next ten years. can you see what does that mean for our military? what does it mean for the ground forces and we have to ask exactly the questions peter asked about the big tank formations. i would argue that if we are going to have that model we also need a civilian capacity to help the state's better perform for the people as the deal with these terrorist threats. second, strategic forces. you know, arms control i think has been one of the great forces for preventing countries to do smart things with their military because they wait to have a negotiation where they can get some credit for it, and i would like to see us not have a next strategic arms negotiations. i would like our russian and american military planners to sit down and talk about how they would like to streamline the respective forces in a transparent and reciprocal way so that we can actually move much more quickly missile defense, we can have that

conversation. of course it is in direct that china. it's not directed at prussia extracted in north korea and iran and i can tell you the last time that we had a missile test we had two major tests by north korea. it's a long range intercontinental ballistic missile. that's the good news. but on the occasion -- >> the systems perform better than peter wood said just but i will tell you that once in the bush administration and once in the obama administration we put our national missile defense system and the air force base vv to base in alaska on alert so that we can protect against that missile if in fact it were coming to a western part of the united states. we also use those systems to take out a satellite that was headed towards earth that was not making the controlled reentry.

so it is a needed investment for a limited system that is directed at north korea and iran, and those are very unstable powers. but again, my point is not to beat peter but this is the kind of conversation that we ought to have to say what are the efforts of there and what are the real capabilities we need to meet those threats and then we have to have the courage to make some debts and prioritize and cut them. s back with that, let's go to you. please come as i say, identify yourself after the microphone has arrived and pose a question but specifically a one panelist. let's start with you. >> i'd like to ask both panelists the reaction to the

composition of the committee are you encouraged committee of concerns. >> alice, would you like to start? >> i don't want to comment on the individual's. i think it is for people appointed by the leadership of a point, and it does not -- it strikes me as a pretty good group and representing the congress with no real extremist. >> the father was a good group as well if inexperienced group there are a number of people who know how the legislative process works and how to reach a deal there are clearly some members

who reflect extreme positions within their parties and i think the leadership of the co-chairs because alice mentioned something important and they really are most effective if they can be unanimous. >> one other point i think is a lot depends on the leadership largest of the co-chairs it's the leaders behind the scenes or hopefully out for not and by that the speaker and the president particularly. >> that's why i think it's important bill leadership really try to put pressure on the group to breach something that is fairly broad consensus the will make it more powerful and politically within the american people and seven out of 12 if you're going to get a

streamlined consideration that alice talked about. >> we had this problem with a group bill perry indicted and bought a wide-ranging group and a fairly consent set of good consensus recommendations and our sense was rather than going to the lowest common denominator we found that if you were old and could make your recommendations on the vehicle for the proposals for a wide range of people you actually got more likely to get consensus by the bullet rather than the lowest common denominator and if there was one of hope after this group i the would be bold and go beyond the 1.5. >> far beyond it. >> it would be bold and see if we can get something that is going to say to the international community and our own people and the to make tough

decisions and really take on this problem. that's what the american people want to see and what i hope these folks will consider. >> and there's also aside from the question of composition there's a principle i hope the follow the also the folks in the other agency with the implications of it the first thing to cut is the chatter. they are not going to be able to be bold if they're running to the press and the like and the secretary dates required staffers to sign the nondisclosure agreements we are going to need something along the equivalent of this so that my fear is we will constantly see options being floated out there in the press which will shut down the old thinking that is needed and will lobby groups are going to pop up and the like and the other we need to remember is that if the group and if these other entities are

going about this seriously everything is going to be on the table but in the act of putting everything on the table it's going to feel like to those within the military, with the other agencies that their programs and even their jobs are under threat and so when you don't want to have happened during the next few months is a sort of demoralizing effect where people are only hearing about the various cuts floated and not understanding the context that they are made, the strategic trade-offs and etc. >> i agree with that, but we keep talking as though this group was going to be talking about defense cuts. i don't think it is. the defense cuts are the fallback position descriptions could be focused on entitlements. >> here in the same road and we will work our way back.

>> from the commodity markets counsel my question is specifically for steve hadley. we've been talking of your report, and i think if a understood correctly one of the recommendations was to increase spending on the needy and i would like to understand more about that. why specifically the navy and not the other branches and then i have part b which is, currently we have been talking about some of the other sort of non-defense foreign spending in terms of whether it's democracy promotion or foreign aid or that kind of thing. can you help us understand what he would increase or decrease in that portion of foreign budget? >> the navy is all about asia and if you look at over the next ten years the united states has a huge interest as does the rest of the globe and what happens in asia. if you look the projections for economic growth over the next ten years and alice is the

expert on this is all asia all the time at this point in time. you have the emergence everybody talks about the major emerging countries, china, brazil, india. i call them the major surgeon companies -- countries, and the integration of china into the global system is a very big challenge for all of us. china is the big player in asia. it's scary number of our allies in that region, and it's very important if we are going to participate in the economic growth and if we are going to continue to provide a stabilizing influence in asia as we have since the end of the second world war we need to be present in asia in every dimension with our diplomacy, with our military which has a reassurance effect with our allies and says to china but we have some capacity there if it

adopts a more aggressive posture with respect to alice and the key to the military presence is the needy and the needy ten, 15 years ago as 500 plus ships now projected to go to something over 200 the role in the surface area that is covered by what is not any less. so, that's the point about we've got a problem in terms of trade. asia is to get there by trade agreements and we are on the sidelines so that's driven by the need by the united states to be present in asia. second of all, the point is we have spent since world war ii a lot of money and resources to learn how to recruit, train, exercise, fight and improve our military, and it has given us the best military and the world by far. it is a huge resource, and that's why as we talked about defense cuts we've got to be

careful not to squander that resource. we have not made anything like that effort to develop the civilian capabilities that will go in after a conflict and help rebuild countries and governmental institutions, train the police and stand of the law enforcement capability, get economic activity going, increase the services, all the things you need to do post conflicts to get a country like afghanistan and iraq back on its feet but also precontract some countries don't descended to violence. every time we have one of these challenges we do it as a pickup game, we don't do very well. we haven't made the kind of investment to develop these severely into the these like we have on the military. it's a very hard thing to call for the country to do at a time when we are in the kind of budget crunch we are. i grant that.

but over the long term i think we need to invest in these kind of capabilities and that's why i hope that we follow what bob gates said and at the same time as we deal with our budget capabilities we don't do it on the backs of these abilities which not only to be preserved as anything they need to be expanded over the next decade. >> another question. >> here in the blue shirt. >> thanks very much. from the strategic policy institutions, the question sort of follows the previous one as the broad principles that are going to bite the kind of cuts that were -- the u.s. is facing. it's interesting. this device has been much about the internal dynamics of the size and the shape of the u.s. military has implications for allies such as australia, countries like us and the south koreans who are growing in the military quite quickly in response to the point steve made

about the changes in asia. so what my question is both to peter and to stephen perhaps, what are the implications of the cuts that are coming through in the defense budget year or the grand strategy if you like and in particular strategy in asia. >> i think you hit upon another one of those principles which is through this process not within the super committed within particularly the pentagon and the nsc etc. and really the broad policy community as we are resolved through this over the next five months the principle is to keep your friends in the tent, and that relates to engaging with allies both about this process. the first level of engagement actually may be for all the frustration we sometimes have with other allies reducing their defense budgets they now have

lessons learned to pass on to us. but the other aspect of it is that looking for where are our alliances creating the capacity that's troubled rather than where can we be sharing a particular area in asia as it essentially the navy and the air force is moving towards what they called the a year and see battle doctrine which is designed to deal with a growing threat from any ship or submarine capabilities in the navy and from the asian power that shall not be named. the problem of the doctrine is that we actually haven't engaged with our allies about the doctrine even though it relies on those allies it's a similar thing there are certain capacity is where we are doubling up this

aspect of may be having that communication and finding where can we share also has other aspect, a tough message needs to be set out to other allies that essentially were not in the position to do the 20th century things we did before. to put it more directly, we can't both be creating capacities and only one party is willing to use them, something we specifically seen in the operations and essentially we are getting the point now where we are going to have to say you either get in the game, pay for someone else to play or we are not going to provide the service. that's the tough part of this dilemma that we are facing cuts in import a reminder when we talk about the comparison between the budget on the other powers out there and i did it myself in comparing the skills of the chinese budget the difference so why we spend so much is that we are a global power with a global network of alliances and there is a

relationship there and regardless of decisions lie would disagree with and where we deploy force and the last decade we have engaged in certain discretionary operations, but we have other alliances that don't change, and that's why we can't look at this as just going back to 2011, the 2001 levels. >> steve? >> i would agree with that and australia has been a terrific ally. when we really need someone to be with us australia is a country that has been there. i think some of our european allies -- eurith has to decide the going to have a real military force or not because they have cut their budgets and the forces are shrunk. they don't work together in an integrated way you see that in libya and europeans are going to have to make some tough choices about where they go on their defense astonishments even while the deal with some very severe economics the heavy tendency to

get a free ride and those days are over. >> another question. >> here in the front row. sorry, in the back. >> i washington lawyer, and i don't think how this special committee and the success unless they face the whole question of the meaningful tax reform. both commissioners to talk about 1.1 trillion of the tax expenditures a year. a lot of them had to cut back and maybe it isn't the 1.1 trillion available. but what success do you think this committee can have when so many members have already committed not having any tax

increases even if you take away a loophole for one particular group is considered a tax increase by this group of people. so what do you think the chances are? >> i couldn't agree more, mark. i think the tax reform that increases revenues is essential to the success of this committee as it is in trouble with reform that reduces future growth. those are the two imperatives, and if they are successful in bringing forward a package that includes a serious tax and entitlement reform it probably can't all be done at once but good steps in that direction. then we are not going to have this conversation about the defense budget, and we will have moved forward from a precarious

position in which we might clearly faces of the recession to the sustainable budget so that's right we have to do two things and this is the committee that can do it. >> another question. >> kuran the third row on this site. >> the american foreign service association. i would like to go back to a point he made earlier, mr. hadley, about integrating the diplomacy more tightly. i think that makes a lot of sense. but in terms of the current budget debate to you think that the grouping has put them in competition especially given the secretary leon panetta's vigorous defense budget and the fact that the spending is popular with the public, the state department list so and in some cases foreign aid is not

popular at all, and how do you think we get past to something as you described? >> it's a little bit of a case to be careful what you wish for because one of the problems is foreign aid. it sounds like a giveaway program and americans unfortunately tend to understand it as such they think it's a much bigger portion of the federal budget from the fact it is. as a way to understand the purposes and they think it is much more substantial than it is. so, to counter that, in the bush administration and the clinton administration tried to do this as well we try to make people understand the foreign aid is not actually foreign aid. it is something we do oversees that advances our national security interest. so we were very much interested in putting these kinds of diplomacy and development assistance programs into the national security context as a way of protecting them for cuts.

fast forward now two years to the deficit problem that we faced having succeeded in putting them together. now it's a bit of a hobson's choice because it is told package has to shrink the concern is we will preserve defense spending at the expense of these items. i think it is right to think of them as an element of our national security strategy. it is the risk that they will suffer as a consequence, and i think the only way to do it is to have a discussion so that people understand what those programs actually do and the contribution they make to the national security. i think bob gates was front and center on that, and i suspect you will see leon panetta when he gets into it picking up the drumbeat because a lot of these programs, the principal supporters are actually the u.s.

military. because they are men and women overseas that have seen the value of the programs but again it is no reason we have to have an informed debate on the subject because there is a risk. another question. yes, ma'am, the fifth row. yes. >> i'm from "the wall street journal" and my question if anybody on the panel would like to weigh in last week as president about the announced the unemployed veterans especially those who are returning from iraq and afghanistan unemployed in greater numbers than other groups of veterans i'm wondering if there's any discussions that any of you have participated in and is there any chance that the cuts to the defense budget could have an adverse impact on those returning veterans given that the department of defense has played a role in helping them

with the transition process. >> i think people will be pretty sensitive to that. if you look at the quadrennial defense review that reviewed, they talked about the commitment to maintaining the all volunteer force, but they also talked about our commitment to the veterans. general john cartwright, who was the vice chairman of the joint chiefs retired last week and i went to his retirement ceremony coming and one of the things she said that i think resonated with the audience and i think will resonate with the american people was that our men and women in uniform who, in harm's way on behalf of all of us and to many of them have come back and grievously wounded that we have a lifetime commitment to these people. this isn't just to get them back, he'll their wounds and get them started on the integration into society. we need -- we have a commitment to these people that extends throughout their life, and i

think the american people get that. one of the big differences, and alice and i can remember this between, you know, the iraq experience and the vietnam experience is that the american people really love this military and the respected and see it when people go through airports and people spontaneously break out in applause. so i think the american people get it, and i think they provide support to these programs and i hope the people who are tasked with to responsibilities will keep that in mind. can i say one thing -- again, i'm sitting here on this thing this is way outside of my expertise, but i would just say one thing. i think a lot of republicans particularly conservative republicans when they hear balanced approach, they hear tax increases. and when they are in a situation where the economy is soft, the

last thing you want to do is increase taxes. >> immediately but nobody's talking about that. >> that's the point though. alice has made exactly that point. we have to have a debate on this because, you know, there are some for example republicans who would like to see some tax reductions, the corporate tax rate reduced because corporations are at a competitive disadvantage overseas. so the question is whether we can be wise enough and clever enough to basically get people to say yes, you may get some tax relief but the only way you're going to get tax relief is if we can do some closing of loopholes and things like this. i think -- i keep one of the problems is this debate has gotten politicized. and what we need is this -- [laughter] >> and we need to have a sensible discussion on this because this is a tricky business. we have a huge deficit problem and we have a very soft economy and the last thing we need is a

double-dip recession. so we are going to have to work these out and again i am way outside of my area. >> it is to all of the things we are talking about and entitlements for instance one has to make the same point about medicare and social security and medicaid. one would only reduce those benefits with a lot of lead time but people don't understand that, you talk to people on the street and they say i need my medicare. it's going to get cut. nobody has been talking about cutting the benefits immediately or indeed raising taxes immediately. it hasn't even been part of the conversation but people have such a figure that they are afraid of it and i made this point on a television program no one was talking about cutting

medicare or social security immediately i got hate mail saying yes they are. laughter christa mick interesting to read two last questions and then give the panel a chance to respond and conclude with observations and we will take to the very end on opposite sides of the aisle one after the other, please. >> christa want to applaud stephen peter for recognizing the importance of asia into the air sea battles, but i want to see that a lot of the challenges that are being faced the challenges on the air and space power, the air force the no less a strategic force and a stabilizing force within asia faces some of those problems. and so, as you discuss your principles for where you want to go, how prominent welfare consideration for the industrial base to protect those aspects that give the united states a distinct and an asymmetrical foreign policy freedom of action that relies upon global warming and surveillance to rely upon the air mobility and rely upon

the ability to have an air superiority and reach out and touch the world to make the effect swear need to respect before we get responses come over to you and with a vietnamese americans and i think you for bringing up the violence approach and asia, and my question has to do with business because that's the whole focus that the next battle is economic and right here in america. so, why we are cutting the budget which we somehow have focused to build upon the business here in defense of our own jobs to protect our jobs for our veterans in case chinese come here and established companies here with support from the old government without the ability of the company. so, with any sort of channeling some of the budget from air

force and other weapons into the budget to support the small businessman. >> i think that we will look the other way from which we began. if you would start in the way that he would like for the questions on the table. >> short and i actually want to hit the question of the veterans as well. one of the things we need to recognize and goes back to the principal of cut the chatter is that folks within the military, and i experienced as through conversations recently including one just last night are starting to, you know, phrase things with my job gets cut or they are making their decisions on how and where would offices, what service, with offices they choose to go towards based on the think might happen in the budget so we need to realize there are people behind this and

it's another part of it what we do not want to happen is the sentiment of someone coming back from afghanistan and iraq and divide given of think you very much we will see you later. that is to be avoided all costs. the second part of that the was that we need to be clear in our discourse related to the pentagon and this is not just in these discussions but even things like promotion strategy that we don't turn cost-cutting into the holy grail can't we are seeing that kind of like starting to have been so that concerns me because this aspect of war fighting is what distinguishes a veteran from another type of benefit. of benefits programs or entitlements program and men and women asked to go into harm's way on behalf of the nation. to the point about what can we do related to the industrial

base in asia and the like i think it hits again that idea of where are their capacities that will be needed more in the 21st century verse is the 20th century so we can't go back from the 2001 budget and in 2001 you didn't have a cipher command back in 2001 we didn't have over 7,000 unmanned aerial systems and the force that in 2000 when you also didn't have 44 other nations other people also building systems that's the strategic situation today but another aspect of this is the importance of areas like research and development and every budget cut process in history and in the u.s. and unfortunately in every bipartisan advisory commission related to the current sow proposed that r&d be cut by a

greater amount than the rest of the force, yet r&d is the seed corn for when the strategics attrition changes. so that is an example. and also, by the become the r&d in my mind is really what sustains the national defense industrial base not so much thinking about it in terms of the distributing jobs in every congressional district. so those are some of the principles we keep in mind in this process. >> every time we have done these defense budget cuts we tended to do it well, and in some instances we have regretted it when a military challenge subsequently emerges to this. so it's very hard to do it right, and peter has laid out in the articles and writings and i try to as well even getting some criteria and a really forcing

the process to respond to those criteria. second thing i would just like to say, you know, this is a very challenging time for the country. and sometimes i think there is a sense out there where americans are beginning almost at the first time to run -- to wonder whether the challenges before us are too big to handle. i was out and he said last week with madeleine albright talking about my 11, and one of the things she said at the end which i think is very important, she said 9/11 was a huge challenge. i don't think people really remember how traumatic that was for the country. and the kind of terrorist attacks that we anticipated at that time. through a lot of that effort, by a lot of americans, most of what we feared after 9/11 colin the mass casualty attacks, weapons of mass destructions did not happen. and the united states and actually got through the ten years and we dealt with a

problem of the challenge in a way that didn't require us to fundamentally change hour were society, and other than who we are in all always have been. there was a challenge and we pulled together as a nation, and we overcame it. we now face a huge challenge in terms of the budget deficit. i feel we need to remember from things like 9/11 this is an extraordinary country, and we can't do these things. we do it in our own messy way. there's a lot of politics, churchill's of the americans always get it right, they always try every alternative first and final leg in the end of the right they tend to do it right the can get this done it can overcome these challenges that so we have to recognize we have to give it a smart way. but we have to keep in mind that we are facing a new threat and a new situation with respect to

the future of the federal budget. we have not been in this situation before we have done other budget cutting and we will do other budget cutting in the future but right now we are facing a situation which is totally unsustainable. we cannot go on like this the spending under the impact of health care and aging is rising faster than our economy can grow. we can't go on that way. and it's not a blame game, its good intentions and we created programs that were very popular, but we have to cut back and raise more revenue and improve the tax code what has to be done as we keep saying over and over

on this panel and stays in overtime. but it has to be done. there's no escapes coming and that is the challenge to this new process and we will see in the next few months whether it works or not. the deadline is thanksgiving. that is not very far from now. so, we are either going to have a solution or we will be starring in a pretty deep the event. >> sooner we know to the redskins are going to the super bowl. [laughter] >> i want to make one very brief comment in response to the question of helping our businessmen and businesswomen. this is an unusual note to finish with the discretionary accounts are often severely criticized and they should be scrutinized, but that is also where we sometimes do our investment because these include support for education for scientific research, they provide a lot of the services

that many of us want like food safety, airplane safety and so on, and so all the more reason why we need a balanced approach but that is to look at where the big money is which tends to be much as anything entitlements and so i just want to underscore on that last point that if you are worried about investment in the future economy there are actually some programs the government does that are important for that and we have to remember what they are as well. let me thank you all for being here and please join me in thinking this panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> house and senate leaders have

named a committee charged with creating a plan by thanksgiving to reduce the federal budget deficit by more than two trillion dollars. republicans of the committee were selected by john boehner and minority leader mitch mcconnell. democratic leaders were selected by nancy pelosi and senate majority leader harry reid. the committee must hold its first meeting by september 16. codon debt reduction by november 23, and if the -- vote on the debt reduction by november 23, and if that is approved, it will go to the full house. monday president obama begins his tour of the midwest states, the on u.s. jobs and the economy. we will take you to his first shot in minnesota. -- first stop in minnesota. >> what more video on the candidates and track the latest

contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. it helps navigate deland's -- the landscape with updates from the campaigns and the latest polling data plus links to c- span media partners in the early caucus states. >> next, a discussion on how new media and social media sites are affecting court cases. this is hosted by the conference of court information officers. it is a little over two hours. >> shock is a partner but more significantly, with a lawyer for

many newspapers, including the palm springs "desert sun." he gave me a four-hour counseling session. the fellow went to jail, and i did not get sued for libel thanks to shock -- chuck. has put together a terrific panel based on real facts. >> thank you. but was turned. -- but was turned curiosa region

th-- that was kind. this is going to be a fun panel for you and our panelists as well. we have brought in a blue ribbon panel of experts, but we are going to turn the trial on its head. we are going to ask the panelists to step out of their comfort zone, and they are going to step out of their comfort new -- step out of their roles. to start out, playing the role of prosecutor is barbara.

barbara is the vice president and senior associate counsel in virginia are, and that puts her at the apex of media images for the several hundred newspapers, television channels. she also preceded me as share of -- chair of the bar. one of the other best friends any journalist or a lawyer could have is eric lieberman. eric is the general counsel of "the washington post." he has been with "the post" since 1998 triggered an -- since

1998. he has been very involved on a global level with these issues. we're very honored to have the judge on the district courts in washington, d.c. it has been involved in much of the work done in the court system with electronic discovery issues. next we are pleased to have the role of online journalists.

she was a journalist in virginia and is also active as a public information officer for municipalities in the region. this is the chief show-on the united states district court. she is the chief administrative judge on the accord and triggered -- on the court. he is known for wisdom and independence, and he has resided over many issues involving access to courts, and he is very active and proactive. we are delighted to have him with us. on the other side, jean is the

senior vice president. he resides in nashville and has an office in washington, d.c. this is one of the leading organizations on open access issues and councils journalists along the way. he has run panels like this, so we look forward to your pearls of wisdom today. next to jean is a broker harper. she has a cool job. in her private life, she is a full-time logger three j -- fullttime blogger. she has a law degree and has

practiced white collar and civil defense lawyer, and she found it interesting when spending time in court thanks to a lot of human stories and legal stories, and she has put them on her blog. welcome. next soon broke is lucy -- next to brooke is lucy. it is the leading advocacy organization for reporters legal rights, and she is active in all of these organizations, including serving on the board forecourts and the media. playing our jurors is the senior

vice president and editor of american journalism review. it is the leading critique magazine of the industry. he is also active on their web sites, and he has worked in just about every news from the has not thrown him out in the united states, and he collects people who in his spare time. thank you for joining us. going to have our group examined several aspects of a celebrated case and that is coming on today. between 1992 end 2000 in washington, a series of seven gruesome killings took place.

all of the victims were white women in their 60's who lived alone. each was strangled swiss a nylon stocking as -- struggled with a nylon stocking. an african american man named carleton was arrested. he worked in the the building where some of the women live. the case is entirely circumstantial. it is built on forensic evidence gathered on the scene of the crime and seized during a search of his apartment. the search took place with his consent after a 24-hour police interrogation. the length of time between his arrest, the lack of testimony, and the circumstances of the ogation have fueled intense public debate about the case. the judge will hear pre-trial motions, including several from the news media before jury

selection commences. a panel of 12 jurors will be chosen, including juror number juaone. court is now in session. the court has a motion to permit the prosecutor and the defense counsel to use the internet's during the questioning of potential jurors. let me turn to the defense counsel first. why would the internet help you in picking out of juror? >> the questions that can be asked are limited in terms and the amount of questioning, and if there was a survey, those are a limited set of questions, so from my perspective, is important for me to be able to search the internet to see if i

can find an additional information for the purposes of my client getting a fair case. i would like to look and see whether any of the insurers have belongs or twitter pages -- any jurors have blogs or 20 pages where they have said something about the case. maybe one of the potential jurors wrote a review on yelp asking people not to have handyman at their homes. i would very much be able to -- like to be able to do internet research. >> you want out for the same reasons, or do you only want it if he gets a it? >> for once i would agree. i do not want to have a

mistrial, and in this situation, i am sure my defense counsel is well aware that information disclosed during the trial itself or perhaps afterwards, so my view is that the more information we get at this point, the better, and it would help in my selection of the jury as well. >> let me ask about potential juror, how do you feel about him playing googling for jurors? >> that makes me uncomfortable. there is all kinds of misinformation on the internet, and it seems it is wrong to have that circulated.

it makes me very queasy. >> let me ask the judge. you have a motion before you. what do you think about bringing the jury in for a selection? >> i recognize the difficulty of her is for a host of reasons -- of jurors for a number of reasons. 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 knows third-party interrogation's prior and would be an -- that no third-party interrogation's prior would be permissible. you cannot is a juror on

information you find. if you find information you feel is relative to bring up, that would lead to permit it. i would not want an investigator to have a pre- screening. >> if his neighbor was trashing him for leaving garbage on the side of the house, would you let them talk to the neighbor? >> i think the proper question is in the courtroom at the term. you have the survey and a number of questions. you are not trained to determine a perfect and jury. -- trying to determine a perfect jury. you are trying to find one but will not arrive to a preordained conclusion.

i would be uncomfortable with third-party interrogation. >> he is one of the leading court reporters in the area. if they get access on google, would stable and region would they be able to track its? -- would they be able to track it? >> i would expect to be able to google it myself, and i would. >> are you going to keep the jury's names and? >> i think in most cases the jury pool is not a matter of public record until the jury is in.

i see no reason to constrain panel on either side for using the information. >> of the leading tv journalist in this market, and you agree with your friends? -- you agree with your friend? do you think you have a right to the material on googled hamas >> i do not think i have our right to look over the shoulders of the prosecution or the defense, but i am going to sit in the courtroom. i am going to ask for permission to put my laptop on my lap. i still do not know whether or not we are going to be able to find out by number or whether i will be able to get their name if it is called.

forward.take it a step now there was a motion for potential jurors to have access to facebook accounts. >> i think it is important to make sure we have a fair jury. i would like to be able to see if they have any postings to judge on the evidence. they have preconceived notions on their facebook page. this involves issues about the police, about race, about class, and i think it is

important i'd be able to view their postings before jury selection to see if there is anything but calls into question their objectivity. >> will you oppose this motion? >> i will not oppose it. >> if he gets it, she gets access to facebook pages. would you ask the court to let you get it, too? >> absolutely. i want it all. >> what would you do with the information? >> i can inform on-line readers about the potential jury pool that exists, who they are, where they come from, and would they be representative of mr. carlson's peers? >> if she gets it and he gets it, i presume you are going to want it, too. >> i guarantee i want it.

>> of the lawyers get it and they are going to work with it, it becomes part of the proceeding. is he entitled to the same access to? >> i think so there is authority that what you publish for the world tuesday -- the world to see cannot be private. they have posted it on the wall where it is a sensible. everybody should have it. yes. there have already been reported incidences where people have said things on their facebook account that shows they had no business being on luxury because they already made up their minds. >> region being on a jury -- they have no business being on a jury because they already made up their minds.

>> i heard from the attorney on behalf of the news media premised on the lack of privacy of posting something on of facebook wall. is that valid? is it private? is it public if you certainly -- if you let certain friends access it? >> i try to be sensitive to the notion that everybody participating in a court proceeding has things about their life they would not like to be in public, and i think there are certain things about facebook posting said might be relevant, and there are certain things that are not, like fights with a boyfriend or girlfriend and domestic issues that i would not put on a blog, but definitely things about your view on a case, i definitely would.

>> would you mind having people speak of with the microphone closer? >> we can all be seated. >> my office just received a letter from counsel for facebook, and they are quite concerned with the notion that terms of service entered into at the time of these jurors and the creation of the facebook account will be disregarded. .

>> what do you do exactly? >> i am senior correspondent and co anger for the nightly pbs newshour. >> judy woodruff, thank you for being here.

[applause] >> do you have the italian ancestors? [unintelligible] >> some of them from outside of the coast. summer from sicily. i think you have some italian ancestors. >> not that i know of. >> how unfortunate for you. [laughter] >> maybe sometime in descendants. where did you grow up? >> i grew up outside of boston mass.. nnett in 1985 andga

have been there ever since. i wish we went to cape cod all of the time. the are huge with fox plans. that is all right. we have a house in cape cod. deny it to get there as often as we would like to. our children use it in a very significant way. >> what are the metrics in terms of the size and reach of the media company. >> we are about $5 billion in revenues. we have 30,000 employees domestically and overseas, primarily in the uk. 21% of our revenues are due to a business that is not widely known.

it includes career builder, the largest employer site in north america. >> thanks very much. [applause] , good morning to you from pbs. where are you from? >> 0 originally from baltimore. i moved to new york. i have been back in washington for 5.5 years. >> we still cannot get our minds around it. what is the difference between pbs what it does and how should we not confuse it with npr? >> we have those nice pictures. [laughter] we are a confusing organization. we are the largest nonprofit

media organization in the country. three had a 50 member stations. -- we have 350 member stations. one of our flag ships is here in washington, which is a partner and brains -- brings to the audience the newshour. i love cnn. we love having to be on the news hour. she brings extraordinary perspective. she has done a lot of work in the mid lendale generation. we bring -- millenial generation.

we bring ken burns and when i fall to the national audience. -- gwen ifle to the national audience. >> we started a little early. we may conclude early. we will see how it goes. we want to be interactive. someone put these legal pads on the desk in case you are taking in the depositions today. we want to at some point, walk around the audience and if you have questions, we will not necessarily wait until the end for them. and what to counsel the panelists -- really want a conversation, a slice of life.

feel free to interrupt, i agree, disagree, expand, raise our ratings anyway he can. remind us what etouches are. >> it is an event management software solutions. the comments about my address was interesting. i was thinking about leopards. change my spots fairly regularly. we have been a buffer company since 2007.

and lots of changes. trying to stay ahead of what is going on in the market, which is something you are all too familiar with. we are based in connecticut, a global company. on a smaller level, lots of zeros of of the numbers of gannet. in there few women ceo's software industry. it is an interesting journey for me. >> what an amazing panel. you deserve a round of applause, it at auction the morning, showing up. -- 8:00 in the morning, showing up. [applause] there is so much going on in the news, in media, and women. one of the questions i had was

the around the clock pressure that media companies are under, given what is going on in the news right now. i was wondering if you could comment a little bit on how your organizations do a tremendous job of maintaining quality. in my own business, pressure makes quality a big challenge. we do not have to put out content every day to the world. how you handling met and what methods are using to overcome it? >> for us, quality is the start to our organization. if you look at the work that you pick up, and the pressures to cut corners would tempt one perhaps to compromise. looking at it from cover

perspective, that is what is unique in this media landscape. someone sent me a great article that talks about 19 programs -- a five programs on cupcakes, and enlist programs -- endless programs on reporters. i am looking for people -- someone that can put them all together in one. [laughter] i think animal planet now has one with animal orders. hoarders. really looking at technology and distain very focused and putting the resources into the content. that is what makes us unique. the thinking very hard about aside from the funny comment

about quarterhoarders. we are constantly challenging ourselves on where the marketplace is covering different subjects and focusing on those areas that the markets have tended to take up. that is the role of nonprofit media. i've been very focused on the work we are delivering, taking advantage of the technology, which does give us an opportunity to pretend -- produce content at a lower cost per hour, and thinking about new ways to bring in revenue. we have the opportunity to bring in contributions to individuals across the country, and opening up through the web and other sources. trying to keep that spirit,

thinking about new ideas for revenue is part of it. >> mine is a for-profit company. our answers are remarkably similar. we understand that there are a plethora of choices for consumers and viewers and readers and users of website to get news and information. the important thing for a -- as is to find important ways for those people to spend time with the news and information we provide on television and our website and print publications. quality differentiated content, unique context -- content is very important to get consumers to spend time with our product. at the same time, we understand the cost pressure of being a public company, being a for-

profit company. we have to continue to look at opportunities to use new technology. we have over 20 television stations. we used to do graphics in every single one of those television stations. some are small and their resources are limited. the quality of their graphics production may not be as good as our larger stations. we consolidated all of the graphics efforts in denver, colorado. now our smaller stations get the same quality, which is an improvement on the quality they had before, as our larger stations. using technology to do a lot of things more smartly. we have 82 daily newspapers, a great iconic national brand in the "usa today." before, we never shared content. if you were covering tornadoes

in joplin, missouri, and we had a newspaper there and a television station in missouri, they would do coverage for themselves. now we are creating a culture of sharing content among ourselves so we can improve the quality of our print websites by having the great video coverage that our stations can provide. we can improve the coverage that usa today is doing, because we have a lot of feedback on the street where they are doing those national stories. it is sharing information with each other across the company, doing those things that we used to do at 100 different locations in a more consolidated way and using our technology to be more efficient so we can spend our time and resources on generating the quality content. >> would you say -- the media roles have been similar within

their own companies. are you saying that technology is facilitating the ability, or the pressure on media is generally causing you to rethink that approach? >> i think it is a combination of all of that. corporate change, but also really understanding that when you are of many choices and not the only choice in the marketplace, you have to get better more compelling truth. to do that, we can take advantage of all that we have. with 22 television stations that provide us with great video content on our website. >> from the perspective of the news hour, technology has meant an enormous change in how we reached our audience. we have had a web page for

years. in the last few years, it has become an integral component of who we are as a program. as we think about covering the news through the day and the news hour, we stand alone as in the way we are committed in one hour of covering just the stories that have to be covered that day. on the web page, we do that as well. we are able to expand that and a dive deeper and offer more detail and allow more of us on the air, 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 write a weekly blogger. stories that would not make it on the air. all of us in the media are

facing more complicated news. the world does gotten harder to understand than it ever has -- then it has ever been. there are less resources to cover a story that is more complicated than it has ever been. all of us have to be smarter. we have to think streamline. who is our audience? what are we trying to do? at the news hour, we relied on a man who said many years ago, we wake up in the morning and we do not have to think about who we are or how we cover the news. we just have to ask what are the most important stories of the day and go after them. it makes our job a lot easier. about covering the most important stories, and that is it. >> part of this is enabled by

technology, but it is the opportunity to build partnerships with other organizations. from the journalistic side, we have worked with organizations, print organizations. news hour works with the reporting teams of npr. chicken feed stories back from other ideas. internet connections from other laptops. the possibilities to expand journalism and in bridgett -- we would like to have more resources. the current economic climate and the current climate in the media in general allows different

ways of operating in bringing works to the public. we all benefit from this. a brain together different perspectives, it helps everyone. >> we have to follow consumers where ever they want to receive their content. one of the things we have had to change is you cannot just write a story or print product and expect it to be put on every other platform or device. we use our devices very differently. on and i pad or tablet, it is more of a lean back experience. there is more opportunity for

analysis and in-depth reporting. we have to understand what each of these forms is about, how consumers use the platform, and be effective in communicating content tailored to it. >> of one to talk about consumers. we talk about stickiness. i think it is a huge problem for people in media, particularly with what i observe with my own kids. it is hard to stay engaged in one thing for a pretty long time. there is a shift -- there was a time when you got on a train and

a 90% of the men -- 90% of the people were men. and many people were reading the wall street journal. but that has clearly changed. on one hand, it is a double edged sword. the ability to deliver content -- there is a demand to deliver it in a way that will engage young audiences. how do you see that? >> there is the question that people are consuming media differently, and lots of it. one of the priorities, is that we think constantly about where people are. how they are consuming media.

considering content and trying to figure out what fits which platform. we spend a lot of time wrestling with that. we have a large audience over 50. and over 25. for us, the real challenge is figuring out how to make sure we hold onto that large audience. over the course of the last six years, a fairly rigorous process where we tore a pound -- a part of our entire kids schedule. we worked with our original producers. we -- sesame street has been on the air for 41 years because it reinvent itself and thinks about how children are learning.

how do we take the power of what we can accomplish, in terms of helping children to develop basic skills and employ that in a way that gives kids and opportunity to test the skills they are learning. it is a much more engaged education process. we are the no. 1 destination for kids on line for video. we strained an average of 110 million streams a month. kids spend 45 minutes a session. that is an average of 45 minutes a session. that is the ultimate stickiness. we are reaching a lot of people and making sure that when they are interacting with us, they are not clicking away on television or the internet.

the holistic approach of thinking about kids is to find time. what the news hour has done is bring together the journalism of what they present on air and what they are able to produce on a line, it really creates -- newshour is distributed in many places around the country as a radio broadcast. a much greater opportunity of connecting to people as they want it. >> i am endorsing everything that paulus said. once those young people get used to getting information, one of the challenges is how to you keep them on that learning track?

i did a project, looking at to the younger generation a few years ago. it was a broad ranging project looking at their attitudes, their values, the most diverse generation in american history, how technology is changing them. we look at how they are getting their news. we found them remarkably well informed, considering the fact that there is a dedication to picking up the newspaper every morning or watching a newscast every night. we talked to one consultant in los angeles. they said if the news is important, it will come to us. even the young people that are not genetically inclined to follow the news are hearing what is going on through their cell phone, there device, whatever it

is that they carry around. they see it on facebook. their friends will say, hey, did you hear about so and so. they have the opportunity to get more information right away, in a moment. that is what technology is making for a much better informed generation than they are often given credit for. >> a quick question on the next generation project. did you notice anything gender wise the way people are beating? >> in terms of closeness to parents, we found an equal

number were interested in having a family. a lot of young men want to have a stable life. they have been influenced by their family in that way. a significant amount say i am not ready to settle down. everyone is affected by technology. i went in and looking for gender barriers or gender differences and it did not find them a. >> media consumption is at an all-time high. one of the things we found out about television viewership is about 70 or 80% of them are using some other kind of device, whether it is facebook or twitter or interacting or talking to their friends, and they are increasing the level of

television viewership, because it is not just a passive experiment anymore. is a shell shock -- social experience. facebook fan pages and all the rest -- nbc came out with a show called "the boys. " it has become a hit. we have 13 in b.c. -- the voice " and it has become a hit. s. have 13 affiliate' we have been promoting that program and to have engaged the audience with contests and discussions and really promoted social interaction to get people more focused. we see that as being much more

successful and important to a younger audience. that does allow us to drive younger audiences. we do not have a big crowd under five that looks at our products on a consistent basis. because of social media tools, the age is coming down. we have an adjunct to ever printed product with the website of usa today, we have a viewers probably a decade younger than our traditional web user. we have successful applications in the act had store. we are pleased with the kind of -- ipad store. we are pleased with the kind of viewership we are getting.

>> an older audience that may not have the expectations have enjoyed sitting on the couch and watching the show with a big tv. in the living room, it is a beautiful show. our online audience average age is 35. we are seeing the same things you are. people are considering media in different ways. it is surprising for people to hear television viewing. it is at an all-time high. media options where people are suffering. it is described as what is happening. they are on television, on-line,

tweaking to their friends and a whole nother and garment. >> i have to get out of the habit of assuming that if my kids were on their iphone while watching the movie, it is anything like the movie. i say, if you do not like it, we can turn it off. my daughter says, she loves it. around your wiveand lives and careers, -- you were any event management company. i observed for many of our customers there were not many women keynote speakers. i was going to make this my cause. we would find, and identify keynote female speakers. i found it a difficult task. most women would say, i will be out of town, or our will to a

breakout session, but not a keynote. what is your point of view on how women move into a place where they are very comfortable being in the limelight? part of that is general security with your accomplishments, but it is very different to have a mindset to be the person on stage to be the center of attention. >> i think we have come a long way. many women today who are willing and eager to stand in front of an audience and tell their story or talk about the work they do. we have made enormous strides. here is how long ago i started out as a reporter. i started as a secretary in the news room of a television station in atlanta. i have been there for a few months. my only goal was to become a

reporter. i kept saying this to the news director. his answer is that we already have a woman reporter. she did the weather at 6:00. my point is more than half of the anchors on local stations around the country are women today. i know we had statistics earlier. there are more women showing up on the air, behind the scenes, producing shows, covering the war in afghanistan, at the pentagon, everywhere. if we do not have enough women in management. in terms of getting in front of an audience, women are more likely to do that than they ever have been. sometimes it needs to be encouraged. women often have a tendency to say, i do not know as much as i

should. i need to steady more about that. young women coming along have a lot of confidence in their ability and what they know. i think it is a matter of time before you see as many women. when it comes to taking positions of management, i would like to see more women stepping up to do that. that is probably a more complicated subject as to why there are not more women like paula. we do have an issue there. in terms of standing in front of an audience in speaking out, we have come a long way. >> one of the things that gannett was toganne looking at the board make up and looking at the people in

position of influence and the communities we serve, the management team has been very focused on reflecting the communities we serve. [inaudible] the banking industry did not have the progress of this when it came to hiring women. there was a tremendous impact on the communities they serve. our board of directors -- three of them were women. i looked at the senior management team. a lot of women were on their as well. letter, we had's 5000 openings for new employees.

47% were filled by women. 20% were filled by minorities. for me, it was a tremendous place to be. it reflected the community's research and have a great role models of women being in position of influence. and >> part of what we think about is diversity in every aspect of our organization and core values. we attempt to reflect the community's research and do it very well. in the work that we produce, our procurement, organizations that

we do business with. how out every manager in the organization is evaluated. if we are serious about seeing more women and people of color in key roles in organizations, we have to put it front and center every day and stay focused on it. it is a business and makes us a much stronger company. having different viewpoints and prospectus has been critical to the work we did. we try to focus on that every single day. >> getting back to being on the air in front of an audience, we put our guest lineup together. whether economy or politics, we think about women, minorities.

it is not just in the back of our minds but in the front. every single lineup is not perfectly diverse. over a span of a short time frame, we want to reflect the country and the people who are in that area. whether it is politicians, people elected into office, experts in health care, we are looking to be diverse. that is our mission. we are a news organization holding up a mirror to the country. we cannot do that if it is all white guys. no offense to them. >> judy said she would like to see more women leading the organization. for many of us aspiring or

trying to be women leaders in our company, can you share any words of advice? you have a cfo role that is not all that common. i'd love to hear about what your level at gannett was as a cfo. >> i wish i could give you this grand plan that i had on how my career was going to go. it was much more focused on doing the job i had at that moment and time and doing it to the best of my ability. i have tremendous faith. what attracted me was that it was a meritocracy.

-- i realized very quickly that do the job you are given ended do it to the best of your ability. somehow miraculously people will notice it in give you additional responsibilities. i realized, and it is true more of women, we tended to worry about getting out of our comfort zone and over analyze if i am prepared for that position. do i know everything i need to know. it is not as true as men. for women, it tends to be true a little bit more. you have to force yourself to come out of your comfort zone. one person said our investor relations person has left and said, why don't you handle that. i said sure.

but went back to my office saying, what have i gotten myself into? but it was a great opportunity for me. it has widened my skills sets. i have learned something from everybody that i have encountered along the way. from every person i have met, i find something i can learn from. sometimes i learned what not to do. mostly i learn how to be a better executive and a leader of people. >> women into risk-taking is what i heard. her win not as willing to take risks as men traditionally have been? does it mean standing up on stage when you are not quite as prepared?

is the appetite for risk a factor in women and a success? >> i am not sure. as more and more women rise to positions of influence and you are no longer the first period to i think sandra day o'connor said it is not good to be first. before a lot of women that have risen up and are the first, they feel an enormous pressure to do a better job than anybody could possibly do, because you are not just representing yourself, but all of one kind or something. i spent a lot of time trying to mentor young women and men.

i believe it is a special of vacation for all of us to achieve a certain amount of good fortune and give the opportunity to remember what it was like to graduate from college and you do not have your life figured out and you feel like you should have, because everyone else has their life figured out. you are always the overachiever, judy. some many people, whatever words of advice i can share, is to not be afraid. men do have this issue -- moving out of your comfort zone, trying something different. sometimes opportunities come to you that may seem sell off the

path that you thought you were on. to have the opportunity to take the lead, try something that seems risky or not quite in a nice neat box is paralyzing. for many of us, and in order to rise up and have opportunities, you have to be willing to take that risk. to look around at organizations and people that a been around for a long time and have been afraid to put their hand up and be willing to trust to do something different. the people that are able to go on are the ones willing to do whatever it takes. that means a standing on the stage if that is what it takes or agreeing to take on an assignment where you do not have

all of the information. recognizing that every person, and man told me years ago -- a very successful man on wall street said every time i have gone 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 is. i thought i was the only one that had that thought in the back of my head. everybody has it. recognizing that unless you have such an overriding ego, everyone has that boys in the back of their mind. if you can quiet the boys and recognize you are doing a lot for any new opportunity. >> really important to think about. it takes as in a different direction than what you asking.

it has reminded me and a lot of fellow journalists -- you have to be able to put things in perspective. the industry is changing. the challenges are being more into something that nobody expected. we think about the problems we face in this country. they pale in comparison to what a journalist case around the world. i want to take a moment to put in a good word for an organization i have been involved with for the last couple of decades. the international media of women's foundation, devoted to providing opportunities and education for women around the world. we have been able to identify women who are literally working life and limb in places far away from here, in most instances

from mexico, right next door, latin america, south america, asia, china, the african continent, in the middle east, women, who are risking everything to tell the story. we bring this to the united states. we recognize them with something we call the courage in journalism award. we do this in programs every year. our executive director happens to be right here. [applause] this is something that our organization collaborated with. please contact them to get your own copy. it is fascinating, and easy and important read about the role

that women play. we haven't talked in the united states, but women around the world are facing incredible obstacles. they are putting themselves out front and having the courage to speak out and as we look at them, it makes what we do seem important and gives us the courage we need to have. >> do we have time for a couple of quick questions? and any concluding spot? >> we have had the privilege of working with traditional media companies. we heard how they are resourceful challenged. one of the things i have seen is

with the traditional media companies, they appeared to forget that those that are advertising with them want to see a stronger return on their investment. for a long time, traditional media was the only game in town. part of the challenges having to reinvent and understand how we will bring users in with the content. what are you doing to address that? >> i should handle this. >> if you are going to have resources, you have to be able to bring them in. >> i have to run. the markets are open in 10 minutes. we have to figure out what we are going to do on the news program. thank you.

[applause] >> you are protected by the first amendment. make the reports totally positive. [laughter] >> we could use some good news. what we hear from advertisers is they do not understand the roi associated with the advertising dollars they spent with us. there are more established metrics that we can share with those people that choose to advertise with us to show them the return they get on their investment in a more meaningful way. we asked nielsen to help with ratings and to help with other metrics we can provide an

understanding of the demographics involved in the television viewing. we have been working with a number of people to try to come up with standard metrics that we can use to address the issue of return on investment of those marketing dollars. there are a lot more choices these days. >> we do have underwriters and relationships with corporations that are very important to us. we get the same nielsen numbers that broadcasters use. we are looking very carefully at all of the ones showcasing material. we are trying to understand the impact of messaging. for us, people associate with

public broadcasting because of the environment. people associated with programs in public broadcasting are doing it as a way of extending their connection to our organization and reaching the people watching public television. we think carefully about how we are presenting that information and the perspective of the corporation. we are looking for ways to build those partnerships. a number of our stations are involved in events with a rare fund raising events. we are constantly thinking about partnerships and pullback to the

companies that are supporting us with a value for their underwriting. >> we have a company that is based in pennsylvania. they serve up an amazing number of ad campaigns for the companies into the metrics they can provide around those advertising campaigns, certain metrics and the results that those advertisers and marketers get is pretty phenomenal. a very important issue. >> how about a quick question? >> i am wondering what your organizations are doing to address the issue to helping people think or critically about the news they are getting. [unintelligible]

>> we were 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 kids and parents understand how to navigate the internet and the information there. from our perspective, being able to help kids develop basic literacy in media, which will be more important as we move forward with access points for data. we have a fairly large projects that we are involved in a nationally called pbs learning media, a project to bring our digital assets and animation

into the classroom. we think about the content that we produce. we have been involved over the last couple of years in taking a large library and breaking it up into small segment that can be used in the classroom in 5 minute pieces. and delivering it out free to any school available with broadband. we are thinking carefully about the tools we can get teachers to use in the class from around media literacy. helping kids figure out how to navigate is going to be critically important. helping people analyze truth, fact, sources, all of that is

critical for our democracy. >> you have been involved in a newspaper and education programs where you supply a newspapers to schools. we also have a philanthropic arm where we give back and contribute to important causes within the communities we serve throughout the country. we know a good chunk of the money goes to literacy programs and initiatives to promote reading in viewing and in those communities that have been identified as priorities. cutting through the clutter of information and misinformation, we are inundated with so much information, far more than any of us can really deal with on a daily basis.

that was not the case many years ago. some of the research we have been doing, what a lot of consumers are looking for is someone to edit the content, which has been the traditional job of our editors in our newspapers and broadcast stations, because there is so much information. what is real information? we have trusted brands that we represent where if we make a mistake, we print a correction on the front page of the newspaper or in our broadcast. i do not see a lot of correction going on in the internet. some brands have a credibility and the stand for a certain level of accuracy and veracity

in content. >> one last question. >> i am keith maurer and with government tv. this has been a great talk on diversity and the media. with our economy today, the technology, collaboration, participation, an executive order from the white house on government -- we really need your expertise. we are media for united negro college fund. 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 in learning more about how we can collaborate to expand both education advancement and the media driving our economy?

>> we work with a lot of organizations. our work with children and adults is shaped by panels that we have put together to try to extend our work and to take the work of other organizations and bring it to a wider audience. we would be interested in talking. >> as well as participating in a lot of those activities. they are very much involved quit the national association of black journalists and other efforts. we have been very supportive of those kinds of efforts in kind and as well as direct contributions. we would welcome any interaction. >> i believe we pay extra to

replenish the coffee. these are role models for women. your contributions you have made, thanks very much. thank you very much. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .