hearings and news conferences whenever you want on the c-span the library. over 25 years of american politics and public affairs on your >> next, a look at media coverage of economic issues during the 2012 presidential campaign. colorado christian university's -- colorado christian university's centennial institute held 81 -- one

day conference in early march, focusing on the media's role in politics. this portion includes the denver post political editor as well as economist and head of the common run of fiscal policy institute. it is 45 minutes. >> one of the previous panelist said we need conversations, not catch phrases. that sounded like a catch phrase to me. in order to be evenhanded, i would say that when i am told by bill reilly that i am in the nose ben the zone, that puts me on my guard. the word is been originated with some of the handlers of presidential candidates who were called spin doctors. before long, with the media clustered was called the spin room and it has become important in american politics and

journalism. who can you trust? does everybody have a hostile to put on you? that's what we want to explore in this next panel. chris leland joined the faculty this year. i liken it to a high draft pick for your professional sports team. he ran the focus on the family institute, doing educational work for them in colorado springs. he has a degree in political communication. he is putting that to work, creating a debate team which is already achieving competitive success. the chairman of our next panel, chris leland. [applause] >> i have tasted it walked out of class the other day meet me in the hall. the first thing she said to me, i thought it was going to be

about an exam or something and guilty?, don't you feel i realize she was referring to the illustration i and a class with. in another part of my life, i am a political speech writer and in working for the national governors' association, there are opportunities to help new governors get their staff ready for the state of the state address. it was always fun because it was not just about the speech itself. a lot of times it was about the strategy of delivering that speech. what she was referring to is that i had talked that day about the strategy we had. we would place intern's with key media personnel because we want to hear what they were talking about after the speech. they had about 50 minutes to listen -- 15 minutes to listen.

what she was saying i thought was very insightful. don't you feel guilty for manipulating the information we are getting and for playing at the system? the concept john that just introduced in terms of the spin doctors gets to a lot of this -- what are the perspectives we are being given as the public? i am excited to hear from our panelists and i want to get to them in terms of their expertise. if he would be willing to talk about your take on this concept of the spin as introduce yourselves as well. michael, let's start with you. >> my name is michael brown. listening to the professor's comments, the thing that always amazed me is -- has anybody ever heard of a sap?

statement of the administration position. if you are going to testify in front of congress, their testimony has gone through a rigorous process of the department itself and then through the office of management and budget and back to the legislative affairs and finally back to your desk. here is what you can say. that is the spin that people put on things with and the government itself. i had a great experience in a hearing once where there was a break and a couple of senators left the room. after they left, they made the confident -- comment, do you play poker? i said no. they said you look like you do not believe a word of what you're saying. they were right. but it was the sap i have to use. >> my name is joshua.

i just started a blog and i have been the guest host and contributor to backbone radio. i had the chance a couple of times in 2008 and 2010 to run for the state legislature the first time in 2008. even though i was running in denver at the republican which should have qualified me for a handicapped spot. to that the eight got a little bit of press attention -- 2008 got a little bit of press attention. one of the things you have to do and what michael referred to in terms of spin is understand that you, when you are being quoted, are going to get a sentence or maybe to in that

report. they will pick the ones that will make you look how they want the story to look. that is not always against the republican. if they want a particular republican to get the nomination, they may not hurt them but typically you find yourself on the defensive. the only way to deal with that is to do exactly what michael is talking about. you have something you want to say and that is it. you have your one sentence in you repeat it. you really have to make sure the only thing they are going to get to print that comes out of your mouth is the one thing that you want to see in print that came out of your mouth. on the political point of view and candid its point of view -- candidate's point of view, that can be a governmental agency -- that is why you often get these statements.

the next team, even if they're playing 0-15, it is the green bay packers of 1967. you have to be aware that as a candidate. how to make sure that what gets said, at least you get the one thing that you once said said. -- want said said. >> i am a native of colorado and frequently a commentator on channel 9. i would second what he said and that is that for those of you who are either going to be volunteering for the debate, he strongly recommends his class

taking it -- i cannot imagine a better preparation to be able to see through this and then the debates that i remember. i still watch academic debates, including college. it tends to cut through the spending because of the amount of evidence you have to use and because by and large you are quickly being challenged by your opposing team. what i tend to have to deal with a lot -- i react to stories. by and large on channel 9 -- channel 9 is not a content creators. i am taking content that is out there and try to add value to it with the colorado connection to it. stories are given to me and they often are being driven by the washington orientation from the talking heads.

that is that mitt romney is to which, rick santorum is to religious. today the spin is that obama cannot lose. i typically sort of go against the tide. i sound like an accountant. and that is what i noted for and have a reputation of trying to be objective and give the opposite position while still understanding there is a view out there and try to play against it. if you are not careful, when you're commenting on the daily news, you can be quickly swept along with the powerful tide that come out of washington. i like the fact that cnn and fox

are out there because i look at them both when i get up -- i look at a couple of blogs and read tehe news. -- i look at the averages and the model out there to see what is going on. that is usually what i've published in my blogged. the only way to survive spin today is to be aggressive -- an aggressive consumer of news from a broad perspective. >> i am fred brown. i retired from the denver post 10 years ago in january. i cannot believe it has been that long. i still write an occasional column and do an occasional

story for channel 9. i also teach media ethics at the university of denver. i have done that for about five years. i think that one of the worst things that journalists do when reporting politics is try to outsmart the smart guys. the consultants. to show that they are not affected by spend. to analyze things in terms of what people are trying to achieve when they do what they do, rather than simply reporting what they have done and analyzing more than their motives, which is where you get in trouble. the veracity of what they're saying.

if i were to say what is the main reason the media gets in trouble, it is that attempts to attribute motives. bloomberg news had a seminar where they would go around the country to various reporters in which they would say -- do not say the boyish john edwards. try to say something factual. i am not sure you can get away with asking a question like you shave every day? but that is the extent in which they would not try to characterize things. something happened last autumn. do not say that.

say the month. because it is not of them in australia. if this spring there. i think it is important for journalists to talk to people, not just to each other. the phrase i used to use about the ross and in press corps -- washington press corps -- they would talk only to each other. and not to the people who were being approached by the candidates. that is a mistake. that is my spin on the stand. >> and it is. it is so much of our opinion about things. i ran across this in preparation for a class. i want to get your reaction. this is james carville talking. he says there is a conflict between reporters and campaign

strategists. reporters -- news is defined to them as something different. campaigners top -- every day we get up, we try to get them to report the same thing over and over. it to give children a choice, they are not going to eat spinach. you can check them a little bit. you can put on a song -- on some garlic or oil but it is an ongoing struggle. the media's dietary habits are not helpful. they like their high-fat foods. they are not big on the garden vegetables of the campaign led job creation and health care costs. >> i agree with that.

i think it boils down to -- the media would rather get the story of the conflict. the story that so and so is attacking so and so for this reason. rather than report about the issue. one of the reasons for that is i think media these days are way too driven by competition with blocks -- blogs. i used to think people did not care who got a story first. they wanted to get it right. now i am not so sure. that encourages the media to skim the surface of the story. it reports the immediate and obvious thing rather than the more in-depth kind of reporting

that people do not relish but they need it to keep their iron levels high. >> you almost began to talk about keeping that diet balance. how does the public keep that balance? >> i am not sure of the date of that quote but he made references to the 1992 era which in media is ancient history. i was doing a comparison this morning between what are the major sources of news a zinghole -- using a hole. the latest poll came out and it is unbelievably different as to where we get our news. we do not tend to get it from networks anymore. we get it from cable and even

that has leveled out. cnn is close and msnbc has improved. internet has moved way up to 20% but has fallen off this year because younger people have lost interest in one-sided this campaign being so contested, the republicans. but talk radio is still at 15%. talk radio is -- was really -- barely being born in the 1990's and today it is so prolific that when i wake up in the morning, sometimes i manage -- help on ballot issues. i am worried about the incredible ray -- array of news

sources i have to manage. a campaign in 2012, you will spend 70% of money on tv advertising, historically. you're probably talking a few hundreds of thousands of dollars now on social media. we would be thinking about the web site and making sure it has video up every day. are we on top of facebook and do we have our twitters out there and making sure candidates do not make mistakes at the events. that campaign will go viral about two seconds after he make that mistake. he was still thinking of that old point of view where you wake up in the morning and what are you going to feed them. today you wake up and you think about how you control this incredible onslaughts of

exposure you are going to have for your candid and our cause. there is a tremendous challenge. my first comment was that within that, particularly at the national level, you will begin to see a story being driven which unless you are able to analyze it correctly and resist it, you are overwhelmed by it and that becomes the story. election night in michigan, one of the things i do at channel 9 -- one reason i have a job is on election night they want to be first. they want me to announce who was going to win because that drives our entire news that evening. so i spend a lot of time thinking about that.

in michigan, there was no doubt they could announce michigan at about 7:30 that night. but the decision desk had not decided. either they were cautious or the preferred to have a story to spend with a horse race when it was no longer a horse race. you ever shopped at the tv -- shout at the tv? that was a span i could not handle. >> in just the other day, susie made some shouting -- made a comment about my shouting. this goes in terms of campaigns and spinach and what not. what i was talking about earlier. you feed the same thing over and

over because you know that is all you'll get, that little byte. i had a chance during the road show that was the republican debate to go up to the sioux city iowa debate. it was the first time i had been in the room for one of those. most of the reporters are not in the debate hall. you think they are sitting in the back or by the time you get to the championship level, like an ncaa game, the first row -- the first four rows are reporters. no one is there unless they are photographers or are part of the network broadcasting the debate. you have to specifically request that. i had no idea so i end up in a room with 60 other reporters. it is work to then go from that room and talk to somebody other

-- and talk to another reporter. the title of this comes from the spin room and it is really nothing more than a candid it hanging around answering questions about what to do you mean by this or what you think about the effect of this? candidates and strategists are not stupid. some of them are but the professionals who have been in the business for a long time no what isn a tattacks b, going to be reported is a attacking b for a certain reason. the campaign that focuses themselves around that horse race aspect. in terms of the caution,

colorado 2012 was the florida of 2000 in which case, welcome to dade county. this is where an overwhelming number of votes are. you will see that mentality -- if something like that happens and it comes down to whether or not this precinct had its votes counted properly, god help us all. because of the media circus. i am persuaded that the reluctance to call michigan is a direct result of what happened in the florida panhandle in 2000 where they were so equal to get that story out -- eager to get that story out. you do not want to be the one who gets, who the paper trail

leads back to. >> thank you. >> let me flip this from a different perspective. the phrase of being an aggressive consumer of and for mason. i always tell my listeners that i want them to become concerning consumers. as a content creator on my show, it has now become where -- if you see me in the studio, i have a couple of television monitors , and iphone, and ipad and my laptop in front of me at the same time. as i am doing my programming, i am trying to do a mixture of things. during the show, i am doing a mixture of conversations. people are tweeting me, and i am

monitoring the line to see what the hot topics are because i want to be able to change on the fly because they do not want the spend all the time. this may come have a shock -- as but politics does not consume everyone's life 24/7. last night and did almost two hours on this whole issue of contraception and birth control and try to get people to think about it not in terms of ideology but why is this even an issue? we had a fairly good debate at one. . in the last hour, a friend of mine from seattle called griping about comcast because they could

not fit their schedule to fit his schedule. i run a play yesterday there was an article in the wall street journal asking if he would wait for hours for a friend who was going to meet you for dinner? none of us would. i asked that question on the program last night so i said why do we wait for hours for comcast or anybody else? that hit a nerve with people. so we just do something that affects us for a while. they do not see where things are affecting them. we have to become more discerning consumers of news and understand that those people out there, whether you are spanish master for a candidate or a ballot issue, they do not always care -- spin master for a

candidate or a ballot issue, they do not always care. if you are a provider, you need to provide that to them if you want to be successful. >> one last question that i want to get into questions from the audience. the topics that earned media, paid media and social media. they are a part of this spending. -- spinning. we talked about there being a million pieces of this news. how do those different formats -- do they have a particular spin, more of a span, less of a spin? what is more credible for us as voters to look at? >> i go back to the personal perspective, to be a concerning consumer, you have to consume

all of it. you have to control how that comes into your life. i have my twitter feed which has different lists. if i want the left wing perspective, i have that list. i want the right wing perspective, i have that one. the same thing with facebook. i have for facebook account. one i tried to keep personal. it gives me feedback from all different areas. you have to realize that you have to catch my attention and convinced me that what you want me to talk about is going to be interesting to my consumers, the people listening to what i have to say about stuff. that is a two-way street. >> i think there is a collective credibility that comes with looking at the different

sources. rather than necessarily one of the individual sources being more credible. the whole notion of wisdom of brown's or that all of our readers are smarter than we are. i think that is true. collectively, people know a lot more than any one individual source does. what can become difficult is breaking through that individual narrative or that collective narrative that comes from the individual willing to look at an issue. the only we can do that by having a variety of sources. michael is a victim of this after katrina. one of the best articles that people have only read because there was a link to it was a popular mechanics article that said everything you know about katrina is wrong.

it went through about 10 or 15 bullet points that had been cemented in your mind immediately after the event that were completely wrong or 75% wrong and had a significant other part of that story. the only way you find that out is if you are going to somebody who might grow -- micro blogs like that. there is a great tool like google reader where you can abrogate rss -- aggragate rss feeds. you are seeing in the headlines and able to keep track of different perspectives on stories. that is the only way i think you can break through those kinds of, that kind of collective narrative that hardens much more quickly than we would like to admit.

>> earned, pate, social -- social being very new, have been extremely influential. i look at credibility. is it having an impact in this presidential race thus far apart to mark you have seen the debates which are watched and i commented on, having huge impacts on the polls. the interaction between the candidates, the date of pence -- debate events. mitt romney doing well in arizona was interpreted and it did have a positive impact. obviously advertisement -- without it, mitt romney would not be the front-runner today. he has changed this race several times by extensive, negative

advertising. particularly when he was in trouble in florida. and michigan most recently where he turned that race around. so, paid media has had a lot. as you know, we just had a death yesterday of one of the social media experts. but i look at drudge every day in the various people out there, including huffington and the left in terms of what they're putting up and driving as the stories of the day. they have all been very powerful. i was responsible for a spin in colorado. not atgued that i was fault but i was partially responsible. my position in coming into that race of mitt romney during the caucuses was that he was the front runner and should win. he had one before.

he had one of those robo polls. a lot of people were closer than that poll indicated. that became the linchpin of the story because of all of that expectation. if we had 10 polls prior to that, i think we would probably reported that it was close and we just roughly did three that rick santorum was charging ahead and that probably would have become the story line. it served rick santorum quite well for a week or so. that was an example. by 8:00 or so i could see what was going on in colorado but up

until that point, i went with the mitt romney expected to win colorado approach. >> earned media is the hardest to get. in many ways, it is losing its authority now. reporters are harder to convince that something is newsworthy and harder to expect it to. they do not really see the value of trying to explain it to their readership. but paid media -- is way out of hand. i think the citizens united decision has -- well, we have not seen the beginning of that yet. i am going to leave the country in october because i figure it is going to be hellish. i think this is one area where

the mainstream media can do a better job of fact checking. that is one of the most valuable things performed by the regular media. it is like a glass of water against a fire hydrant. one fact check story on the evening news and there are 50 ads on the same news cast. i like to compare what is happening with social media to drivers. i was taught that you do not need to signal a turn until you are actually turning. because he might give people the impression that the signal to early -- that he signaled to early. that is bad. i want you to tell me you were going to turn. i do not want to be caught behind you on a two-lane street

and all of a sudden you turn on your turn signal when the light turns. no. i want to know beforehand. people need information more than affirmation but they are looking for affirmation. >> i am going to interrupt you because we have a time crunch but i want to get at least one question from the audience. we have a great group of people to ask questions about this idea of spend. -- spin. >> i am a senior year and forgive me, i am nervous to ask this question. i wrote it down. through these panels, i have continued to hear passing lessons about education --

mentions about education. i wanted to ask you about the media and societies spend on education. it seems to me that the media treats education as a sacred ground of angelic teachers and administrators that are themselves incapable of holding by yes, let alone show that bias to their students. in an earlier panel, a speaker mentioned that the college educated tend to lean to the left. i would argue that i have experienced in my own education teachers all but laughing in my face for belize that i hold that tend to lean right. as well as friends that feel the need to hide in -- hide their

conservative views in schools like cu boulder. all this to say -- how is educational spin portrayed as appropriate or ok and what do you see as media's spin on education? i feel that it is largely ignored. >> thank you. who wants to take a shot at it? >> i tend to agree. there is a lot of the liberal spend -- spin to education. i tend to be a liberal and i teach so i tried to be impartial. but i would offer the example of -- left-wing professors too

often get in trouble. -- do often get in trouble. there has always been a strong -- we all sort of like our teachers and think it is an important profession. i would argue in the last decade, that has changed. by and large, we are getting both stories and politics that is much more conflicted at the k-12 level. a stronger understanding of the importance of choice, a valuation of teachers -- evaluation of teachers. just a host of things.

if you look at denver elections, for example, as far as their school goes - you are in a different place. douglas county is debating vouchers. if you look around the country at some of the larger school districts, we are getting a much better debate. it sometimes get to the contents. you are specifically speaking about the class room environment. it especially gets to how those schools are being run, whether they are producing educated children, what are the costing, and wouldn't they be better if there were at least 50% of schools out there that are private or choice schools. i think that is beginning to be serious debate in that country -- this country and that is new from my point of view. >> going back to what ken gordon said in the earlier

panel, that is a perfect example of spin. we should give him props for anticipating our panel. i want to take a little bit rather than just looking at k-12 and look at higher education. there is a growing new media and social media scene of the notion o f a higher ed bubble. not just in $8 and since terms -- dollars and cents term but they are asked to go into such that for something -- debt for something that may or may not

economically benefit them as much as being advertised. obviously critical thinking skills are important. i do not want to sit here at the university and down play the importance of higher education. but it is a reasonable question to ask whether or not the money is -- it is easy to find where the money is coming from. if you try to figure out where it is going, good luck. that tends to be where the money is being spent, how the money is being spent. especially at public universities which often rely on tax dollars to a large degree. it is an under explored topic. > i want to get michael's comments. >> i will be quick. education has succumbed to

political correctness in the soft tierney of language. invest in education. i want to scream when i hear the word investment used but call it what it is -- spending. >> a true no spin zone./ very much.he panleel [applause] >> next, president obama's remarks on jobs and the economy. after that, a forum on how the media is covering economics and politics. then an overall discussion on the covers of the 2012 campaign. tomorrow on "washington jou

rnal," the latest unemployment figures. a discussion of the findings of the state of black america report. and in law professor at american university looked at how the espionage act of 1970 has been used by the government and what happens to those brought to trial under that law. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> fired j. edgar hoover? i cannot think the president could have gotten away with it. >> tim weiner details the fbi's 100 year hidden history and the fight against terrorism. >> j. edgar hoover stand alone. he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statue encased in crime -- grime, as

one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century. 11 presidents. 48 years. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him. and a great deal of what we know or what we think we know about him is myth and legend. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c- span's q and a. >> i believe is that possible that we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made it. that is my hope, that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. >> as candidates campaigned for president, look back at 14 men who ran for office and lost.

go to our web site, c-span.org to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. what the leadership of this nation has a challenge to go to work effectively and immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day, either. >> c-span.org/the conte nders. >> president obama talks about a new manufacturing initiative. he spoke at a rolls royce plant about sitting ideas from the lab to the market. this comes on the heels of the labor department report that says 227,000 jobs were created in february as the unemployment rate remains steady at 8.3%. this is about half an hour.

[applause] ♪

>> hello, virginia. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming out here today. >> thank you for that rousing introduction and let me hang out with their workers. we have a few other folks i want to acknowledge. the governor of the great commonwealth of virginia, bob mcdonnell, is here. outstanding congressman bobby scott is in the house. [applause] we have your mayor.

[applause] and i want to say thank you to our outstanding secretary of commerce here. he is doing great work trying to create jobs and opportunity across the country. it is great to be back in petersburg. last time i was here was during the campaign. i had my boss pullover, tried to get a cheeseburger -- buss pullover, try to get a cheeseburger. some of you may think this violates my wife's let's move program. [laughter] but she gives me a past when it

comes to a good worker. -- a pass when it comes to a good burger and fries. in 2008 we were talking about wereworking america'ns already having a tough time. it was getting tougher to afford health care or to send your kid to college. the economy was already shedding jobs. in less than a decade, nearly one in three manufacturing jobs have a -- had vanished, and then the bottom fell out of the economy, and things got that much tougher. we were losing 700,000-to- 800,000 adopt -- jobs a month. the economy was hemorrhaging. 3.5 years later, we are still recovering from the worst economic crisis in our lifetime.

we've got a lot of work to do before everybody who wants a good job can find it. before middle-class folks can gain the sense of security that has been slipping away even before recession hit. and before towns like petersburg get fully back on their feet. but here is the good news -- over the past two years, our businesses have added nearly 4 million new jobs. [applause] we just found out that last month, in february, we added 233,000 private sector jobs. more companies are bringing jobs back and investing in america.

and manufacturing is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990's. [applause] we just had another good month last month in terms of adding manufacturing jobs. and this facility is part of the evidence of what is going on all across the country. this company is about to hire more than 200 new workers, 140 of them right here in petersburg, virginia. [applause] so, the economy is getting stronger. when i come to places like this and i see the work that is being done, it gives me confidence there are better days ahead. i know it because i would bet on america's workers and america's know how any day of the week.

the key now -- our job now -- is to keep this economic engine churning. we can't go back to the same policy that got us into this mess. we can't go back to an economy that was weakened by outsourcing and bad debts and phony financial profits. we have to have an economy that is built to last. and that starts with american manufacturing. it starts with you. [applause] for generations, manufacturing has been the ticket into the middle class. every day millions clocked in at foundries and assembly lines -- making things. and the stuff we make -- steel

and cars and jet engines, that was the stuff that made america what it is. it was understood it around the world. the work was hard but the jobs were good. it paid enough to own a home and raise kids and send them to college. it gave you enough to retire on with dignity and respect. jobs that told us something more important than how much we will work, it told us what we were worth -- told us that we were building more than just products. it told us we were building communities, neighborhood, building a country. it gave people pride about what america is all about. that is why one of the first decisions i made as president was to stand by manufacturing, to stand by the american auto industry when it was on the brink of collapse. [applause]

the heartbeat of america mfg.on was c stake in-sospan than a million jobs -- the heartbeat of america manufacturing was at stake, and a million jobs. today the auto industry is coming back and gm is number one again and ford is investing millions in plants and factories. together over the past two and a half years, the entire auto industry has added more than 200,000 jobs. and here is the thing -- not just building cars again, but better cars. for the first time in three decades we raised fuel standard so by the middle of the next decade, the cars that are built in america will average more than 55 miles to the gallon. [applause] that will save the typical family about $8,000 at the pump

over time. that is real savings. that is real money. and it shows that depending on foreign oil does not have to be our future. it shows that when we harness our own ingenuity, our technology -- and we can control our future. america thrives when we build things better than the rest of the world. i want us to make stuff here and sell it over there. [applause] i do not want them selling it over here. and that is exactly what you are doing here. at the largest rolls-royce said -- facility in the world, that is what you are doing by building the key components of nowhere, faster, more fuel- efficient jet engines. i just took a tour and then learned a bit about how a jet engine comes together. don't quiz me on it. [laughter]

i am a little fuzzy on some of the details. i did press some buttons back there. [laughter] a few weeks ago i actually got to see the finished product. i went to boeing in washington state and i checked out a new dreamliner. i even got to sit in the cockpit. which was pretty sweet. i did not press any but is there, though. [laughter] if it started going, there would have been a problem. this airplane, the dreamliner, is going to keep america at the cutting edge of aerospace technology. american workers are manufacturing various components for it, in ohio, oklahoma, south carolina, kansas, and right here in petersburg. in fact, the demand for their airplanes was so high last year that boeing had to hire 13,000 workers all across america just to keep up.

and boeing is gaining more and more share all the time. so, think about that. rolls-royce is choosing to invest in america. you are creating jobs here, manufacturing components for jet engines and airplanes that we will send all over the world. that is the kind of business cycle we want to see. not buying stuff that is made someplace else and racking up dead, but by inventing things and building things and selling them all over the world stand with three proud words, "made in america." [applause] made in america. think about how important this

is. imagine if the airplane of the future was being built someplace else. and that if we had given up on the auto industry -- imagine if we had given up on the auto industry. imagine if we had settled for a lesser future. but we didn't. we are americans, we are inventors, we are builders, thomas edison, the wright brothers, and steve jobs. that is who we are. that is what we do. we invent stuff, we build it, and pretty soon the entire world adapts. that is so we are. and as long as i am president, we will keep on doing it. we will make sure the next generation of life changing products are manufactured here and invented here in the united states of america. [applause] that is why we launched the all hands on deck effort. we brought together the finest

-- brightest academic mines, the boldest business leaders, the most dedicated public servants of our science and technology agency's, all with a big goal, a renaissance in american manufacturing. we called it the advanced manufacturing partnership. the advanced manufacturing partnership. and today we are building on it. i am laying on my plans for a new national network of manufacturing innovation. these are going to the institutes of manufacturing excellence where some of our most advanced engineering schools and our most innovative manufacturers collaborate on new ideas, technology, new methods, new processes. and if this sounds familiar, that is because what you are about to do right here -- later this summer, the commonwealth center for advanced manufacturing will open its

doors. it is a partnership between manufacturers, including this one, uva, virginia tech, virginia state university -- [applause] vsu is a little over represented here. the commonwealth and the federal government. think of this as a place where companies can share access to cutting its capabilities, and at the same time students and workers are picking up the skills, they are training on state of the art equipment, they are solving some of the most important challenges facing our manufacturers. you just got all of this brain power and still an experience coming together in this hub, and that makes the whole greater than the sum of its

parts. it allows everybody to learn from each other and figure out how we will do things even better. it is going to help get that the next great idea from a paper or a computer to the lab, to the factory, to the global marketplace. and that is especially important for the one in three americans in manufacturing will work for a small business to the not always have access to resources like these. obviously the big companies, boeing, larose voice -- they -- in the intel's, the rolls royce is, they have the resources and capital to be able to create the platforms, but some of the smaller and medium-sized businesses, it is a little bit harder. so, this gives them access and allows them to take part in this new renaissance of american. -- american inventiveness. and we have to build these institutes all across the

country. i do not just wanted here. i want it everywhere. to do that, we need congress to act. hmm. [laughter] [applause] it is true. but that does not mean we have to hold our breath. we are not going to wait. we are going to go ahead on our own later this year. we will choose the winner of the competition for a pilot institute for manufacturing innovation, help them get started. with the pilot in place we will keep on pushing congress to do the right thing because this is the kind of approach that can succeed, but we have to have this all across the country. i want everybody thinking about how are we making the best

products, how are we harnessing the new ideas and making sure they are located here in the united states. and sparking this network of innovation across the country, it will create jobs and it will keep america in the manufacturing gained. of course, there is more we can do to seize this moment, to create more jobs and manufacturing in america. we have to do everything we can to encourage more companies to make the decision to invest in america and to bring jobs back from overseas. we are starting to see companies do that. they are starting to realize this is the place with the best workers, the best ideas, the best universities. this is the place to be. we've got to give them a little more encouragement. right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. companies that choose to invest

in america, they get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. does that make any sense? it makes no sense and everybody knows it. so it is time to stop rewarding businesses who ship jobs overseas and reward companies to create good jobs right here in the united states of america. that is how our tax code should work. at the same time, we got to do everything we can to make sure our kids gets the education that gives them every chance to succeed. i have been told that last year's balloted korean at petersburg high -- valedictorian at petersburg high, she had a good statement. she said her cap and gown was the best down anybody could hang in their closet. i like that. let's make sure students like

her have teachers to bring out the best. let's make sure if they want to go to college, their families can afford them to go to college. [applause] and legs -- let's make sure workers have the skills this company is working for. are looking for. we need folks in beijing and lifelong learning. the days you started off at 20 with one company and you do the same thing for 40 years, it is not going to happen anymore. as i was meeting some of the folks here -- they have been machinists, they have been in manufacturing for years, but they are constantly upgrading their skills and retraining. some of them have been laid off and have gone back to school before they came to this company. so, we need to make sure those opportunities for people mid

career and onward, that they can constantly go back to community college and retool to make sure they are qualified for the jobs of tomorrow. at a time when so many americans are looking for work, no job openings should go unfilled just because people didn't have an opportunity to get the training they need it. that is why i have asked congress to join me in a national commitment to train 2 million americans with the skills that will lead directly to a job right now. we need to create more partnerships like the one this plant has with a community college. we should get more community colleges the resources they need. i want them to be community career centers, places that

teach people skills that companies are looking for right when now, from data management, to the kind of high-tech manufacturing being done in this facility. so, day-by-day, we are restoring this economy from crisis. but we can't stop there. we've got to make this economy ready for tomorrow. day by day we are creating new jobs, but we can't stop there. not until everybody who is out there pounding the pavement has a chance to land one of those jobs. every day we are producing more oil and gas than we have in years, but we can't stop there. i want our businesses to lead the world in clean energy, too. we've got the best colleges and universities in the world, but we can't stop there. i want to make sure more of our students can afford to go to those colleges and universities. everybody knows we've got the best workers on earth, but we

can't stop there. we've got to make sure the middle class doesn't just survive. we want them to thrive. we want them to dream big dreams and to feel confident about the future. i did not run for this office just to get back to where we were. i ran for this office to get us to where we need to be. and i promise you, we will get there. some of these challenges may take a year. some may take one term. some may take a decade, but we are going to get there, because when we work together, we know we are capable of. we've got the tools, we got the

know-how, we have the toughness to overcome any obstacle. when we come together and combine our creativity and our optimism and our willingness to work hard, harnessing our brainpower and remained out -- manpower and hp, i promise you we will thrive again and we will get to where we need to go and we will leave behind an economy that is built to last. we will make this another american century. thank you, god bless you, god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

aniston yahoo.

>> the president's campaign has released a two minute trailer of a 17 minute documentary for the president's campaign. it is called "the road we've traveled" and includes interviews by vice president joe biden and rahm emanuel, the chief of staff. here is a short preview of the fund-raising film. >> how do we understand this

president and his time in office? do we look at the day's headlines or do we remember what we as a country have been through? >> the president-elect is here in chicago. he named the members of the economic team and they all fly in for the first big briefing on the economy. what was described in that meeting was an economic crisis beyond anything anybody had imagined. >> our time of standing pat and protecting their root interest -- narrow interests and putting off decisions, that time has surely past. >> his advisers would ask, where to begin, which urging -- urgent need would be put it first? >> where do you start? >> if we don't do this now, it will be a generation before 30 million people have health insurance. >> if the auto industry goes down, what happens to america's manufacturing base, what

happens to jobs in america, what happens to the whole midwest? >> the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and now we had to make a decision, go or not go. and as he walked out the room, he is all alone. this is his decision and nobody is standing there with him. >> as you saw, the whole >> next, a forum on how the media is covering economics and

politics. after that, a look at how the media is incorporating campaign spin in their coverage. on "news makers, michigan senator carl levin, chairman of the armed services committee, talks about the u.s. policy toward iran, nuclear enrichment programs, syria and afghanistan, and the defense budget. newsmakers," sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> and ernest hemingway is considered one of the great american writers. his works still influence readers today. but not many people know of his work as a spy during world war ii. >> there were a couple of incidents of people approaching and saying german fishing boats have been taking your food. he would say, i will wait for them, and then my players will

live hand grenades and the other members of my crew will machine gun the germans on deck. >> historians in hemingway, the spy, a sunday night at 8:30 p.m., part of american history tv, this weekend on c-span-3. >> congratulations to all this year's winners of the c-span documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered the competition on the theme, the constitution and you. what all of the winning videos on our website, and join us mornings in april as we show the top seven videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners on "washington journal."

>>next, and look at media coverage of economic issues during the 2012 presidential campaign. colorado christian university's centennial institute held a one- day conference in early march, focusing on the media's role in politics. this portion includes the denver post political editor as well as economist and head of the common run of fiscal policy institute. it is 45 minutes. >> economic literacy poisoned political journalism. the title may be a little provocative, but our aim today is to provoke thought and debate and discussion. the moderator of the next panel is another one of our co- directors of the centennial institute project on news in the 21st century. he has authored books, he has covered the cable industry, he has been business editor of "the denver post." he has most recently launched an it organization, a nonprofit called psittacine media that is exploring new media -- call it citizen media, exploring new media and technology. our friend, stephen keating. [applause]

>> good to be with you today. we will start by having the panel members introduce themselves. we will have a good discussion and then open it for questions. if we are ready to go, we will start with chuck plunkett and move down the panel. >> just one second. >> as john mentioned, the title of the panel is "has economic illiteracy boys and political -- poisoned political journalism question show -- political journalism?" i'm sure we will get into the media coverage of economics, particularly in the context of the 2012 presidential campaign. it is clear that economic issues are at the top of the mind of the major candidates and much of the media coverage. we are ready?

maybe we will start with barry. >> i am barry poulson, professor of economics at the university of colorado, retired. what i would like to talk about today is an issue where i think the media has gone astray, and that is the issue of fairness. basically president obama has put fairness at the center of his campaign, and his arguments are very straightforward. basically his argument is income distribution in this country has become more unequal, the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes, we need to raise taxes on the upper income groups and redistribute that income to lower income groups, and that will create job opportunities and upper mobility for the lower income families. i think before we jump on the fairness bandwagon, there are several questions that need to

be addressed. first of all, what has happened to income inequality in this country? as an economic historic -- historian i like to put this in a long perspective. the last century, the highest in equality in this country was in the first few decades of the 20th century. then from about 1920 until the end of the second world war, there was a sickness in shift toward a much more equal distribution of income. and then what will the long at that level and then some increase in the rapid growth in the 1980's and 1990's and then about the same since then. over the long haul, our country has experienced a much more equal distribution of income among income classes. >> if i could leave that as the executive summary and then we can continue the introductions. >> my name is wayne laugesen,

the editorial page editor of "the gazette" in colorado springs. we have a libertarian-a leading editorial page, more in the tradition of ludwig von -- than ayn rand. one of the issues i would like to address today is the question are the media economically illiterate. and i would have to say, having been in this field since 1985, i would say that is a resounding, yes. i have been at large newspapers, small newspapers, "newsweek" magazine which is generally left-leaning, and even at a "soldier of fortune" we were not able to hire many right of center journalists, they were not in the culture. it is not as much bias as economic literacy, the idea

that we live and zero world where economics is a zero sum game and everything must be redistributive because of a lack of understanding that things are created. this plays out with right wing issues -- immigration, for instance -- left wing issues, how many cars does not romney's wife have. and i will get more into it as we ask questions. >> good morning. my name is carol, director of the colorado fiscal policy institute, a permanent project of the colorado center of law and policy. we are a non-profit, non- partisan research and analysis organization.

i am thrilled to be here today. i would like to -- if i could have 15 seconds to some of my perspective -- as long as we are more concerned about catch phrases that we are about conversation, we will continue to have a situation where economics and principles of economics don't rule the day. in politics or in our everyday lives. >> i am chuck plunkett, the political editor -- i like to say politics editor at "the denver post." if he's a political it sounds like you already have a bias. -- if you say political, it sounds like you already have a bias. before that, i worked in other parts of the country, in the south, where i am from, and in western as a venue where i worked at "the pittsburgh tribune review." i have been at the paper since

2003. the enormous changes i have seen. at "the denver post" there has been a dramatic downsizing in the reporters and editors and dedicated journalist, and yet i will take a little bit of a different tack today. so far there has been a fair amount of hair pulling and the moaning of the state in the media. i think it is a fairly exciting time. for these reasons -- these two newspapers were so wealthy that the news rooms could take on a pretty insular air. we are much more competitive

now and we must be much more nimble to protect our jobs. and then there is the advent of social media which also -- because it brings your voices, and it brings tons of other voices into the conversation, we have to be smarter, we have to be more able to interact with the broader conversation -- like carroll is talking about, we need to have the conversation. that conversation is actually taking place in a way that is far more profound than when i got in the business 15 years ago, in light -- when my interaction with people who consumed the news was an occasional phone call or several emails. now would like to use the term at "the denver post" that our audience is smarter than we are. there are so many of you that come from different backgrounds and different expertise kinds of things that no one reporter could bring to the table. and it is nice to have that conversation and to have that interaction. >> thank you, panelists. since the focus is media

coverage of economics as it affects politics, i would like to recall for you a moment at the gop presidential debate in november, newt gingrich making this comment -- "the starkly this is it the richest country in the world because corporations succeed in creating both profits and jobs, it is said the news media does not report accurately how the economy works -- historic leap this is the richest country." but commentator respect -- monitor -- not responded, what have the media reported? then i have yet to see an occupy wall street person ask a single -- single question about, who will pay for the part you are occupying it there is no business making a profit? i will ask the panel, starting with carol hedges to react to that, kind of a conflict between media and politics and the economy. >> i think the very existence of the fact that a group of people who had a particular opinion have defined the entire discussion about economics as it relates to what is going on right now is what i mean by conversation versus catch phrase. new wants is what -- nuance is what it is all about. it seems born to people. -- boring to people.

i loved to comment earlier about lima beans. i am a lima bean farmer. what i do everyday is due -- do analysis of what is happening with tax policy, what is happening in investments. from a perspective, no doubt about it, what drives the economy. those are not the kinds of things that are being reported by news outlets tremendously. i can always find it. if you want to know what of romney economic policy looks like, google it, there is a lot of analysis being done. whether it is showing up or not in the mainstream media, who knows? the point being is we all like it to be quick and easy. not complicated and nuanced. we've viewed the world through our own individual lens rather than the systemic lends. there is true on all sides. the problem is the economy is not driven or determined by one particular strain -- whether it is business or consumers. it is not simply about how low taxes are, but it is also about how well we are educating folks to be more productive.

we have to go back to a point where we have a conversation about complexity and about nuance, and in a world where we are all driven to consume in 140 characters, i think the challenges may be bigger. but i think as people's own economic issues -- more so, i would suggest, in this presidential season than ever before -- we have the opportunity to urge people out of that small catch phrase world into a broader world of nuance and complication, because i do think it is out there. it is out there in a way it has never been before, but we have to drive people to it. i think it is out there. googling, reaching out to new media, and going beyond the tv news formats.

>> i think the question of bias, it seems to me, are the people in the media asking the right questions and are they willing to pursue the answers to those questions even though it may conflict with their particular perspective. as i say, if i could, just briefly about the fairness issue. this is an issue where i think the media has given obama a pass. they have not asked the right questions. whether this is the literacy,

whether it is biased, i can't answer that. but let me tell you the questions i think should be answered and are very important in this election cycle. one question is -- what is the effect of the federal income tax on income distribution? the fact is the federal income tax results and a much more equal distribution of income if you look at pre-tax income, it is more unequal, and post-tax income, more equally distributed. why is that? look at what has happened to the top federal income tax rate, again, over the long term thursday -- perspective. we started out the beginning of the 20th-century at a 70% top rate and it went to 90% after the second world war, then reduced to 50% and in the reagan years, significant reduction in the top rate from

50% down to 28%. actually the changes since then have been very modest. so, the question is, what effect has it had on income distribution. what you may forget that when ronald reagan reduced the top rate, he broadened the base and introduced a more generous standard reduction -- deduction. as a result, the distribution of post-tax income was significantly more equal after the reagan tax cuts than before. another question that seems to be at the top of the media, the top 1%. obama has targeted the top 1% and argue they are not paying their fair share, we need to increase taxes on the top 1%. if you look at the share of income, we see by the top 1%, during the 1980's and 1990's, it increased dramatically, about doubled. but if you look at the share of taxes paid for it but -- by the top 1%, it was also by double. the top 1% are paying about double their share of taxes -- their share of taxes is about double their share of income, the same today as 30 years ago. >> i will let wayne reflect on

the media. >> the media -- first of all, let us address bias quickly. 95% easily of any major mainstream news room -- if you polled them, they would be liberal democrats in voting for barack obama in the upcoming election. you have that going on. but most of the journalists are very good people who want to be fair. they do strive toward of it today. they believe they achieve it. they tell you that all day long. i work with them. i have all my life. what is more at play is just a lot of economic illiteracy and a lot of pressure by the audience. the audience once simple conflict. that is what sells newspapers. that is what gets you hits on your web site. so, if we have a media that sort of use everything from a lens of a zero sum game and the

audience perceives it that way, you have great conflict built in all the time. net romney's wife cannot have multiple cadillacs -- mitt romney's wife cannot have multiple cadillacs -- doesn't mean he is wealthy? and does it mean she is wealthy on the back of someone else, someone who is poor and hurting. that is a perfect conflict for any audience. one of the most controversial stories we had in "the gazette" in the four years i have been there was one of the society page stories about the girl who was having her sweet 16 party. it involved limousines and a fancy hotel and catering, and the audience went berserk. we had just entered the death -- depth of the recession and we arrived with letters. she was spending $75,000 and the party.

how many poor people could be fed? how many kids could be sent to a better school? we had to explain on the editorial pages that, look, she is hiring caterers who need work, who is going to pay rent to landlords in -- and on down the list. her father is well because he owned a chain of restaurants that deployed people. it was not at the expense of a poor person. author james robison -- i only read a few sections of this book. he has a new book out called "indivisible." he has this beautiful way of describing it -- steve jobs in his very many -- and his very rich employees did not get wealthy stealing ipads from poor people. i think if we can view of

things from that prism we would have a better understanding of how economics works. >> jumped london, i would ask the same question but in a different context -- chuck plunkett, i knew it will last is in question but in a different context. you said this in 2010, i believe in the context of the tea party movement -- "my thesis is you need to supply the intellectual architecture that makes the liberty movement matter or the experiment matter. " two years later, can you reflect on whether you think the tea party of the fiscal conservative movement has done that and how the media has covered their effect on american politics? >> i would love to take that on. the caveat was two years ago i was a member of "the denver post" editorial board so i had to write opinions these days. i do not now, when i and the public or doing my job, because we do strive, as we mentioned, we do strive to be as objective

as possible and we hope we are hitting that goal. i remember that remark and i remember being in the room with a bunch of very excited and energetic and passionate folks who were thinkers, who were interested in dealing with things like the deficit and with government spending. and during that time, it even seemed more bipartisan. there were folks coming into the act took -- editorial board united in one group from the clinton administration -- former clinton people and former bush people, economists talking about what are we going to do about the nation's debt, because the trajectory is frightening, and a comfortable life we have in america will be endangered if we don't figure out how to get our arms around that issue. and it is something i tried to think about carefully and something i have tried to focus on as a journalist. so, to answer your question, i

don't think the tea party had done a very good job in providing the intellectual architecture for that discussion, because of the discussion is not taking place, even among conservatives, that ic -- that i see. what i see from the debates and the nomination process is a rather bizarre switch to social issues and some other in this in -- divisive discussions. it is not all the tea party's fault. and the lack of conversation about shrinking government debt -- the lack of conversation about shrinking government debts, the whole discussion about 1% versus the 99%, which just tends to play to talking points and attack lines and it really is not getting at a substantive discussion. it wayne pointed out, it really is true -- wayne pointed out, it really is true that some people think if someone has a lot of money they stole it from

someone else. in a democracy that the bands on the free market system, you would think it is and ought assumption to make, but it is a story line that gets repeated a lot. i should probably set up for a while and let someone else talk. but that was on the -- off the top of my head. >> let us go to someone who is an agenda center on the economy, president obama. during his state of the union address, this is how "cnn monday" reported it. "the president delivered a state of the union address that was deeply saturated with income inequality, a populist idea of the white house hopes will resonate on the campaign trail, calling at,", the defining issue on the time, obama said americans face a choice of a country where a shrinking number of people do well and a society where every individual is a fair shot." before you react, i want to read another piece which struck

me at the time and i could not believe that there had not been more reporting done on it or i missed it. this is a story right after the health care reform bill was signed, by a writer in "the new york times." the headline -- in health care bill, obama attacks wealth inequality. he writes in part -- the pre- tax income of the wealthy have source of the 1970's what their tax rates have fallen lower than the middle class and the poor. nearly every major aspect of the help hilt -- helped build pushes and the other direction. -- health bill pushes in the other direction. this fact explainswhy obama was willing to spend so was political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a percentage of candidates. beyond the health care reform's affect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of a

deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of reagan. barry, do you think it is an accurate read of why health care reform was at the top of the president's agenda? >> i think the president's agenda is essentially what he calls fairness, but is in fact policies that would significantly increase the tax burden on the upper income groups. and evidence that i talked about earlier -- and there is a copy of that paper corp. -- paper available -- basically what has happened since the reagan tax reforms is that the share of income received by the upper income groups in the 1980's and the eight -- 1990's had about doubled but their tax burden has doubled, so in terms of progress in the -- progressivity, we are about where we were. the president's assumption is you can significantly increase tax rates on the upper income groups without affecting

incentives. the so-called buffet will -- buffett rule in income of $1 million to $2 million, the marginal tax rate for some is about 100% stock -- 90%. it think -- if you think people cannot respond to a 90% tax rate, look at history. borg moved to monaco for good reason. take a look at the 1970's. obama says he wants to return our tax policies to the clinton years. in fact, these tax proposals would return us to the carter years in terms of the high tax rates that would be imposed. you remember the carter years. people respond to high taxes -- less work, less savings, less investment, less economic activity, less economic growth. and the sad part of that story is much of the burden falls not on the wealthy, but on the poor, in the form of unemployment, low incomes.

we don't want another decade of stagnation. >> carol, is that true? >> that we did not want another decade of stagnation, i think it is true. the difference of opinion is what gets us there. i find this to be a really fascinating conversation because it has turned into -- that anyone who argues that we need to take a serious look at changing our tax structure is attacking the rich. it is not the case at all. there are many people who suggest that we need to have additional public investment. that would you look at real economic growth and real productivity enhancement in this country, they are often driven by common investments -- investments in transportation infrastructure, investment in education, investments in things that actually drive productivity and often those things are public investments.

things that the private sector cannot do on its own because it is an economic system that requires, and contributions. and i find it fascinating that we don't have a conversation about the value of what we buy together. the role that transportation plays in our economy. the role that education, not just among the people who can afford it, but among everybody. i and not about attacking the rich. i and not about -- i'm not about attacking the rich, not about destroying the economy, neither is the president and neither most people trying to have this conversation. it needs to be a conversation about the relative strengths and values of public investments and the ability of individuals to maximize their own profits. that is the conversation that we need to have, and that is the conversation i hope we can have. i think we are being failed and

we are not having it. >> what would the media have to do to put the facts of the matter before the american people so that barry and carol and others can debate the most significant policy choices? >> for the media to do that they would have to get into boring story telling. unfortunately they are not going to do that. fortunately we do live in a time -- of ford -- fortunately we do live in a time where the media is being divided in chunks, and it bodes very well for society going forward. obama is doing to the american people the same thing the media is doing to the american people, which is indulging this common misperception that wealth comes from government, wealth is cash, we distribution of that cash is the only way to achieve any sort of fairness, because nothing can grow, we will not produce anything, does well is cash produced by the government and we must distributed it more fairly.

as long as that is the mindset of the american public, that is what politicians will exploit and that is what the media are going to exploit -- whether intentionally or by rote. as far as health care, that is part of the same thing. that is obama and anyone who supports this health-care redistribution -- assuming that we can just take the existing supply, the existing stock of health care -- doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, medicine -- and distributed to a limited numbers of people and everyone will have plenty. nobody ever talks about the need for more health care. if we can find ways to is and devise more people to become doctors, more people to become nurses -- incentivize more people to become doctors, more nurses, more clinics, that is how you distribute health care. but we do not talk that way because we are collectively in a redistribution mind-set.

>> chuck, you can respond to both for political coverage. you are in a swing state for the 2012 election. what is the conversation in the newsroom on how you are going to cover economics in terms of how it affects the presidential campaign? >> one of the things the was brought up in the last panel is that we owe it to our readers to get away from only focusing on the politicians, and to look at folks who have not made up their minds yet on who they are going to vote for, who are not in an ideological trend, but who are trying to make up their minds to hear what is important to them and to get their voices in the paper. as far as economic issues, it is a great question. a lot of today has been spent in

a hair pulling fire and brimstone kind of emotion or merit, but this actually is the time where getting information about a candidate and a platform is far easier than it has ever been. carol alluded to this a little bit. you can go online and with a few clicks get as much of mitt romney's tax plan as you would like to read. it is difficult when you talk about the media in a broad brush perspective. it is a different post level. our reporters are focused on state government, on city hall. we have a reporter in d.c. who is in charge of keeping up with the congressional delegations, the nine elected officials we have there. the parts of the federal

government that affect the western states in various ways. we do not always have the luxury to cover politics the way you're talking about. when barack obama comes to town, as he has done quite a bit lately because we are a swing state, we try very hard to find out what the speech is going to be about and who is going to be too, whether it is high school students from an impoverished part of the city or high school students -- college students going into debt, taking out loans so that they can get through school. we try not to adjust to the horse race. we try to cover it in a way that if you could not go to the event, you can still feel like you were there.

we tried have reporters in the newsroom deal with that particular topic as part of their beat to try to adjust it and make sense of it and say, this is what the president was saying. here are the realities. here are the challenges. here is what he is really up against. here are student loans explained in the way you can understand. >> let's have the audience jump in and ask the panel some questions about media coverage of the economy as it affects the political season. >> in a patrol engineer. i am responding to your remarks.

hypocotyl into the oil business because i found that getting value from the ground was something that did not offend anybody else. it was sort of a naive way to do things. i have been involved in lobbying and various activities for many, many years. i was involved in the sage brush rebellion in the 1970's. one thing you learn out of that is what a messy, messy group they are. they all are going in 17 different ways. that is what i like about the tea party movement. they are a messy movement. they do not have an idealism they can stay with. whenever you look at occupy wall street, i get the impression that what ever else you say, that they are basically saying the same thing, which means that, to me, it is not a true

movement, it is a forced at propaganda. we look at things different ways. >> is there a question for the panel? >> in 1990, i debated with exxon and mobil, flat tax versus the income tax system we have. i took a position that we were better off with an income tax system we had rather than flat tax for all the evil potential that was in the flat tax. the problem has come to this day something entirely different. the tax base in this country is less than 30% of its members. only 30% of us are not net pay years. how are we going to address the fact that we are about to the road our entire tax base for this country? -- erode our entire tax base for this country? much less the big issue of who is going to pay for it?

>> i am going to give the panel a minute so they can address that. >> i am glad you brought out the flat tax because in 1986 when reagan enacted the reduction of 50% to 28%, that would have created a windfall of revenue for the state of colorado. the legislature came to the independent institute at that time and janitors was president and they said, we are interested in a flat tax. would you come up with a neutral flat tax for colorado? john came to me and i came up with the best number i could -- 440%. we met with leadership and they said, we are not sure about 4%. we will set it at 5%. john, bless his heart, said no. he does the higher. we do not need another tax increase. we will defend pork -- 4.2%. we were proven right. the effect of that 5% was colorado did capture the windfall. i know that economics is boring. economics is a dismal science,

right? [laughter] this is important stuff. you need to understand what happens. essentially, and colorado, we created one of the best tax climate in that country. we created one of the highest rates of economic growth in the 1990's. a lot of that was a result of a more efficient tax system and by the way, more equitable. that also shifted the tax burden to the upper income group because we broadband the base -- broaden the base. >> have been the media cover taxes in a way that is not dismal? -- how can the media cover taxes in a way that is not dismal? [laughter] we will leave it there. >> i would like to see our media at -- this will never happen, but in a perfect world, the media could tell some great stories about rich people. and the phenomenal things they do. we have a man coming into

scrapes the river in southern colorado. he is paying $50 million out of0 million to go to poor people and send people's kids through school. if we can tell a story of this guy coming in and how many jobs he is going to create for people who can really use them right now and we could tell the stories of immigrants who are here illegally for producing 10 or 20 times with the consent, then we can imitate the way things are seen in this country. >> are those the stories you>> u like to see? >> and look to hear those stories. but also like to hear the stories of the value of the investments. i would love to hear those stories because all of this is in the middle. there is neither a right or left that is right. we have a system that is a

system that is not individually driven enterprise. so we have to have these stories so we can figure out how it is that we all work for the best of all of us, not for the best door to the detriment of one group or another. >> we love to tell good stories. we endeavor to do that day in and day out grandson days, we get it right. when i think you're saying is why is it that certain folks who used to be considered entrepreneurs, creators of wealth and what not, why do they find themselves in the hot seat right now? that is a great question. some organizations and the media will have live in different ways.

we'll understand on some basic level, while they're supposed to create wealth, we deny have any pre defined ideals as we do not have any pre-defined ideals -- we do not have any pre-defined ideals that you have cheated others out of money. >> you said that we should be investing more to public works and stuff like that. i am setting economics right now. -- i am studying economics right now. government cannot produce anything. that is not its role. so why should we invest in public works more extensively than the private sector to grow the economy? can you explain a little bit more why we should invest more in public works? >> i would be happy to. i am always -- i am not a phd

economist. i'm always a little nervous to talk about my and a standing and my experience with adam smith and the design of the system. there comes a point, even in the market structure, in the design of a market economy whether the efficiencies that are achieved not by individual producers, but by a collective production. transportation, education, national defense are some of the places where we have found historic way -- there is historic evidence. those are the kinds of investments that we are not making right now. the debate is -- the political debate is what are those choices? what do we invest in together as opposed to the individual pursuit? but you can deny that even the designer of our market system says that there are places where the market fails and we need to

have a response. and that is the role for government. i think the political discussion is how big is that? howhat are those areas? how do we support that? not that government is bad or that rich people bad. that is what our political conversation is driving us to and does not get us to the most important question of how do we balance these things? how'd we make it so that transportation is not the responsibility of the individual business? because it is a collective and shared value and productivity results. >> will take one more question in the front. wait for the microphone. we will do to questions very quick answer quickly. >> my name is jeremy donaldson and diane is student.

i heard that occupy wall street was mentioned -- and i am a student. i heard that occupy wall street was mentioned. everything i heard from the media is not portrayed about how i talked to him about that. he supports that movement, but the media, whether it is in wall street, new york city, the local one here, whether it is on the newspaper or on tv, it is not representative -- it is not an intelligent kind of representation of what the real people -- it is like everybody jumping on the bandwagon could in my mind, the media is spinning it differently. i don't think the media is giving inaccurate portrayal of what you say is good. i am skeptical. >> i might answer that appeared to think both the left and the right object to the coverage of

occupy wall street. >> we had our own version. it was a vigorous one for a time. there are two factions that are left. they're people who are not in the movement were still sleeping on the sidewalk and there people were still organize and communicate regularly and come forth and do certain kinds of protests. i have been in the occupied denver camp and we have had several reporters from "the denver post" spend their time and effort of their during the time that it was at its peak, for example. if you talk to 17 different people, you have 27 different positions. [laughter] and not all of them quite added up or went in a certain direction that you could easily characterize. it was very difficult. some people wanted to restore native lands to indians. some people wanted to deal with the environment. some people wanted to screw the

rich man. somebody -- some people wanted to redistribute the wealth. what have you. as a newspaper with only so many columns available -- we spent a lot of ink and money on that process -- it is difficult to sum up all that up. this discussion gets overly simplified sometimes when you mention the idea of a media or the media pick their folks to comment and their folks to report. we tried to report what the folks were doing, with the police were doing, with the city officials were doing. and it is of two other people in the opinion sector of the media universe to talk about what it all means. because it was so amorphous, it easily lend itself to commentary on both sides. this is an attack against the rich. this is an attack against the poor. those are my two cents. >> we will leave it there.

thank you so much for occupying this stage for the conference. the next panel will be up shortly. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i do not think the president could have gone away with it. >> tim weiner d. tells the fbi boss 100-year hidden history and j. edgar hoover's fight against terrorists. >> hoover stands alone. he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statute encased in grime as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century. 11 presidents, 48 years, from woodrow wilson to richard nixon -- there's no one like and a

great deal of what we know or we think we know that j gruber -- about j. edgar hoover is myth, legend. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span is q&a -- on c-span's q&a. >> no discussion on the role of the press on this presidential discretion. the centinela said to that caller a question university recently look at how the media is covering and affecting the 2012 campaign. panelists include state republican chairman of the .holer this is about 55 minutes. [applause] >> i would like to start my remarks by saying i really like being able to fire people. so you folks on the panel, watch

out. i am saying that as a joke. but it leads into something that i really want to talk about thank you. i do not handle these things well. it leads into something i really want to be able to talk about today. i want our panel to discuss. thank you so much. but that remark was made, of course, by mitt romney in the context, a very clear and explicit and mistakable context and in the same sentence of being able to get rid of his insurance company -- his health insurance company that is serving you and you did not like. so what was the big deal? maybe some spoken words. but those remarks to got extraordinary publicity. sometimes, it was not until your deep into the story that you found out the context. i have an article right here with me in "the new york review of books" which is one of the

country's most intellectual journals that is distributed and it does that give any of the context at all. just take this as an example of what a clot romney is. at the same time, what was the coverage got with his tax proposals? if you were elected and try to put them into effect and they actually went into effect, they have enormous consequences for this country. either good or bad, i am not making a judgment here which, but that wasn't the really important. how many of you know what that tax package include in any detail at all and how many of you have heard "i really like being able to fire people"? when i was a reporter many years ago, at the knickerbocker news in new york, one of the three defunct newspapers i worked for and i plead innocent -- [laughter]

there was a man who was a city editor and he was the editorial page editor. he liked to walk out of the news room occasionally and instruct us what we really ought to be up to. one of the things you would say is that he had per to lowly noticed -- that he had noticed -- one of the things he would say is that he had noticed that you try to get people to understand the issue well enough to help them make a judgment -- not to make the final judgment -- but to help them make a judgment on whether this is a good thing or bad thing. it is not to sway people. it is to help them understand. ok. so i turn on cable news and get information about -- and i

am talking about all three of them -- do i get much information about the issues? in what i get mostly? who will win in who will not. we all will find out, folks. we will find out. it is just a guess right now anyway. it is just a guess. what is this? or when you're talking about issues, you get sound bites. this is true of some newspapers, too. it is especially true of newspapers. there was a great journalist who wrote these wonderful books in the 1960's and 1970's about strategy and the strategy of politics. ever since he did this -- he was an exceptional reporter -- but so many reporters thought it their duty to do the same thing, to tell us about strategy. number one, they have no time to do it. he was writing books. he had the time to step back and look at it. i doubt very seriously that most

of them had this knowledge and i am not putting down the reporters. but he was an extra guy who knew tons and tons of stuff. -- he was an extraordinary guy who knew tons and tons of stuff. what they ought to be doing is talking to us about these issues. i hear "i do not want to be a stenographer." be a stenographer. tell me what they said. the panel will go into this in a lot more depth. i will let them introduce themselves. and i want our folks from politics to start out. introduce yourselves. tell a little bit about yourselves. and then begin to address this issue. then i will ask if you questions and then we will go to the audience. so you folks be thinking of some really tough questions. ok, go ahead.

>> good morning. it is a pleasure to be with you. i am the state chairman for the colorado republican party. before taking over this capacity in april of last year, i served as legal counsel for the state and -- the state republican party for six years and was active in while local county party serving as chairman of the denver county republican party. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about this panel. i was joking in little bit with the line that they put the media in the middle so the folks from the left and the right can be up on it. i thought that was probably appropriate to a degree. and distended from the conservative perspective, often the media does become a punching bag. i think there's a reason that there is frustration sometimes, both from the right and from the left with respect to the way news gets coverage -- gets

covered today. some of it is the attention span of the audience. but i think that the media needs to take responsibility with respect to helping educate and inform. the concept of the for the state and the role of the press, especially in the public square and in the context of politics and elections and democracy, it goes back long, long time. in fact, the whole notion of being able to identify the process before the state begins with edmund burke. in addressing his fellow members in parliament in 1787, the first time that the house of commons allowed reporters to come in and cover their debate, edmund burke noticed that there was the bishops, the nobility, and the comments, by which edmund burke was a member.

he said there was a for the state "in the reporters' gallery yonder, more important by far than all of them." i think understood that, if we're to have an educated and informed populace, if we want to be able to really embrace those notions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we need to have a press that lives up to those obligations as a fourth estate. there are a lot of press codes and journalistic ethics codes, literally hundreds of them out there. but they do center on the importance of impartiality, of fairness, of accuracy, and making sure that the story gets out. so i am thinking about what we would like to see and what the public deserves in the upcoming election. it really centers on the notion that it is not the role of the media to pronounce judgment, but, instead, to report and allow us to decide, as the phrases sometimes use over at

fox. to get the story right, not always be so worried about getting it first, but get the story right and get that story in context. and don't forget about the big stars and the importance that the media has in educating the population on the weighty issues that we face, both in the upcoming campaign as well as in the not too distant future. i look forward to your questions. >> my name is ken gordon. i ran for the legislature in 1992. that year, was the only person elected in either party in the state could did not accept campaign contributions from political action committees. i felt that financing campaigns from people who are trying to buy influence in the legislature was wrong, not democratic. so i did this thing and i walked door to door in a district held by the republicans.

i am a democrat. but will people would take a position and i got a lot of votes from unaffiliated republican voters and took a seat that had been held by my party in quite some time. and the legislature, was the minority leader in the house and became the majority leader in the senate. anderrews.ith senator sander when i got to the legislature, it occurred to me that it was even worse than i thought, the effect of special money and interest and the lack of participation by ordinary people. there were very conscientious about answer a phone calls from lobbyists or people who contribute lots of money and a conscientious about returning phone calls from voters. i even saw that the committee hearings when ordinary voters

sometimes were not given a chance to testify. the committee chair would say we are -- is 5:00 and we're leaving. i don't care if their people in the audience who drove here from the western slope. we are done for the day. i say this right now. i have watched this quite a bit in 1992 when i first ran. the amount of money spent in campaigns increases at the earth three times the rate of inflation. people become cynical or decide not to vote at all increases as the amount of money increases. the american people, to get to our topic for the day, are surprisingly ignorant about almost everything involving their government. i'm sure that john had this experience as well. they would see me at the grocery store and say, oh, are you back from washington? [laughter]

they did not know the difference between a state legislature and the united states congress. they could not name their state legislator. when i was first elected minority leader in the house, i was very proud of that, being elected by the other democrats and asked to be their leader. i took the entrance and staff and office to lunch. we went to a restaurant in the mall and there were about six of us. i said, before we get to the restaurant, i want everyone to arrest 25 people whether state rep is. when we got to the restaurant, we had talked to about maybe 120 people, something around 11 people were able to name a state rep. it was less than 10%. we got names of people who were obviously not in the state legislature. this is not just an amusing anecdote. this is the failure of democracy. this means that the people who

are supposed to be running the country -- and a good citizen at the top of the pyramid in our government structure, higher than elected officials -- that they're not supervising the people that work for them. therefore, by default, the people that work for them or for the people who are paying attention, who are the lobbyists and the special-interest groups. i just picked up "the denver post this morning -- "the denver post" this morning. i saw that the stores actually seemed to be relevant to the issues that they provided information. nevertheless, there is this tendency in the news media to go with the sensational. if it bleeds, it leads. ignorance of the american people, the lack of

consciousness in their role in the system, can be blamed at least a part on the media and the media could do more to improve that. i am pleased to be here on the panel today. i look forward to your questions. >> i am a reporter for the associated press in denver for state government. i have covered state government in other states. i have been in different parts of the country. this is one of my favorite topic to talk about. ap is a wire service so we are a news cooperative that serves thousands of newspapers and reduce stations and tv stations. it began in the mid-19th century. i just want to start with an avid doubt -- with an anecdote. house think -- i was thinking about this meeting.

i was in the gym. there were dozens of people. they're brushing their teeth and combing their hair. and there was a story about the presidential race and the republican written shalpresiden. and there was is just in bieber in bieber- is just a engaged? and everybody turned. its is an old conversation about what people should be interested in and how they should educate themselves before they go to the polls where what they are interested in is sometimes not where they should be. >> i spoke with a political reporter at fox 31 in denver. we have to stations under one roof. so we wear different hats.

in terms of covering politics all local tv, it is not something that is done regularly on a daily basis by too many of our competitors. there is reason for that. while i personally think that most journalists believe about the hallmarks of journalism and the idea of the fourth estate, it is a business. news is a business just like anything else. we have to make money. newspapers, radio stations, tv stations have to make money as well. so while the hallmarks of journalism, fairness and accuracy, being a stenographer, the things have not changed over the years despite changes in technology. the advent of cable and social network coming -- the advent of cable and social networking, etc. it is broadcasting in the

broadest sense. i sit in meetings most days and i pitch stories about bills down at the state capital and i get a lot of our rules for people court tv producers who are trying -- i get a lot of eye rolls for people -- from producers who are trying to provide programming for people who have just been watching "american idol" for an hour. that is something that i fight every day, to try and put a little bit of something a political courage or policy coverage -- not just the horse raid said -- not just the horse race and the way things might impact people so that we can in some way contribute to have a more informed and better educated population. a more simply engaged population. i think that is important. just to the touch briefly on a

couple of things that make things challenging, these days, politics and money. money is tough in terms of stations that like to fact czech tv ads. now we have tv ads coming from -- fact check tv ads. no have tv ads coming from everywhere. they're not just as from campaigns. while it makes it harder for a campaign to control its own message, it is harder for the news media because we just get buried. there is a much messaging of there. and in the term -- and in terms of the way campaigns are run these days, take mitt romney for example, but pretty much every candidate, including the president, there is a reluctance to really engage reporters now. they will stand there on stage and they will give a speech and we can choose to be stenographers and write it down. but there's not a -- but there's not much engagement. there's not much opportunity to ask questions. and when that happens, i think

you get a press that romney held in a football stadium that was mostly empty. this is when he talked about the trees being the right side and that his wife had two cadillacs. they hear the same speeches and the same platitudes for a while. it is easier for the media to focus on what is different. this was on a football stadium and it did not look very good in terms of the pictures because there was a 75,000-seat football stadium and there were one dozen people sitting on the floor. -- and there were 1000 people sitting on the floor. these are things that tend to bubble up to the surface these days because, when the candidates do not want to engage and run campaigns on television through super packs, it marginalizes what journalists can do. we have to fight harder to cover

actual people, real people, as my boss would say. forget the politicians in the story. it's a real people in there. the more we are sort of disconnected and have less access to the process, think it is important for us to really put pressure on elected officials and candidates by at least accurately reporting the concerns and what is really important to the regular folks who are in our community. >> i read recently had pbs news -- i have not had a lot of respect for what they do come even though i do not like the government -- they have a motto that says there to be boring -- they have a lot of it says beade to be boring. let me bring the question