at the national press club. live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contribution with c- span's web site for campaign 2012. helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign, candidate bios, plus links to c-span media >> this week on "q&a," the executive editor of "the new york times, jill abramson, discusses her job, her life, and her new book "the puppy diaries." >> jill abramson, new editor at "the new york times, brand new.

you have a new book. "the puppy diaries." it is painful to read. i want you to tell us about it. >> it was a may day in 2007, and i was going to work out before going to work at "the times," and at 44th and seventh avenue, i began to cross at the light, and a big white truck that was turning right ran me down, and, you know, i was pretty badly hurt. i was in belleview hospital for three weeks and in icu for a long time. i had several broken bones. i broke my femur, which is the

biggest bone in the body, i am told, probably hard to break, but mine broke. it was tough for a while. and, you know, it taught me a little bit about what i am made of. you know, i had to go through months of physical therapy and learn to walk all over again. people have gone through far worse things in their life than what i did, but that is basically the story. >> i want to go on just a little bit longer, because it is 2007, and then you get to be the top editor of "the new york times." that day when you were walking across the street, was the truck at fault, or were you at fault? >> the truck was at fault. people stopped. a nice thing about new york, the people who were crossing towards me all stopped. many stopped to help me. a number of them ran after the truck and made the driver stop.

>> and what did he run over? what did the truck run over? >> he first ran over my right foot, which, for some reason, dragged me down into the gutter, and then the rear wheel went over my left femur. >> what were you thinking at the time, or can you remember? >> i cannot remember what i was thinking. i remember i did not lose consciousness, so i remember right after fairly well. >> and the doctor said if it had been two inches -- >> two inches higher, and he thought i would have been killed. >> why? >> because some of your major organs are a little bit higher up than that. >> so what happened right away at the accident? >> a policeman was the first to come to the scene and help me, and an ambulance was there very quickly. they had to move me onto like a

wooden pallet to get me into the ambulance, and i remember being aware enough to give all of the numbers of both bill keller, my and then boss at the time, my husband, my children, and very soon thereafter, i was in the icu at belleview, and when they told me that, i was alarmed, and i told them to take me to another hospital, and they told me that if the president was hurt in manhattan, he would go to belleview. that is where they have the best trauma unit. i got amazing care, amazing care. >> union bill keller would not be there forever. what went through your head? >> well, a very nice thing was that when i arrived in the emergency room, bill was actually already there with my husband, so he is a terrific friend and a caring boss, as

well. i certainly was not thinking about my job. i was just thinking, oh, my goodness, i have really made a mess here. >> how long been were you out of work? >> i was out of work for about nine weeks altogether, though a part of the time i was home, and even my last week in a hospital, bill keller figured that the best medicine for me would be a juicy story, and rupert murdoch had just bought "the wall street journal" and the dow jones, and from my rehab room, i was looking up everything we had done on rupert murdoch and talking to the reporters who were going to work on a big story about him, and he was right. it was a great spirit lifter and

a great thing to focus on instead of myself. >> all right, later on in your book, you talk about tumbling 100 feet down a hill at yosemite. >> i did. >> what year was that? >> that was a year ago, a little over a year ago, and i probably should not have been mountain climbing. i went on a pretty steep climb up a beautiful place called specimen ridge, and on the way down, i hit some scree and just lost my footing. >> how much injury did you have in the fall? >> not terrible. i broke my arm, is all. >> this is all in the last four years. >> yes, the fifties have been perilous. i have not been in a hospital except to have my two kids. >> how did you get through these four years with all of these help problems and still

end up getting the job? did you ever think this would interfere with that process? >> i did not think it would interfere with that process. i was incapacitated for not that much of the time in 2007, and the thing that happened in yellowstone was a small thing. i did not really miss work for that. you know, you just soldier on, i guess. i never really became preoccupied with worries that the injuries would get in the way of work, and luckily, "the times" has a wonderful person who comes on premises twice a week. mainly, we went through a period where a lot of people had rsi from the computer and some injuries from that, and she was, the therapist, was a specialist in that. she saw me twice a week and

really helped me to get back on my feet. >> you walk in every day like everything is ok. >> that is true. the human body, even in its fifties is incredible, and the capacity to heal is there. people every day go through far worse than what i went through. >> i want to take you back if i can find my little sheet of paper. 23 years. you have been on this network of lot of times over the years in different jobs. your honor a program. a question was asked, how did you get to be on "regardies," which was a magazine, their

power list. >> the criteria to be on the list, i heard they were looking for a few quirky choices, and that is where i had fallen. >> tell us about "the legal times" and what you do with the supreme court coverage? >> it is a weekly publication aimed at lawyers and lobbyists and other political types, and our supreme court coverage consists largely of a biweekly column that is done by tony who covers the court on a daily basis for gannett. >> what was your goal in life that then? >> to be a good journalist. i was the editor of "the legal times." steve brill had bought it, and he wanted it to have deep and juicy coverage of the legal and lobbying profession, and the mission that he gave me and that i had my eyes set on was to really get behind the curtain of powerful lobbying firms on k

street. no one had really tried to cover them comprehensively before, so i had my work cut out for me. >> what do you think has happened to that story in the last 20 years to today? >> justifiably, it has drawn more attention from local reporters, just the role of politics and the role of lobbyists as the middlemen. that has gotten so big. we have had so many scandals here in washington, many of which, i hate to say, i have covered myself. >> where were you educated? >> i grew up in new york city and went to a school there and went to harvard for college and no graduate school.

>> when did you get interested in journalism? >> in college. i think partly i was inspired. i was in college during watergate and the maze of investigative reporting of bob woodward and carl bernstein. that had a big impression on me. i started writing for one of the college papers and really got a kick out of reporting and writing. >> you did not write for "the crimson," but you did write for "the independent." >> that was a weekly, too, and it was a little less formal. i wondered how much time i would have to write. i was applying myself pretty hard to the books and courses, so i thought i would write for that. i did not know much about -- >> you grew up on the upper west side of new york.

what were your parents like? are they alive? >> no, they were not, which is a pity because they were giant "new york times" lovers, and they would have been proud to see me go to work there. both of them have passed away. i left "the wall street journal" to come to "the times." >> what was life like there? >> when you are a little, you think the way you grow up is the way everyone grows up, and the odd things. we have halloween coming up now, and i went trick-or-treating in an apartment building, where the elevator man would take all of the kids from floor to floor, and i just thought that is what trick-or-treating is.

>> you said, i do not know when you first said this, but "the new york times" was the bible, and you got some criticism. >> i did. i was kind of making a light comic, and that was heard by some people in a way that seemed offensive to them, and i am sorry for that. but what i was trying to capture is if "the new york times" said something was true, that was the final word. >> what makes "the new york times" what it is, and people -- you can now buy it anywhere in the united states. you did not use to be able to.

>> it has been a national paper for quite some time. >> what makes it unique? >> that is one thing that makes it unique, but now our audience is global, on the web. we have one in asia and europe, and that gives us global reach in print, as well. what has always set "the new york times" apart is just the quality of the journalism. there is no other news organization that has as many experienced correspondents around the country, here and around the world. we have opened new domestic bureaus, and in phoenix and kansas city, which is unheard of these days. many other supposedly national newspapers have cut their national correspondents and national bureaus, and we have as many foreign correspondents, too. we just hired two new correspondents to cover pakistan and afghanistan, where we remain fully committed to covering that story. >> one of the things that has changed is it used to be called the newspaper of record. >> yes.

>> but with the internet, you do not see as many full-page speeches anymore. >> yes, they went on line. in terms of what c-span covers, we have been criticized that "the times" used to print the roll call of important votes in the congress, and we put those on line, but newsprint has become so expensive that we have had to cut back on certain things, like stock tables, and it is regrettable, but it is what keeps our news gathering operation large and vibrant, and i think that is the most important thing.

>> when did you decide to do a book on puppies? >> well, the real answer is not what i decided to do the book, but the idea for the book came from an online column that i wrote in the home and garden section of nytimes.com, which was a quirky thing for the editor to do. my husband and i had just gotten a new puppy, scout, who was 9 weeks old and the apple of our eyes. but i was also sleep deprived and worried that i was making basic mistakes in giving her good training and a loving home, and two editors at the time had arranged a meeting with me just to discuss whether "the times" should consider expanding pet coverage in the news reports, and instead of really listening to their ideas, i regaled with my worries and funny stories about scout's first days, and they just said, "jill, you should write about

this. this would be a good way to launch something new." so periodically for the first year, i wrote to "the puppy diaries" online, and it grew after that first year. i wanted to make a single narrative and develop some of the characters in a deeper way, and it was just a pleasure to right. >> how much did you think about the fact that you wrote this book, and we know you have a home in connecticut and two kids, will and cornelia, and we know your husband and your best friends are, and you talk about maureen in here. >> it is mostly about the dog. >> yes, and you learn all of that in the book. were you concerned that people would learn that about you? >> it certainly is not a tell- all book by any means, and, you know, as someone who has been an investigative reporter, i always have kind of prize to

some degree of not being recognized where i go reporting. the white have a very permanent position at "the times," i still feel relatively anonymous, and i do not think anything from the book will change that too much. >> what does it mean to be the editor? >> the executive editor? >> who is the editor? >> i am in charge of our news report and the news gathering operation. 1100 journalists. and the end of the day and difficult decisions, in consultation, i have a great team of people under me, but i make the call. >> so what is it like? when did you think there was a

chance you would be the executive editor? >> i guess when i was managing editor for eight years, and that was the second-highest editor in the newsroom. i had a shot. but it was by no means a certain thing. i just tried it just to focus on the news report every day and not really think too much about what would come next. i am a strong believer that you should never take a job because you think it will lead to the next thing. you should do the job and love it, and that was true when i was managing editor and so far in month two, it has been true as executive editor, too. it is a thrill. >> where do you keep your executive office? >> i am a desk, a cubicle, in the executive newsroom, and i have an office nearby for when i have to talk privately with people.

>> you are getting a lot of attention, as you know. a big piece in "the new yorker" recently by can, and he starts off in the first paragraph. >> that is what he says. i accept that that may be true. i do not think of myself as being particularly fearsome or that tough. except that i have to go out of my way to show approval and to encourage people and to be enthusiastic about what they are working on, because i know people have found me a foreboding presents for some reason. i am conscious of that, and i worked to cut against that image. >> it even says that some of your newsroom colleagues consider you to be intimidating and brusque. >> yes, he did. >> did this book have anything to do with trying to soften

your image? >> no, it really grew out of the online reading and that people are so passionate about their pets. one almost crashed our website because i invited readers of "the puppy diaries" to send in pictures of their dogs, but when i started writing the column, it was with no ulterior motive whatsoever. >> a question that is kind of convoluted. >> ok.

>> what did you learn from howell raines about how not to manage? as you know, everybody talks about your relationship with how. our audience knows who he is. we have had him on over the years. >> there was conflict, but it was 10 years ago now. it's sort of amuses and amazes me that people still dwell on that. i have had a lot of difficult and very talented editors who i have worked under, mostly harmoniously, and i learned things from howell that were very valuable as well as having some conflicts with him. but as i said, it is 10 years ago, and i am sort of tired of going back to that. >> let's not personalize it for a moment. what have you learned by watching editors and just

watching management? what have you learned? have you changed the way you approach people? >> i think so, and there is something that i definitely learned from bill keller. he is the first person i ever learned the expression of lead from behind from. he had been a foreign correspondent, and i think that is a mandela saying which as combat these of the recent peace about president obama, but what he meant is that the best ideas bubble up from reporters. an editor can guide and place emphasis on certain parts of the report and make sure "the times" is fully competitive, but like all good ideas, they spring from a managing editor or executive editor or washington bureau chief, and that is something i have learned.

>> what is it about your life time that you not like about people who managed you? >> that is an excellent question. i have not liked instant judgment all of the time. i mean you used the word "convoluted" for your question. some of the investigative pieces i wrote earlier in my career where convoluted, and sometimes editors were impatient with all of the detail that i called from my reporting, and i never liked to see that sliced out of a peace. >> seeing it through the ages, your deputy bureau chief of the wall street journal. how long were you at "the journal"? >> almost 10 years. here in washington the whole time. >> here is 1996.

>> you know, i think that what we forget is a certain kind of person writes a letter to an editor or makes a call to c- span. you have to be motivated to do that, and the more motivated people tend to be, the more partisan, but we do have this great middle of the country, much of which does not even vote, who is tuned out, maybe cynical, maybe just not interested, but probably not all of the partisan either. >> expand on that a little bit. >> well, of course, watching that now, the country has become more partisan, although there are vast amounts of people who are not tune in to politics. the discontent about the economy, fighting between democrats and republicans. it has still to partisanship, and we certainly see that that has transformed washington. when i began covering washington, republicans and democrats got together and had a

drink at the end of the day. that was tip o'neil days in the congress. o'neil and president reagan even had a good relationship, and you see that kind of bipartisanship sort of crumble away here. >> why did you leave "the journal"? >> why did i leave "the journal"? it was a good place. i left mainly to work on my own enterprise. al hunt was the bureau chief for most of my years there, and he was a great leader, and i got a tremendous amount out of working for him and learned a ton, but at the end of the day, core business reporting was not really my thing. i love politics. i loved doing long politics investigations, and i grew up in new york in a family that was guided by "the new york

times," and i started and fell in love with reading and newspaper reading "the times." the "arts and leisure" section. it seemed to me that "the times" was like a giant buffet table with great dishes on it, and i wanted to write for all of the sections, and i have not managed to write for all of them, but i have written for many of the feature sections. >> mark levin, a talk show host here in washington. i want to make sure -- i am pretty sure i have heard him say this. he refers to the "new york slime." >> he is quite conservative, and when i worked at "the wall street journal," they were known for having a conservative editorial page, and they would describe it broadly as being conservative, and there was a

big divide between the editorial sections of the paper, and that is true at "the times", too, and our editorial page is quite liberal, a whole "the new york times" raises the hackles of people like mr. levin. >> what difference does it make? why does it have to be unbiased? >> well, i think that reporters should never go into a story with their mind made up about what the story is, and to me, that is a bias. it is not a political bias. it could be a prosecutorial bias. i think you have to go into your reporting listening to the people you are interviewing and ready to be surprised and ready to change the thesis of your peace.

>> the front page, how long does it take for you to determine what goes there? >> the front page is still very powerful. it is a mix of stories, but in many ways, it sets the agenda for many other news organizations still. we plan out the front page in advance in some cases. some of the deep enterprise stories i will have read the previous weekend or even weeks before, but the front page has to be urgent, so it has to be right on the news, but it has to

tell you this story behind the story as well, and when i say a mix, sometimes there is a light story on there, just about how people live in the country. >> think of, i do not know, it could be recent times, of stories that hit the front page of "the new york times" that went to viral. >> that went by right. >> the one you can remember. >> our giant scoops get jumped on by everyone, and i would say the one that springs to mind is our disclosure written by jim and eric about the n.s.a. eavesdropping program. that was such big news. it was a program that even most of the members of congress did not know about, it was a secret, so that went to viral.

i remember we broke this story about governor spitzer's interactions with a prostitute ring, and i remember we broke in\t on our website. >> where did a story like that start? >> it started with reporters. it started with -- i do not want to say who, but a great investigative reporter who works on our metro staff was told to take a look at a complaint that had been filed and that there was something odd about the proceedings, the actual indictment, and to what if any political people showed up, and so he was there and saw that he had, and it was a very laborious process of connecting the dots.

>> talk us through how many people get their hands on us story before it ends up being read and the headline, the positioning of the story, and then the all important whether you run it or not. what would be the steps through that whole process? >> well the crucial test as to whether you run it or not, do you have the story confirmed by reliable sources and buy enough of them, and obviously when you have a sitting governor, it is a sensitive subject.

we have a reporting team. our metro editor, joe, at the time, and our political editor, carolyn ryan, they managed every step of the story and kept me apprised. we started -- i remember joe sexton came in on a friday. we actually broke the story on a monday, so we worked intensively on it. i thought friday night we might have enough confirmation to be going with this story, but we did not have everything pinned down at that point. it was an exciting, roller- coaster weekend. some of our reporters here to washington because governor spitzer went and even though he was aware we were working on the story was going to the white house party. it was either the gridiron or the white house correspondents'

dinner. i do not remember which. on saturday night, i called arthur at home and told him about this story. >> could he have killed it? >> he would never kill a story, in my experience. that has never happened. he is the publisher of a newspaper, so theoretically, yes, but but he knows how careful we are, and he just asked me to keep him informed, which i did. >> did governor spitzer know before the story hit the streets that he was in there? >> yes, his top aides knew that we were going with this story, that we were putting it online, and that, in fact, is what he scheduled a news conference for later that day, and the rest of the media had no idea what that would be about. >> why did you put it on line and not in the paper? >> because we publish stories when they are ready on whatever platform is the best platform, and putting it on nytimes.com, and let our website, it was the right call. the story was ready to go.

>> if he knew about it on friday -- >> competitive. >> would you ever make a choice to say that we really do not want to on the front page of our paper, we will put it on the website? >> obviously, on the website, you are reaching more people, arguably the impact is greater on the web than it is on the front page. we used to be in the habit of holding things back in the early days of the web, holding

things back for the next friday's page. we have moved now to a digital world, where the front page is still vitally important. the paper is still loved by, you know, our over 1 million subscribers, and it is going to be around for a long time, but we publish stories when we have been nailed down and are publishable. >> on a story like that, do you bring the lawyers in? >> i do not remember. certainly on the n.s.a. story, we brought the lawyers in. >> do they have the power to stop a story? >> no, our lawyers are really there to make sure that we are on solid legal footing when we do publish. i cannot really remember a single story where they were arguing not to publish and we wanted to publish. the most famous case of that in "the times" history is, of course, the pentagon papers, where the law firm at the time was advising not to publish the pentagon papers, even said they could not defend "the times" in court, and "the times" got new lawyers. >> started the process, got six or so people involved, when did you get involved? >> friday. they were not working on it long, and joe came into my office to brief me about this story on friday, in the late morning.

>> so, again, just for the process -- >> it was competitive and sensitive, so it was not like i broadcast it on friday to all of my editor colleagues. >> so you hold it inside even close? >> on a story like that, yes, and on the n.s.a. story, as well. >> to decide if it goes on the web? >> i decide. bill keller would have decided. he was out of the country at the time. the executive editor we usually make the call, but since he was gone, i did. >> who decides what the headline is? >> the headline writer brought a couple of headlines to me, and i remember just approving one of

them, but i saw the headline before. >> and reporter has nothing to say about the headline? >> almost never. occasionally i will ask a reporter to look at a headline and make sure it is accurate. occasionally a headline will push a story further than the nuances take it. our headline writers are brilliant. >> i know you do not have any control over the colonists as an editorial can -- >> they do, i believe. they write both the headline and the back that sometimes runs in the middle. i think they all come up with their own. >> let me ask you a touchy question, i suspect. last sunday when we were recording this, there was a nice review in "the times" review section, written by alexandra styron, who is, i assume bill's daughter.

here it is. you are the executive editor, and you get a full page in review. >> and may be hard for your viewers to believe, but i had no idea whether either the sunday book review or the daily book review was going to review the book until pretty recently. i knew before the reviews were published, but the reviewer makes the call on a book, and i know there are people who may be skeptical and think "the times" would never publish a negative review over and enters book, but, in fact, there have been

negative reviews by top "times" people, and it would be a scandal if they put the book out for review and the reviewer wrote a negative review. the reviewer calls and like he or she sees it. >> some negative reviews on amazon.com. not a lot. do you get on and read them? >> i have not read them. >> somebody said they did not like the book, it was boring, it was just jill abramson saying that you were just dropping names about all of your connections. >> no, i do not think that is true, but everybody has the right to their opinion. >> we go on with your career to the times when you were enterprise editor with "the new york times." when was that? >> that was when i came to "the

times" in 1997. i was actually mainly writing, but in terms of investigative work that the bureau was doing, i had come up with some ideas and had attended the morning news meetings and had some upfront and editorial responsibilities. >> before we showed this clip, what is the exact story with how you went to "the times? the maureen dawd story? >> i admired her reporting and covered same of -- some of the same stories. "the times" was getting in the washington bureau chief, and she came up to me and said, "the you know and a good women that "the times" dan meyer?" and i thought, what am i, chopped liver? and she said, "you would never leave "the journal." she had the bureau chief in touch with me.

>> who was that? did he hire you? >> michael, and he did hire me. he was the executive editor at the time. >> will hear you are in 1998. >> i would like to take the second part of your question first, because that is the one that has been causing a lot of pain. i think what happens when you have a highly publicized case of fabrication, which this appears to be, the public begins to think they all do this, and that worries me quite a bit, because i think reputable journalists clearly do not make up quotes. they are extremely careful and agonize about the truth that they write. >> as you know, "the times" had a problem after this with that man named james.

what did that jason blair story do for "the times"? how did that change? >> it was a scalding experience for "the times." we absolutely put in some new safeguards, actually aimed at making sure our journalists know the standards backwards and forwards and have the right kind of training and supervision, and we now have a public editor, as you know. we did not have an ombudsman or anyone from the outside scrutinizing are journalists, and after the jason bellini episode, we decided it was prudent to have one.

we have several at this point. you know, it cost the two top editors at the newspaper their job. it was a very wrenching time. >> but as you said, as an executive editor, you cannot possibly know -- >> that is true, and it may seem, given jason blair and some other self-inflicted wounds at "the times," hard to appreciate the truth of what i was saying that in 1998, but i still believe that. most everyone i work with has the highest journalist standards, and we drill that in jews. everyone who works there just loves "the new york times" so

much and cherishes it and would never do something to harm that, but it is absolutely true, as executive editor, i cannot monitor every word that goes into our news reports. >> you are close to the stories that were written by julie miller, and you can explain how close you were to those, which suggested there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, and a lot of people when they read that in "the new york times," they said, "if "the new york times" is writing this, it must be true." judy miller went to jail and all of that. she is no longer there. >> she is no longer there, and i was not her editor. >> what was your reaction to that?

>> well, and happen not only in the "the times" coverage but throughout the media, and i spent a long time studying how it happened, because when you go through an experience like that, you have got to learn, and there have to be ways to counter the rush to plant stories, many of which were based on iraqi detectors, who were not reliable. they were talking to a lot of people, people in the bush administration, so when people were calling for confirmation about the suppose a program of wmd, they were getting confirmation, sometimes triple confirmation from high ranking officials, so it was information that i think was purposely reached into the system, and what i think i learned was the importance -- there were dissenting sources in washington.

there were people, analysts at the cia who were very skeptical of the wmd evidence that was presented at the u.n. and talked about on television by president bush and secretary rice, and, you know, colin powell. i guess she was national security adviser then. but there were dissenting voices. again, i spoke about jim risen before. he wrote stories quoting analysts who were skeptical, but, you know, those stories tended to run like in the back pages of a section, where the pieces that focused on the existence of wmd were being played on the front page, but i

was washington bureau chief then. i was not involved in the play of stories. i would pitch washington reporters' stories for the front, and sometimes the ones i liked got on the front page, and sometimes it did not. there were some good stories, too, but did express skepticism, but i think the first public edit your we had who wrote about this said that the stories that give credence to wmd were big, front-page headlines, and the other stories were as quiet as lullabies. >> i got on your website this morning, and i was just looking around, and i wanted to see what you are doing with video. i know you have studied this and have been into the digital part of this. i do not exactly remember what page i was on, but i know it was an opinion, and i want to show you what i saw on the opinion

page. the reason is because this stuff is moving so fast and changing so fast, i want to know what this is all about. >> ok. >> this was the first piece in the video section in the opinion section. >> the majesty of our country and the spirit of the country? millions of acres of rich soil, the breadbasket of america, but today, these lands are threatened by big oil, the plan to run a pipeline straight through. the keystone xl pipeline would carry the dirtiest oil from canada. it would link us to the destructive ways of the past and promote one of the most destructive ways for low-grade crude oil.

in piping this crude across our country, in just the past year, there have been disasters in the yellowstone river, the north sea, and the gulf of mexico. nearly 3 million americans are already working for a sustainable future. this is the 21st century. we are not about to turn back now. mr. president, stand up for american workers and our land. stand up for energy security and the future you know we deserve. say no to the keystone xl. >> now, the thing i wanted to ask you about, and i know you do not control is because this is opinion, but they're on the screen is a very clever, will produce -- it is really an op-ed piece.

>> and robert redford, i believe, has written op-ed pieces in the times, so this is a studio version of that. >> you saw he had the times logo in the corner. what is your opinion after watching all of these changes of what impact this is all going to have? you can see where somebody with money would be able to produce a fancy looking little opinion piece like that. >> we have a very skilled video unit that produces videos, too, and the key word is opinion. i know that readers and people who come to our website are sometimes confused about that , but it is firmly drawn and observed throughout the times. the key to that video is in his opinion.

that is robert redford's opinion, and i do not think many would confuse that with the voice of the newsroom of the times. it is the opinion side. >> by the way, what did you think of his peace? >> i thought it was ok. >> 21 pages. here is the paragraph i wanted to ask you about. adding credence to the frequent charge that the times news reporting often displays a

liberal bias, a critique that will not be lessened by the elevation of a woman brought up in a liberal democratic house side -- household on the west side of new york and you wrote a book about how clarence thomas probably lied. >> i am mindful of it. i do not worry about it. one thing about having spent more than 20 years of my career here in washington is that i have to do stories on republicans and democrats alike. when "the times" hired me, i had done groundbreaking stories about president clinton's fund- raising excesses in 1996. so i go into my reporting just with a dogged get the story, and however i was brought up is irrelevant. >> so why do you think they pick you? >> i think they picked me because i am a good journalist who knows a good story when she sees one and knows what it takes to get it nailed down and published.

>> explainable bit more. you have to do it every day. how do you judge what is a good journalist? >> i will give you some concrete. ok, well, i will give you an example. when steve jobs passed away, it was at night. john marc rudov with help from steve, they are two of the most experienced tech riders at "the times" they had prepared in advance an obituary, and they had updated. it was full of detail. john has the benefit of having covered apple since its founding. he knew steve jobs pretty well and had actually spent time with him over the summer, and a good story from an experienced journalist like that can be an obituary. there are things i still

remember from reading that obituary that night right before it went up on the website, etched in my brain like a little movie. john also did a video that was very illuminating, and it got spun into some live blogging, and other members of our business staff and our technology staff began to cheating to that, and it was really good, quality journalism. soon, we were also calling some of the best -- culling some of the best tweets, because jobs had a connection, and his death had an emotional and direct way, so we put some of those up. >> so how are we going to deal with all of this. we have three networks and their radio station. >> i know.

i listened to your station over the weekend. >> but you have a newspaper and a website with video and podcast. i am sure of a whole thing. how are we going to deal with all of this information? do you have any tricks? >> i think it makes "the times" more important. we are known for the quality of our journalism. i think people turn to us because they think they are going to read what is confirmed and truthful. >> so your jobs are going to be harder than they used to be? >> in terms of the competition, it is harder, because you have to keep track of so many stories that are breaking at any given moment.

to keep our focus on the ones that matter. i think our editors and our reporters are really good. >> all right, give us one thing that you have said to yourself you are going to change at "the new york times." it can be anything. >> about me? >> no, you have watched this paper, and now you are the boss. what is one thing you want to change? >> i do not want every story to be 1800 words. i think, in general, we have a lot along stories that need to be maung, things like the amy harmon profile of young adults with autism -- stories that need to be long.

there is a certain lack of discipline. sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a story, where there are three quotes making the same point, and i would like to see a variety of story lines. >> jill abramson, executive editor at "the new york times," an author of "the puppy diaries," thank you. >> thank you. >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. to give us your comments, visit us at q-and-a.org. c-span's programs are also available as podcasts.

>> upcoming guests on "q&a," include a pulitzer prize-winning author, stacy schiff, with her latest "cleopatra," in paperback. and karl marlantes of "what it is like to go to war." >> coming up, prime minister david cameron and the euro zone after that, erik schmiit and thom shanker on their book about the campaign against al qaeda. then albert teich this is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. monday herman cain is making a monday herman cain is making a