing we need is congress' spending more time arguing in d.c. [applause] what i figure is they need to spend more time out here listening to you. hearing howls set up you are. that's why i am here. -- hearing how fed up you are. that is why i am travelling to communities like this one over the next week. that's what congress should be

doing. go home and listen to people's frustration with all of the gridlock and listen to how frustrated folks are with the constant bickering and the unwillingness to compromise. the desire to score points even if it's at the expense of our country. if they're listening hard enough, maybe they will come back to washington ready to compromise and ready to create jobs and ready to reduce our deficit and ready to do what you sent them there to do. america voted for divided government. that makes it tough. you have one party controlling the house of representatives and another party controlling the senate. so they voted -- you voted for divided government, but she did

not vote for dysfunctional government. you did not vote for a do nothing government. you did not vote for a government where folks are just looking out for special interests. you did not vote for a government beholden to lobbyists. do. got a lot of work to the only way we will get it done is if everybody, democrats and republicans, find a way to put country ahead of party. that's what i'm fighting for. i'm here to enlist you in that fight. you've got to hold everybody accountable because of weak income together and find common ground color there is no stopping the united states of america. there is no holding us back. we can strengthen the economy and put our nation back to work and lead the world in growing industries and we will make it

through these economic storms and reach colmar water stronger than we were before. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> the president heads to new york next for a couple of fund- raisers and then will be back in washington later tonight. back in washington, the final picks made for the deficit reduction committee with

minority leader nancy pelosi naming a few to join the committee. republicans made their choices yesterday, mitch mcconnell choosing john kyl and speaker john boehner making his choices. for more information about the members selected, their biographies and twitter feed on the deficit committee, go to a new web site we have established, sweet -- c- span.org/deficit. >> i'm already preparing myself for the very small salary. >> to be a good journalist, you have to be good enough to put aside your biases and report the facts. the truth. >> the reason people of fox news and movies so much is because his his it is an experience -- it's emotional. it is love and hate. >> aspiring high-school

journalists on ethics, the role of opinion and commentary and where they get their news and information in today's multimedia environment. that's on sunday on c-span 's"q &a." >> we will visit the are the best of the united states as he shows articles that are personal to him. leon panetta recalls his years working in the administration of richard nixon, his resignation, and his switch to the democratic party. and on the anniversary of the bay of pigs invasion, a critical look at u.s.-cuban relations in the '50s and '60s and the actions of the eisenhower and kennedy administrations. get the complete schedule at c- span.org/history. >> a first amendment attorney will be bea blockeggers

defenders of the first amendment. he talked about how anemia is affecting court cases. his comments and questions runabout two hours. >> chuck was the lawyer for many get newspapers, including a "palm springs desert sun" when i had the good luck to stumble upon a story about a guy ripping off the golf course investors. check gave me a 4 hour counseling session. jack francs went to jail and i did not get sued for libel thanks to chuck. he's a terrific lawyer and a

very funny guy and he's put together a terrific panel based on real facts, the case of the night stalker is based on that and the case of the stocking strangler in columbus, georgia. >> it's a pleasure to be working with you today. welcome to theater in the rectangle. this will be a fun panel for you and we hope for our panelists as well. we're going to integrate the material you've been talking about all day long, to use another geometry analogy -- the triad between the courts, the justice system and the lawyers who advocate before the court system. to do that, we have brought an expert blue-ribbon panel of

experts. but we're going to turn the triangle little bit on its head if that's not a mixed metaphor. we're going to ask the panelists to step out of their comfort zones. they're going to be playing the various roles of people they have observed in the process but have never actually played themselves. to start off our panel, playing the role of prosecutor is barbara wall. she's one of the best friends any journalists and many of the rest of us could ever have. she is the vice-president and a senior associate general counsel of the good net company in virginia. that puts her at the apex of media law issues for all of their several hundred newspapers, television stations, and web channels, including many of the issues we will be talking about today. she preceded me at the chair of the american bar communications law and is on the board of directors of the reynolds

center, one of the sponsors of today's program. one of the other best friends any journalist could have is eric lieberman. he's playing the role of defense counsel today. he's the general counsel of the "washington post." that puts him, since they are the largest takeover in this area on these issues, directly in the fire line -- firing line of many issues we're going to be talking about. he has been there since 1998 and then had a great career before that and we're fortunate to have him. in his spare time, he's the secretary for the maryland d.c. press association and is involved on a global level with these issues. playing the role of the steam immediate counsel, we're honored to have our next guest who is on the district court in washington d.c. he's one of the leading expert on electronic issues, particularly electronic discovery, and he has been

involved in much of the ground waking -- groundbreaking work in the court system dealing with electronic issues. he's also one of two panelists here with his own wiki. we will figure out who the other one is in a moment. playing the role of online journalist, angelina is the director of the maryland judiciary office of public information. she leads a staff of nine people and her job is to assist judges in dealing with the public and public access issues. prior to that, she was a journalist in virginia and was active as public information officer for the municipalities in that region. thank you for joining us. this is the gentleman with the other wiki on our panel, from the united states district court, the chief administrative judge for the courts. he has been on the court for

over 25 years and is known for his wisdom and independents. he has presided over many issues and proceedings involving access to courts and he is very active and proactive in these types of discussions and a real good sport. we are delighted to have you with us. thank you. on the other side, he does not play a judge on tv, but he will play when here today. let me introduce you to the senior vice president at the first amendment center of the freedom forum. he resides in national and has an office here in washington d.c. and the first amendment center is one of the leading organization that works with judiciary and government on open access issues and councils journalists along the way. he has run panels like this and programs like this in conjunction with the organized federal judiciary. we look forward to your wisdom

today. brooke harper has a very cool job. today, she is planning to court public information officer. also equal job. in her private life, she's a full-time blogger who runs a web site called the felony calendars. she has a law degree and has practiced both white-collar and civil defense law. she found it interesting spending time in court and thinks there are a lot of human and legal stories. she has put them together on a wonderful blog. i love the weekly feature where she recalls in an arbitrary and capricious way, the most arbitrary and capricious moments of the court in the past week. playing our national tv journalist is no stranger to

most people in the room -- lucy is the executive director for the reporters committee for the freedom of the press. their headquarters in roslyn, va., and there'd leading advocacy organization for reporters legal rights. she's active in all of these organizations, including serving on the board of the reynolds national center for courts and the media. playing our juror today is my good friends, the senior vice president and editor of the "american journalism review." their headquarters in college park, maryland and is the leading critique magazine of the news media industry. he is also active as a blogger on their website and he has worked in just about every news room that hasn't thrown him out in the united states. and he collects people for his spare time.

in a good way. i am part of his collection. thank you for joining us. i want to introduce everybody to our hypothetical court today. welcome to the case of the nylon at night stalker. we're going to have our group examined several aspects of the celebrated case coming on the court's docket today. between 1992 and 2000 in washington d.c., a series of seven gruesome killings took place. all of the victims were white women over 60 who lived alone. each was strangled with a brown nylon stocking. an african-american handyman named jerry carlton was arrested in march of 2007. he had worked in some of the vote -- some of the buildings were the victims lived. the case against him is entirely circumstantial. it is built on forensic evidence gathered from the scenes of the crimes and seized in a search of his apartment.

the search took place with his consent, in quotes, after a 24- hour police interrogation. the length of time between the crime and his arrest, the lack of eyewitness testimony and the circumstances have fueled intense public debate about the case against them. the judge today will hear pretrial motions, including several from the news media before jury selection commences. a panel of 12 jurors will be chosen, including jurors -- juror number one, who is part of the discussion today. court is now in session. the court has before it a motion to permit the prosecution and defense counsel to use the internet during the questioning of potential jurors. let me turn to the defense counsel first. why would the internet help you picking a jury?

why do you want this motion granted? >> it is critical as the defense counsel in the case because the questions that can be asked to the jurors are limited -- if there was a survey passed out and in this case, there was a survey passed out, given how high profile case is, there is a limited set of questions. from my perspective, it's important for me to be able to search the internet to see if i can find additional information to find the best jury for purposes of my client getting a fair trial in this case. i would like to look and see whether any of the jurors have blogs or twitter pages where they may have made comments that may indicate a preconceived notion about the case. there has been a lot of publicity about the case. i would like to know, for example, may be one of the potential jurors wrote a review on yelp asking people to worry

about having a handyman in your home. so those sorts of things i will be able to ask during the questions were on the survey questions and i would very much like to do the internet research for that reason. >> as prosecutor, do you want that for the same reason or do you want it only if he gets it? >> for once, i think will agree with the defense counsel. it is useful information. i want to have a mistrial. in this situation, i'm sure my defense council and the judge is well aware of the number of cases where a mistrial has to be declared because information about potential jurors is disclosed during the trial itself or perhaps afterward.

it would help in my selection of the jury as well. >> let me ask a potential juror down here. how do you feel about them googling for jurors? >> it makes me really uncomfortable. there's all kinds of misinformation on the internet. i don't know what out there, what people have put out about me. it seems wrong to have that being is circulated, and a law enforcement situation like this. it makes me very queasy. >> let me ask the judge. you have the motion before you. you have heard the arguments trade what do you think about bringing the internet in for jury selection? >> recognizing the difficulty of impaneling jurors for a host of reasons and certainly being aware of the uncomfortable nature of voir dire, i would

find it is permissible for the defense and prosecution to use the internet for information that would add to the process. i would remind counsel that no third-party interrogations prior would be permitted. you cannot have an investigator quiz the juror to follow up on enough -- on information find. if you find information that it would be permitted. >> i've -- i would not want an investigator to do a prescreening. >> if his neighbor was trashing him for leaving the garbage on the side of his house, which like to talk to the neighbor? >> i think the proper place for

the question of the material is in the courtroom. you have the survey and a number of questions which are sufficient to determine bias. we are not trying to determine the perfect jury. thee trying to establish jury and not arrive at a preconceived conclusion. i think you can do that actively. i would be uncomfortable with third-party interrogation outside of my courtroom. >> as one of the leading print reporters in the area, if they get access to information on google, would you be able to want to track what they're doing? would you want access to what they're looking at? >> i don't expect they would share it with me, but i could do

it myself and i would. if i had the names. some courts are not going to give me the names. >> in most cases, the jury pool is not a matter of public record until the jury is impaneled. at that point, it's at my discretion to determine when those names would be disclosed. the information on the web is publicly available. i see no reason to constrain council on either side from using that information, but recognizing the point is to impanel a jury and to do so in open court. >> as the leading a television journalist in this market, do you agreed? would you think you have a right to the information? think i have the

right to look over the shoulder of the prosecution or defense. but i'm certainly going to sit in that courtroom and i'm going to ask for permission to put my laptop on my lap and i still don't know whether or not we're going to be able to find out these and jurors, whether by number or be able to get their names called. if i hear a name, you can bet i am going to google it. >> let's take a step further. defense having had their motion granted got a little bit greedy. now, there's the potential of -- there is the potential to provide access to their facebook accounts. why are you doing this? >> i think it is critical to my ability to defend my client and make sure we have a fair jury.

before jury selection, i would like to look at their facebook agency if they have any postings i think might compromise their ability to judge this case on the evidence. there has been lot of pre-trial publicity. they may have preconceived notions they have posted on their face but page. this case involves potential societal attitudes about race, police, class in terms of working-class people in your home, and i think it's important i be able to review their facebook posting before jury selection to see if there's anything that calls into question their budget tit committee. >> and do you oppose this motion? >> i will not oppose this motion. >> if he gets it and she gets it, access to their facebook pages, as an online journalist, would you ask the court to let you get it also? >> absolutely. i want it all. >> what would you do with the

information? >> i could inform my on-line readers about the potential jury pool that exists and who these people are and where they come from. would this be representative of mr. carlton's appears? >> if she gets it and she gets it and he gets it, i presume you're going to want it. >> i guarantee you i am going to want it. >> as the media council, if the lawyers in the case and get it and they are going to work with and it becomes part of the proceeding, is the present title to the same access? >> i think so. there is a growing body of authority that what you published for the world to see can possibly be private. if these people posted this stuff on the wall and is accessible, i don't understand how the process can be

interdicted in any practical way. everyone should have a, yes, and i would point out there have been reported instances where people have said things on their facebook accounts that show they have no business being on a jury because they had already made up their minds. it's a valuable source of information for everyone. >> let me ask the residents blocker and real-life to step into her role for a second. i've heard the argument on behalf of the news media premised on a lack of privacy of posting things on someone's facebook wall. as someone who traffics in internet issues, is that valid? is it public if you only let certain friends access it? >> i try to be sensitive to the notion that everyone who is participating in a court proceeding has things about

their life that they would not want to be in the public. if there are certain things that might be germane to your service on a jury, and i think certain things are not an your fights in domestic issues, i would not feature them. but certainly, things that go to your view about the case and whether you have a preformed of view, i definitely would not. >> would you mind having people speak up? >> we have been instructed by the court. >> by the way, you may all be seated. [laughter] >> on this issue of facebook, my office has just received a letter on the council -- from the council for facebook and their concerned that the terms of service that were entered into at the time of these

jurors would be disregarded. i feel it is important for me to bring this forward. they wrote to my office because they felt i would be sensitive to the need to enforce their terms of service. >> what would those terms of service provide? >> according to this letter, and i'm just a lowly prosecutor, the terms of service apparently provide that if a subscriber to facebook it lacks certain levels of privacy that facebook will abide by those levels of privacy and so that is their concern. >> there is something in their service that uses the term private in a concern with things that are on the page that only they can get access to people? >> exactly. they would have to be complex set or they would need to get

some additional access so they say. i watch my kids play with their facebook accounts and there may be other ways to do it. they exclude me from their facebook accounts, so it may be that there are alternative methods that the jurors themselves would be able to control, but as far as facebook being willing to open up access in violation of their terms of service, they are apparently not. >> i certainly understand facebook's perspective. they've done a lot of amazing things for society but respectfully, i do not believe there terms of service are an enforceable contract. nobody really reads those terms of service. [laughter] second, even if there were a term of service there, i client's interest in having a fair trial far outweigh any minimal intrusion on facebook's business from having these

accounts accessible to defense counsel in a case of this magnitude. while i understand their perspective i disagree that it would be grounds for resisting producing the facebook posting. >> there is at least one case where a woman argued she was subject to severe emotional distress. they ask to see your facebook account and they had a reason to believe she was on a cruise and that's exactly right. i don't understand how the terms of service the bar a search for relevant evidence just because there is an agreement between us to people. as counsel just said, when did his client waived that right? >> [inaudible] >> on a range of issues

involving those terms of service all the way up to the use of section 230 to protect anonymous commentary on the web from being disclosed, nonetheless, the courts primary obligation is to impanel an impartial jury and protect the right of the defendant a fair trial. i will also observe that no less an authority than judge alex kosinski in the ninth circuit -- the ninth circuit, will take notice of his writing, he has written a piece about the fourth amendment and the last item is a "rest in peace." he has decided in the modern world, privacy no longer exists. eric schmidt of google, taking notice of this, if i could paraphrase from an item i found on the court's own initiative -- [laughter] if you want to hide something, the worst place to do that is on

a social network. that is where you share. your brain is where you hide secrets. the accord would be inclined to grant the motion to compel jurist church -- to disclose their facebook page. i would consider to be part of the ad vinifying information to be disclosed to the public and -- the identifying information to be disclosed to the public and in trial, we did not disclose these to the jurors. >> what is the ruling? >> the ruling is that the motion, we will accept the motion to order jurors to provide access to their facebook accounts with the admonition that this is for council's use only. >> the press is not giving equal access even though there is adjudication? >> i would consider it to be part of the head of flying in formation of the juror. if we're not disclose the names

and information and other identifying information at that point in the trial, i would lump into that same information. i would consider it another piece of identifying information. >> once the juror is seated and identified, the press gets access to their facebook page? >> i expect having some access to the press that that is going to happen no matter what the court orders. >> it a print reporter recognize one of the jurors being questioned and approached the court's public information officer and said i'm friends with that juror, a potential juror, and about the only one in this courtroom, i just noticed that the judge's friends with that scheerer as well. he puts this problem in your lap. -- with that juror as well. what do you do?

>> boy. [laughter] not being a public information officer, i'm going by get here, what i would have to do is i think it would have to inform the judge. >> you go up to the bench and have a conversation with the judge and just said i heard you are friends with that jurist. >> that does not sell like a great conversation. [laughter] maybe i need to alert the judge and i don't need to alert him as to the specifics of who has said something, but maybe i need to alert him to the fact that there is an issue. >> [inaudible] >> i think i would like to know. i happen to think that in the

years we have been working with judges that that's an issue that would have been handled with a bailiff or with the jury list. i know in state courts -- i served on a grand jury earlier this year. the judge in the -- the judge to empaneled the jury had access to the names of the jurists before. i don't know whether they struck or not. i'm stepping out of my role here. i would assume that would be something the judge might not recognize until they were in the room or what ever. at least on the state level, they would see the jury list before when the acceptances comeback. >> cbs news got the same tip and did some investigating. they found out the same thing. i went to the court public

information officer and said i want a comment from the judge about this situation. regardless of what the judge said, i'm going to do a story tonight on this. the judge probably wants to know that. i would hate to blindside the judge. he deserves to know these things. >> if you do the story, are you going to name the juror? >> probably not at this point. right now, i am not planning to. >> it has been my experience as a reporter that -- i cover a lot of stories in this town. my experience as a reporter is that -- if i ever want to get this judge to speak to me

again, i don't think my inclination is to call the juror. >> are there any circumstances under which you would counsel reporter to call a potential juror? >> there is a fine line here about obstruction of justice, tampering, and so forth. i would have to be more familiar with the situation here. i would be very remiss if they do that. on the other side of the ledger, i am familiar with some ethical opinions about judges using facebook. there is at least one opinion indicating the impropriety of the judge using facebook to communicate with a lawyer who was friend. in that case -- this is not that situation and i'm sensitive enough to the ethical constraints and i agree with what the person just said.

i would be very circumspect and go to the judge before i counseled by clients to go to the judge and not go to the jury at this point. >> the judge has problems. >> stepping into your role right now, where do see the lines between judges accessing social media and the service on the bench and the accidental circumstance where you live a committee where people might be called for jury, witnesses or lawyers -- a community where people might be called for jury, witnesses or lawyers? >> people don't pay attention to the rights of jurors. when we drag people down to serve as jurors, we need to be concerned about their rights and i don't agree with anyone saying jurors have no right to privacy. i would be very concerned about even allowing them to look at facebook. even -- i think jurors might

feel they have a right to serve on a jury without having their lives investigated. i would be very concerned about starting down this slippery slope you have started down with this series of questions. i think jurors to have rights and that would be more concerned about protecting that. you have to have some concern about protecting the victims rights, but i don't think defendants have never had the rights to investigate jurors. or potential jurors. >> one possible solution to this whole morass of privacy and the public's right to know is to just sit in the courtroom during jury selection. our troubles and defense lawyer has just asked the judge to do exactly that. justify yourself, counsel. why do you want to shut the public out? >> i am understand i have an uphill battle here. the case law says that voir dire

is presumptively open. i think there are special circumstances and in this case, that justify closing it. the reason is there are a number of very sensitive issues as part of this case that are critical, from my perspective, to making sure we get a fair and impartial jury. i am going to ask potential jurors questions about their attitudes on race, their attitudes about the police, whether they have never been mistreated by the police. i'm going to ask whether they've ever been a victim of a crime or not. i'm going to ask if they've ever bought a person in their home ever stole something more committed a crime in their home. there are a lot of uncomfortable questions and my concern about the level of publicity in this case and potential jurors knowing everything they say will be reported in the "washington post" for god's sake --

[laughter] they're not going to be candid and honest and that's critical to my ability to try this case. as much as i understand the resumption, i think this is a special case where you need to close voir dire to make sure we get honest answers. >> let me ask this juror -- are you going to be more sensitive about your views on race, police brutality or service? are you going to be more candid a) environment than a public environment? >> i think i would. there are a lot of things you don't want broadcast to your neighbors and you don't want out there. you don't want a lot of sensitive issues and i would be much more candid and feel much more comfortable under the circumstances. i understand the possibility that are facebook pages would be open which already has me upset

because i like to pick my own friends and i don't want the prosecutors and defense lawyers looking at everything i said. i think having it in private is a great idea. >> but you're going to be under oath whether it is in public or private. so presumably you will tell the truth. >> i would certainly tell the truth, but i think it would be a lot more expensive and much more forthcoming, not that you would lie or anything, but i would be nervous otherwise and if you did not have the press in there, it would make for a much better circumstance. >> let me ask an on-line journalist. this is not a quorum environment -- jury selection is very orderly -- this is not a court room environment. there is no banging on the table, there is no [inaudible]

so do you care? >> i do care. my presence there serves a very valuable purpose. i'm there to help inform the community about what's happening in the courts, to hold the courts accountable for the process, to will the courts accountable for how they do business, and i think it is part of -- it is in the courts best interests that i am there to make sure people know how the process works, how efficient process is and what people can expect from the court system in this kind of case. >> let me ask the judge. you have a potentially racially charged circumstance in this case. you have people in the community who are angry it took so long to bring someone to justice on this horrible series of crimes. you have the aclu up in arms over the tactics the police employed to get a search

warrant. so there are all of the elements for an extremely volatile situation. why not just sealed court room? >> a couple of things you would want to a knowledge of the outset -- for roughly 30 years, there has been this affirmative position that it will be open unless there is sufficient reason to close it. you are starting from the idea that it is open and it's a necessity. on balance, when there is extreme community issue -- in extreme community interest, that transparency is the best means other than uninformed speculation as to what might be occurring at any given moment. jurors, witnesses during the trial will be asked difficult questions and to expose their views fully. under oath.

the obligation of the juror in my mind is no less when questioned. i may hear about this in the judge's lunchroom later, but it's imperative for the judge to spend sufficient time to talk with jurors and educate them and then participate in questioning to essentially tell jurors that despite the discomfort, they need to fully and completely respond to questions from counsel in the process of selecting a jury. i think the best antidote to a lot of the controversy that surrounds judicial proceedings, and turmoil over things like the transparency of the system, i would be inclined not to close the process. >> can i ask a media lawyer over here -- with a comes to

alternatives and closure, is that a viable argument to keep proceedings open? >> we always suggest other alternatives as opposed to complete closure. they are not particularly effective. the thought bubble i'm having my prosecuting attorney will, of letting up the record with a bunch of motions that he is going to pull out on appeal -- i'm a cynical about this, but the motion he has made makes him look good to the jurors, so i'm not going to oppose it because i know what the jurors to not think on their side. i'm glad the media has good counsel that has argued these cases before. it's just typical of my colleague at the bar to make a motion like this.

>> [inaudible] [laughter] >> that was just a thought bubble. [laughter] >> prick. >> before i lose my motion completely, i would ask in the alternative that you would be open to closing the courtroom to particularly sensitive questioning. what i'm asking people their attitudes about race, what i'm asking people whether they have been a victim of an assault or perhaps even a sexual assault, that we close the court room for those particular questions if you are not willing to close of for the entire voir dire. >> we have able media council here. >> there has to be some alternative to closing the courtroom. may i suggest the author of a

very good study of the jury selection -- his point was to get a fair juror, some of this discussion has to be as broad as possible. i would urge your honor to close that portion for example but don't close the entire court room. that's throwing out the baby with the bath water and i would point out in court every day all over the it -- all over america, people approach the bench and the u.s. people if they have been a victim of racial discrimination, we're not saying we have to hear that, but we have to be in the room. >> are you going to move, your honor? >> given that i am inclined to keep an open throughout process, and sensitive to the idea of what is the process for to select the best and most impartial jury copper i can take note -- the best impartial jury, a sexual assault may not

have been disclosed to the jurors families which may dissuade jurors from serving or some other activity which would then preclude them from serving or providing a full and truthful answer, i would guess with the admonition to counsel that even closing a portion of that process would raise questions in the community about the impartiality and preference of the court would be to keep the entire process open. there may be circumstances where it would be appropriate to have a limited closure. i would want to take that under advisement and make sure the questions were still relevant to the process before i would close that. >> we will assume that means the motion is denied without

prejudice. >> our friend here, the defense lawyer decides to try to go for a gag order to contain things somewhat. is that what you are asking? >> yes. absolutely. this is a been case. -- thin case. it took the police many years after the crime to rest my client under suspicious circumstances. they have every interest in polluting the jury pool with an extra judicial statements. maybe he will fire me. my first case. [laughter] i am concerned about extra- judicial statements from law

enforcement and the prosecution tried to insure a conviction on this case. it is appropriate to have a gag order that? gags the lawyers and anyone who has access to information. i move for a gag order. >> someone who runs for office every few years. how do you feel about a gag order in a high-profile case? >> it is completely unnecessary in this situation. the public is entitled to see me at my finest hour. [laughter] also, the case law sets the bar high for granting a gag orders. many courts look at whether there is clear and present danger or serious and imminent threat. i do not think we have a situation like that. this is a high-profile case.

it took awhile for us to find the criminal. >> let me ask our press reported. you still get to watch the proceedings. why did you talk to a bunch of lawyers? do you care if there is a gag order? >> absolutely. i am opposed to it. i cannot cover this entire trial. i have to run from courtroom to courtroom. i need to be tipped off when somebody interesting is going to be there. i need tips. i get them from the lawyers. i need that. [inaudible] >> what is your thinking, having heard arguments? >> if i could rely on the court's public information officer -- [laughter] >> but i cannot rely on that. >> call me.

i am kidding. [laughter] >> motion denied. one of the judges might have been in session when this came up. he used a great phrase. he said, now we are in my bailiwick. it is within the authority of the court to remind the prosecutors that you are officers of the court. the case will not be tried. a motion to limit the comments of counsel and others involved would be entertained throughout the proceedings should the court determined that things are out of hand. i would be concerned with two things. uninformed speculation and the difficulty in tracking what is going on in the trial. also, the ineffectiveness of back orders. by and large, those most

important elements that one might try to keep under control by a gag orders, seem to be the things that get out despite the order. we also have 40 more things on the got it before we get to take a break. we would have to spend a lot of time tracking down the violation of the order. i would remind counsel about the appropriate role of comments. >> with respect, your honor, i would really prefer that my esteemed colleague to my right be on pain of contempt for talking out of school about this case. i would ask you to reconsider what you think the ethical obligation is enough given the abuses we have seen in the duke lacrosse case. my client's case is on par with

that in terms of the police. >> those remarks are being made at sidebar rather than in open court. [laughter] i would have two observations. you have not been in my courtroom before giving your relatively new status. don't worry, i will be watching. the prosecutor is well aware of my opinion in trying a court case outside of my courtroom. >> let's deal with something the defense has had handed to them. let's take a look at some issues specific to the media. we now have 150 media outlets buying -- vying for 10 seats reserved for the media. does this happen in your day job as a court information officer? this competition with limited

resources? >> absolutely. >> those issues become your problem. how do you start to get your arms around them? >> my initial feeling about 150 motions for 10 seats is, i am glad so many people are aged in covering things that happen in my local courtroom. i would feel like, while it is a big national case, there is an interest in getting those 10 seats to the people who are going to be able to most broadly disseminate the information. some of the people in those seats need to be people who covered the court all the time, note the players, and can get the most informed information about the proceedings. >> one of the people in the

court most often is your good friend, the print journalist over here. he said, i do not care what you do with the other night. one of those seats belongs to me. do you take that into account? >> putting my feelings aside and the way i think things should be distributed, the best way to approach it would be a randomized selection process. >> thought bubbles? yes. again, this is one of my finest moments. i do not come from nowhere, having one of those valueable seats. >> the media is there as a surrogate for the public. the public cannot be there. i have an incredible following. i am from the network with the highest ratings.

i can reach the most people of any given time from the broadcast area. i would ask the court to make a decision based on a combination of reach, someone on the print side and the broadcast side -- where every mainstream person in the country belongs. also, high profile and high reached networks. i also recognize that there are some much followed bloggers out there. the court should be careful. as a fallback position, i would ask that there'd be some sort of rotation system put in-- there be some sort of rotation system put in. my final fall that would be

this. your honor, there is intense public interest here. this is a big courthouse. you have some room causes and some old conference rooms. you have some technology. i do not understand why you could not have an auxiliary room with closed circuit capabilities. by the way, if you have that, i can go to the bathroom and no one would ever know that i got up and left. >> step out of your role as juror and as the most seasoned journalist on this panel. some suggestions call for cooperation and pulling among the press. do you play nicely in the sandbox in those circumstances? >> traditionally, no. the field is changing. traditionally, it was at the person for him or herself.

elbows out. if you had access to a juror, you did not one of the people to get access. recently, the field is changing. we have news organizations sharing material. in florida, they have a joint bolero --joint bureau in the state capitol. there is less of that feeling we knew and loved for so many years in the field. with something big like this, the attitude of the press reporter who did not care about the other nine -- lucy's suggestion, i am a big star. that is one to come to the fore. you have so many different forms of media. what do you do with loggers --

bloggers? you have to shut out that brand of journalism. are you going to be shutting out big organizations with a reach. it is more complicated than it used to be. >> shouldn't the locals have some sort of say? lookout forey pio the people who cover the courts day today? people like me? >> you give it to 10 national people. you give it to a wire service and you figure it on a proportional basis. can i go back to my real life for a moment? worked with judges and what i have observed is a trend of judges making this a media problem. you say, ok, this is what you have.

go into a room and figure it out. come up with something. you have 10 seats. you handle it. they get the job done. >> i would argue that is the only way to do it consistent with the first amendment. why is it legitimate for a court information officer to decide he is a legitimate journalist and she is not? when did that get done? you need to do a lot of it for the heck of it. >> it happens all the time. that is the position we are in. we have to determine who is a legitimate journalist and who is not when we get the credentials. >> let me return to my real life perspective. generally, when i hear about these fights about the seats, i grit my teeth.

i would prefer to keep our powder dry for the access issues we are going to face. it tickes off th -- ticks off the judge for us to be fighting amongst ourselves. as a lawyer, there will be a wide array of issues. i would prefer to fight the important ones. >> on the issue of deciding who is a journalist and who is not, we have a motion from the online media to blog and tweet from the courtroom. >> i am ready. why should you be given equal to dentist to the national media or your esteemed -- to the national media or your esteemed friends

journalist colleagues? >> you do not know how much has on theminy blog community. i have cultural contacts. i know the courthouse. i know the personality of the people involved. i know who they are. i can add things that you guys cannot possibly understand because i have been here covering this court. i have great information for the public that you do not have. >> what is your thought bubble? do you have a response? >> she is absolutely correct. >> you are on equal footing to get one of those seats. >> she is absolutely correct. i would also point out, we recognize that we do not have any more legal right to be in the courtroom that any member of the public. fighting over the 10 designated

seats is something we are going to have to sort out on our own. she is absolutely right. i have no more right to be there than she does. >> assuming the blogger is entitled to be there with the national media, bloggers are bloggers. who gets the blogger seat. >> i am a columbia j school graduate, so i would get the blogger seat. there is a johnny-come-latelies logger -- johnny-come-lately blogger. this guy cannot blog from the

courtroom. >> so the guy with a well funded blog does not have the track record of someone who has a more streamlined blog? how do you make that decision? >> that is a different situation. if you add those facts, there is weight that goes on the side of longevity. >> chief judge, does it make you uncomfortable to draw lines between traditional media, a longtime media, and bloggers? >> in the district court of the sea, we had high-visibility cases. -- of d.c., we had high-

visibility cases. we can accommodate a lot of journalists. most of them would prefer to be in the auxiliary room. we have a much more tightly controlled for room where the jury is sitting. they might be disturbed by people going in and out. most of the media prefers the two auxiliaries settings we have. we have not had to make any judgments about who is legitimate. we have not thought about whether we should use credentials from them. we really have not reached that point where we have had that kind of decision to make. >> until now. >> if we had that decision and

had to make it, i would think a journalism degree would give the blogger -- certainly be crazy hair -- >> a well-known courthouse gadfly wants to blog from the courtroom. he says, i am a journalist. >> not from the courtroom. in my other role, all bets are off. >> what is the court's public information officer's view of crazy harry? >> are we still competing for the 10 seats or whether or not

he gets to be in the courtroom. period. ? >> he has no followers and he has never done this before. if we are competing for the 10 seats, i do not see him in that courtroom. he may be a journalist, but that is not the basis on which we are making the decision. >> you would denied his motion because he is not a journalist. -- deny his motion because he is not a journalist? >> i would put him into the pool with everybody else. >> can you make a good faith argument that he is deserving of equal attention? >> when i worked for chief judge lamberth, you kept a straight

face. it is how they are going to communicate. crazy harry should be part of the lottery. if he wins, he is in the door. to discriminate on the basis of the way information is communicated is not permissible. it is not appropriate to say that because someone uses a computer and someone uses a piece of paper, a distinction can be drawn. he should be part of the lottery like everyone else. >> you are part of an organized online media. >> every blogger starts with one

follower. maybe their mom. i would feel for him especially if he is a constant around the courthouse. uncle harry may have some real talent in his riding. when you have a limited-- in his writing. what i would probably do -- i am sucking up because one of my locals is here. i would try to accommodate all harry -- uncle harry. as a former journalist in realize who has gone over to the dark side, --to try to --

journalist who has gone over to the dark side, everyone is important to the public discourse. >> i would like to raise an objection to the practice of tweeting.geing and it is broadcasting the trial. my understanding of the rules is that live broadcasting is prohibited in this jurisdiction. i do not know why we are having this debate at all. i do not think there should be tweetin -- tweeting or live broadcasting in the court room. there is a rule against live broadcasting in this jurisdiction. i am concerned about spreading information that might prejudice my client's trial. >> it is a violation of the

first amendment, an attempt to discriminate against people by the nature of the way they communicate. >> i find myself agreeing with defense counsel. i have been trying to get my cameras into this courtroom for 30 years. quite honestly, if they allow these bloggers and tweeters in there and they are not going to allow cameras, that is a travesty of justice. what is next? they will have a live feed that they will put on the internet because a big media company wants to put it on the airwaves? that is a completely on principled stance. -- unprincipled stance.

>> this is now a jurisdiction that allows the judge to let television cameras in at his or her discretion. there is now a motion by the television news media to prevent -- to allow live television coverage and live streaming. do you feel better? >> no, i do not feel better. i have concerns about cameras in the courtroom. i am concerned that the witnesses are going to play to the camera. i am concerned that they will be afraid to be candid if they are broadcast everywhere. i appreciate and respect the job the media has to do. i have a plan this liberty is at stake. i can not risk its fairchild for him. i cannot risk a

fair trial for him. i think my colleagues will agree with me. >> as much as i enjoy myself on television, i am not sure what will happen to my witnesses if they are in front of the cameras. i will not oppose the motion, as much as i regret it. >> the two of them are in cahoots to keep you and your cameras out. >> i cannot believe it is 2011 and we are having this conversation. 30 years ago, people complained that he could not have cameras in a courtroom because they were large and noisy. i can put a camera in a lipstick case. no one is ever going to see that camera. it is completely unobtrusive.

there are more than 30 states that allow cameras of some sort. there is no evidence other than the unfortunate situation in 1995, or as bruce collins once said, the late un unpleasantness -- there is no evidence that having a camera distract from the ultimate verdict. we would be willing to not show the jurors. we would be willing to go along with rules that isolated victims who might be dealing -- those who were sexually assaulted. we would agree to limited restrictions on some of the witnesses. we are willing to be completely

reasonable about this, your honor. >> your honor, are you willing to listen to their reason against a earwitnesses-- a guest-- their reason against the witness is -- their reason counsel?the wishes of t >> it would probably be essential to consolidate all of these motions. i want to take the media motions with regard to this issue all but one time. the purpose here is to ensure that the public receives the best possible view unfettered by the government to report what is

going on in that trial. >> the principal job you have is to insure that justice is done. >> the court would err on the side of protecting the defendant. i would think that if i were to bundle this up into one large order, i would want to prevent live television and streaming in the courtroom in a manner to be determined so that it is not as intrusive in terms of equipment, lighting, disruptions. i would hold blogging from the court room in the same manner. if you are blogging have a lot when you type, it cannot be disrupted.

in 1980, i was a reporter at one of the first mega trials, the atlanta child murders. we found the auxiliary room was better than being in the court room. i would instruct the pio to have people come in as little as possible. the goal here is to -- one of the great dangers today is the idea that the public does not understand what goes on in the courts. they do not understand the system. the terms are arcane. the more light shone on the process ultimately protect the defendant.

they evaluate the council and the judge so that those things evaluate the- co 9 in -- counsel. 50 years ago, it may have been novel. today, it is part of the process. we observe what goes on in our world. >> what about the argument that it will impact the way the witnesses conduct themselves? >> that is the responsibility of the court, to ensure witnesses and by whatever means the court passed. to compel witnesses -- to ensure

witnesses by whatever means the court has. i do not think that is my responsibility. i have a role. i did not want the judge determining if i am a journalist or not. >> for the benefit of the audience, giving it 32nd capsule of what you mean by that. >> the issue of creating a shield law. i will try to summarize quickly as i get it wrong, slapped the me. for a long time, all the public information officers had to go on was, are you here every day? that is an inappropriate

mechanism. it should be, what is your function. are you conveying information about something that is occurring. ? this has been a circuitous route. you have a definitional description rather than a requirement of circulation. >> a functional status versus a status test. >> they have all the places they can go, like shield law issues, to look for guidance from the court. >> may i raise one -- i did not think of this. you know, your honor, if you do

not let the cameras in the courtroom, i still have a story to tell. i still have to figure out how to explain to my viewers what happened today. if i cannot have pictures of actual witnesses saying something, i will have to go out and hire some consultants to talk about what they perceived happens that day. give their opinions about what happened that day. i still have air to fill. i would much rather showed the public what actually happened. if i cannot do that, i will suffer -- showed the same footage of the sameperp wa -- same perp walk over and over again. it would be kinder to the public to give aid is passion

passionate feed. >> that point out that the commentators will be former federal prosecutors. [laughter] >> they are the only people on earth not on television. >> i aspire to that. >> i would hate to be responsible for widespread unemployment. >> it is a persuasive argument. that falls under the nature of programming that you should decide you want to bring about a child. you may have the live feed and decide to come in over the top of the live it. feed. the education process is part of the court -- in the mind of a

lot of judges, it is part of the necessity of letting the public know what goes on in the court room. >> perhaps the court might suggest to the judge that another option would be to consider allowing the press to come in and videotaped evidence or take photographs of some of the evidence. perhaps that might be helpful to the press if you are considering not allowing cameras in the courtroom. that could be another option. >> we were offered at auction in 1980. after the first blush, not many people took advantage of it. the evidence was circumstantial. there was not a great deal to show. what there was a was inanimate.

television needs motion. even having a court officer hold something up, it did not attract much coverage i've been the first few opportunities. >> there is probably little need for this next one, which is permission to have still photography in the courtroom. let's explore some of the boundaries. it is all motions. the court wants the council to address all photograph of jurors entering and leaving the courthouse. to ban photography from the court room, and court environs and limit the time refers to a designated zone across the street. what is your opinion? the court wants your advice? >> i have no objection to the motion. >> thanks for your help.

>> i do not want to be seen as not protecting the jurors. otherwise, they might sign- 29 -- side with my esteemed brother to the bar. >> two thought bubbles. >> do you need protecting? >> this is a sensitive case. there are a lot of dicey issues here. there are a lot of us to decide a case like this. the more the court can do to protect us from scrutiny is a good idea. i understand the press and the right to know and all of that. as a juror, i am and more worried about myself and my colleagues and protecting us.

i think it is appropriate. >> from what i have seen, some of your colleagues actually hold press conferences and want to go out and talk about their role in a historical moment like this trial. >> there are all kinds of jurors. some of the sensitive aspects of it are ripe. given the passion in the community about this and the sensitivity and the issues, i would feel better if that were the way the judge would rule. >> court reporter, are you going to be missing much? >> if i am going to get a good story, i need a good picture, especially if i am going to make page 1.

i will try to get people to take as many pictures as i can. it will enhance readers and help them look at my story. >> because it will sell newspapers are because it is in the public interest? >> because it will get more people to read my story. >> counsel, what is your view? >> paragraph 2 is the eighth black -- a flat violation of the first amendment. there has not been showing of any public danger to these people. in some cases, we had

justifiable concern. but they are performing a public duty and they are entering and leaving a courthouse. in my view, the restriction cannot be justified by any interest that overwhelms the first amendment. >> your honor, do you subscribe to counsel's view? >> council is going to run as quickly as they can and should, to get my order. i would know --difficult coun -- counsel is going to run as quickly as they can and should, to get my order. facial recognition can be used to get to know who that person is.

i do not know if there are courthouses that might have this. if you get into artificial restraints and bringing them in and out on a closed bus -- will we be reduced to that? i do not know the answer to this. technology is outpacing so many of the traditions we have had and the ability of the court to enforce an order. i do not know the solution to a number one. there is a way around it that is inexpensive and effective. >> deputy number two. let's talk about other alternatives. what about a request from the jury foreperson to be able to

sneak out of the courthouse to escape the press? with that alleviates your fears? >> as i said before, i liked the broader request. if that is not going to be the case, i would feel better about things if we could not be hassled as we left. we have a lot on our minds. we want to do the right thing. i do not know -- do not want to be subjected -- you know what the press is like. >> would you be amenable to helping them with that? what if that request was made to you? >> as the public information officer, i interface with the public can hear complaints and compliments about jury service. i would not want to do anything to discourage tourists from participating in the process.

with a high -- jurors from participating in the process. i would take it to the judge. >> i would point out as a bit of nostalgia that there -- i have covered a lot of trials in my life. one of my favorite judges used to solve this problem by locking me in his courtroom. [laughter] >> monica beach was the area near our courthouse. their only job was to take a picture of the people coming in and out of the grand jury. >> since we have a couple of minutes left, i want to open up to the audience for any questions for our panel, either

in their real capacity or in their play capacity today. any questions today? it looks like we have covered the map. -- panelists, any comments? >> linda is one of the distinguished reporters in the audience. i would be fascinated if you gave us three thoughts on what we were talking about today. >> i am concerned about this issue of bloggers. i do not know where we stand. someone who is a layman cannot go on line and about medicine. as someone who is interested in the law, i cannot get up in a

courtroom and practice law. and yet, people who think they have an expertise in journalism can go out and present themselves as darrell issa -- as a journalists at present themselves and expect to have legal rights. >> journalists are not licensed. you become a journalist by doing journalism. the reporters committee has had to evolves. if someone calls and tells us that they are in a courtroom do in journalism and they were covering a trial and they were doing something to it editorially and disseminated to that audience, i feel an ethical obligation to help them out. quite honestly, lately, i have

been grateful that they were there. most trials do not get covered these days. >> i have a concern about cameras in the court room. one of my admonitions as a journalist who covered trials for a living would be, you do not get to say you watched the trial unless you only go to the bathroom if there is a recess. they leave become rich and have a sense that they have seen the entire tribe-. -- they leave and come back and have a sense that they have seen the entire trial. they watched the dramatic testimony and they wonder about the verdict.

i favor the transparency, but the education of the public needs to be, you did not see the whole trial. pay attention to the people who did. >> judge gene looked remarkably do dishes. -- judicious. >> thank you all for being the sports today. [applause] >> if you can hold your seats for just a moment. [inaudible]

>> as the professor gives his critique, perhaps the panel can remain. we are going to get out early. as floyd makes his comments and observations, maybe they could be interactive. i do not get much time with floyd. if there are no objections, can we do it that way? >> i have a jury waiting. [laughter] and adjournedead the paddle and get -- the panel and get floyd up here. roy is going to come up and do a quick introduction. is members of the panel need to exit, that is fine. rather than take a break, we

will adjourn the conference a close 3:40, if that is okay with everyone. roy. >> the good news is that i will be quick. i told ben that he gave me the easiest job of everyone speaking today. i am introducing somebody that everybody in this room and everybody who works in the section of me and the court already know. floyd abrams. if you do not believe me, trying googling mr. first amendment. with a couple of exceptions, every single hit going back decades leads you to floyd abrams. first amendment guru is also

marginally found. he has argued dozens of first amendment cases. i will not list them for you. because of the reasons we are here today, i will mention a few that are near and dear. there was the case that led to the boilerplate, "prior restraints on free speech are a violation of first amendment rights." the government may never punish the publication of truthfully acquired information. these are quoted in every brief dealing with first amendment rights. you can thank floyd.

because i do not really need to introduce floyd, i will tell another story. i do not know how many people are familiar with something called the mayan set list. the class of 2014. tackles' about clea have never -- czechoslovakia has never been a country. i will tell you what it is like to be a young lawyer in a world where there has always been a first amendment. when the citizens united case was argued in 2009, i was a young lawyer. i was writing an amicus brief arguing that the government's construction of the press exception was too narrow in that case. we were sure we were right and that the government was overreaching.

morale was low. the politics of the case were nasty. lawyers and judges who we liked and respected were telling us the ftc was totally within its rights to regulate this documentary. i cannot tell you how great it was a she get the brief in the mail. the opening sentence of the conclusion, sometimes the case helps us see how far off the constitutional court congress has taken the nation. this is one of those cases. those two lines crystallized in an efficient and hard-hitting way the intuition of a lot of people about what the government had done. more than what was said, it was who was saying it.

the fact that mr. first amendment agreed with us, how long could we be? it reminded me that a philosophy professor used to say about aristotle. it is not that he was never wrong. it is the safe assumption that he is right unless you have good information to the contrary. sadly, that is terrible advice for aristotle. with that, i will introduce floyd. thank you. [applause] >> please don't leave the room. maybe we can work something out to see if we can hang out together and you can introduce me. [laughter] thank you very much.

you have heard this great panel talking about these issues. i will not resay what they have said. it also reminded of the time i was in college and robert frost came to give a speech. a great poet. he read some of his poetry. he talked a lot and asked for question period -- as for questions. -- asked for questions. a great student asked, what were you trying to say when you wrote such and such a poem? frost said, you want me to say it again less well? [laughter] i will not repeat what has been said. i will offer a few general views and where i disagree with

the tone of what has been said. i am struck by the fact that i categorized various motions that we have been talking about today and the various issues. three categories. everything is in three categories. i do it almost in terms of the time in which different issues surged as because of the change in technology. a significant amount of what we talked about today could not be talked about 10 years ago. it is all based on new technology. the existence of the internet. the existence of bloggers. the need to make decisions about how to treat bloggers as opposed

to "journalists." that argument persists. if i have one noted disagreement with the tone of the panel on the whole, it is that there was such agreement on the proposition that bloggers are journalists and the law is the same to them and should be. it overlooked a significant body of disagreement that exists on a subliminal basis, but exists in the press itself. there are a lot of press lawyers out there. there are a lot of editors of the old press who really do not

agree with the notion that bloggers are the same as they. i happen to disagree. i agree with the panel. i want to point out that that issue remains a live one. there was an unsuccessful argument. a notably unsuccessful argument seared in memory arguing that a journalist ott to have first amendment protection -- ourght to have first amendment protection for her sources. -- ought to haave first amendment protection for her sources. we spoke to many people about this. what was i going to say when i was asked, how about bloggers?

do they have the same rights? are you saying that anyone who has a web site can refuse to reveal confidential information provided to them? are we saying this is a privilege that everyone has, because everyone can start a website? that is the way the question was phrased to me in preparing to argue. of course, a judge, in a probing matter, you could say his voice was raised, ask me early in my argument, what about a blogger? i represented a journalist at a leading newspaper. are you saying every blogger in are you saying every blogger in the country can