earthquake in japan that triggered a tsunami. the natural disaster set off a crisis at the fukushima nuclear plant. we'll talk about that and the government's handling of that crisis. in local news, alabama and mississippi hold primaries tomorrow. they're holding a forum in a birmingham. newt gingrich and rick santorum will be there. we will have live coverage at 6:30 p.m. eastern. rick santorum said today he would get the nomination if the race remains undecided by the time of the nominating convention. according to a count by the associated press, mitt romney has 454 delegates. rick santorum has 217. 107 for newt gingrich and a 47 for texas congressman ron paul.

alabama and mississippi hold their presidential primaries tomorrow. we will have live coverage here on c-span tomorrow night and a follow the delegate count at c- span.org. >> our ancestors came across the ocean in a sailing ships you would not go across a lake in. when they arrived, there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins. they did it with neighbors helping one another, not the federal grants. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for office and lost. go to our web site, c- span.org/thecontenders to see video. >> this is the time to turn away from the excessive free occupation overseas and the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world.

but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. c-span.org/thecontenders. >> up next, a panel discussion examining the role of the press in this presidential election. the centennial incident -- institute held a seminar on how the media is affecting the 2012 campaign. analysts include the republican chair, state democratic leader, and this panel is just under one hour. [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. i served with senator andrews. 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 presidential race. and there was is just in bieber engaged -- is justin bieber 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 dare to be boring. let me bring the question regarding bias. there was a ucla professor who did a book called "left turn" that attempts to make a scientific judgment about the

issue of bias. i am suspicious of those, but i have to say he does a pretty good job of it. if you do not agree, you might want to read the book and find out what his arguments are. he thinks we often get the facts right, but the media -- that media news ellis get paid? right, but the message is interpreted in some anyways. -- the media news get the facts right, but the message is interpreted in so many ways. he ends up saying that, if the media -- and the media are -- i have been in this business for 45 years. i would say that 80% of the business is liberal. well, more liberal than not.

i met someone who said that the behind-the-scenes people are probably 70% liberal. one of the things he concludes -- then i will shut up and let you guys respond -- if the media had been balanced in the 2008 election, john mccain would be president today. among his calculations are that what is reported has consequences. it has consequences. it becomes the interpretation of reality for the people of this country, more so than the commentary. i am in the commentary business and we go crazy, too. but what is presented as factual news has enormous consequences. maybe this time, starting with you ryan and then going straight on across -- or if you want to argue with each other, that is fine, too. >> i would agree with you. the observations about day off handed remark from met ronnie

taken so bad that of context and -- from mitt romney taken so bad and out of context -- much of the meat and substance, the details of the economic proposals are not being covered or very much in passing by the media. i think there is a huge disservice to our public who i believe -- and i would give the public in the more credit -- understands that there are serious issues facing this country and want to see serious and thoughtful bold proposals. i am sympathetic to the frustration that is sometimes felt by the media. they do not feel like the candidates or representatives are very accessible. it is because they're gun shy.

there are burned. one offhand remark may be taken out of context and show up on twitter and blow up the universe. it is hard. i do not know if i have the right answer on how to fix it. i think there may be some great opportunities to provide more backstreet and more context using multiple media outlets. one of the great things i have noticed elis coverage with fox and wb is that he will direct people to the website for links to the entire speech. they can get that information a little more unfiltered. >> whenever i am asked about media, i tell the story. in the state of georgia in 2000, there were 32 republicans to endorse the president.

for endorsed al gore. but of the people who receive a daily newspaper on their doorstep every day, more than half picked up a newspaper that endorsed al gore because the big newspapers tended to be from cities that had bigger circulations and that kind of thing. i think that is a been that goes not through just newspapers, but the -- is the vein that goes not through just newspapers, but other media. it can be kind of limiting to live in new york and l.a. for news consumers who feel that the media is biased or that movie and tv are biased. think about the world that it is coming from and where you are seeing it.

>> in many ways, is a matter perception. it is a reflection of a society that is ecologically split -- that is ideologically split. the president said that we are not red states and listed, but we are. if you travel to different parts of the state of colorado, you find different in garments and different ways of looking at the same thing -- different environments and different ways of looking at the same thing. when you work for a station that is fox news -- i worked for fox 31 denver. we're not really affiliated with the network. there is a blurring of those lines. that is fine. when people come up to us and say we love watching fox, you just say thank you. when democrats come up to you and say, we do not watch your station, you say, well, really, we are not affiliated with that network.

[laughter] obama was here for a town hall back in 2009 with the health care debate. this was out in grand junction. there was a rope going into the high school. all left all the people who supported the president with their signs and there were yelling. on the right were all the conservative people who had anti-health care and anti-obama signs. they were yelling at each other across the street. it was a great symbol. but for us to drive through the street with a jeep that's as fox 31, it was great. they were banging on our window and you feel like you will get beat up here and you get cheered from folks on the other side. it is an awkward thing for a journalist or anyone who covers this, to do so in an objective, non-person, non-biased way. -- not as partisan, non-biased way. -- non-partisan, non-biased way. i get e-mails from people who

say if it is typical fox news b.s. when they see our coverage and they think that we are "fair and balanced," meaning that we are skewed to the left. you try not to do that. you tried to cover both sides of the story. and sometimes it depends on the story. if we're telling the romney story, what he said and taking it out of context, we tried to at least say, look, we're not the ones taking this out of context. the obama people will take this out of context and that is why this is problematic. and it led -- and it lends itself to that character that he is a rich guy. it is fair to complain that

we're not really doing our job. on the flip side, romney and the super packed up and obama quote out of context. he was quoting john mccain. if we are going to take something like that that everybody is chattering about on twitter and is sort of rising to the surface and that is what people a ticking away from the speech, we do owe it to our audience to tell as complete a picture as possible in every case, regardless of whether we are focusing on the republican race or the president. >> i think this is interesting. the general proposition is that the media's too liberal. if that is the perception that somebody has, it probably indicates that they think the media is just to the left of them. it may mean that they are on

the right hand side and media is reporting something they don't like. i listen to radio stations that have commentators on them and it does not look like they are liberal media to me. i know there is media on both sides. but when i look at the press that bill clinton got or barack obama got, it does not look to me like the press is fawning over them. barack obama is basically, i believe, he stands accused in the media having destroyed the american economy. i think that is absurd. there are business cycles. we have always exaggerated the president's role however we are in a business cycle. i guess i will start by

rejecting the proposition that we have a liberal media. although i will say that maybe this is what mr. ambrose was referring to when he said that a large percentage of people in the media are liberal. i think the numbers are fairly strong that college-educated people tend to be more liberal than people who are not educated in college. >> unless they are educated here. [laughter] >> rick santorum takes from that the people should not go to college. i think that would be a mistake. i think that college education will be necessary to even more so in the future. i guess i will just go ahead and say that, whether you see the media as being level or not, it probably has to do more with

where your on the political spectrum than where the media is. although i know it has been repeated so many times that it now has a ring of truth to people here in the audience. but because something is repeated a huge number of times, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. >> this is a scientific study. let me say quickly that we started out with a partisan press in this country. one of the things that began to change it was the associated press. when you had a cooperative effort, it was necessary to quit taking political sides. if you wanted all these papers to get the right answer. there are other reasons for

that, too, such as mass distribution. and the gift of advertising. what has happened more recently is that papers have gone more and more to the interpretive side of things, which some of us feel has taken us back to the partisan press days and one of the things i mentioned earlier, but i would like to address -- and we will go to the audience. this is my last question. is theodore white's book which had this profound impact on the profession -- now we're discussing politics -- instead

of addressing so much the positions they're taking -- i agree that those groups have a few -- i follow politicians around, too -- you have all of this analysis. but why did they said? what was the ulterior motive? it seems to me that this is huge. you have so much of this now. i would like you to respond to that. do you find an overdose of interpretation, an overdose of what is the strategy, and not enough on what are the issues in this election, whether the stance is being taken? what about ronnie's tax proposal? what do you think of his -- what about romney's tax proposal? what you think of his income?

>> i completely agree with this comment. i think that the issues should be reported a lot more and the horse race should be reported a lot less. i watch the sunday news programs and they're supposed to be too boring for most people to watch. and to me, and they come to be all but two will win and how did romney did or how did gingrich do and how will he do on super tuesday. it really feels like soap opera information. there is almost no discussion about how they differ on issues and how those issues would affect the country. i completely agree with that. i guess what it is is that you

have to say to the american people or the media should say to the american people is that you have to eat your vegetables before you get your dessert. you may want to talk about the horse race and who is going to win and the soap opera aspects, but you also have to include some basic information that would be useful to the american people in making these decisions. during my political career, when discussion comes up over whether this it or it is that, the answer is almost always it is both. should you use your constituents' views or your own judgment and your own information when you are running the legislature? the answer is that it is both. should you put the sensational stuff on the front page, the murder or the sex scandal, and put the tax policy at the back of the paper or not at all? you should do both. and for the media, they have to make a living. that is true.

but we have a first amendment which gives extraordinary protection to the media and they have some responsibility just besides making a profit, which is to educate the american people. i like the comment there to be boring. i think there needs to be a little bit more substance. >> on tv, i would love to see more substance. but if i offer any more, i will just get fired. [laughter] that is the reality of the situation. we look at all of these things that come up, whether romney is laying out a 15-point economic plan or if her mccain has this nine-nine-nine plan -- we did a story on the herman cain plan not knowing that he would not stick it out. we should have focused more on romney. that was a wasted time.

all politics is a vegetable to tv news. but this is lima beans sometimes. [laughter] that is hard to sell an audience on. but you are right. we should remember that those are important things and that is what people need to make up their minds and to be well- informed. >> i am so glad you brought up the founding of the ap and the early days of biased journalism -- the early days of non-biased journalism. they got together and said that you have this level newspaper and i have is conservative newspaper and really have as one reporter and we need to tell them what to write.

the most number of arrivals on that story and this 9-9-9 or making fun of somebody or a quote out of context, if it gets people to look at the pampers add or the capitol one ad, you're not just consuming the media, but all these messages from someone who has an interest in consuming these messages. i do think we may go back, not entirely, but trend back towards partisan news gathering and partisan commentary. why are they telling me this? is it because it is good for me or is it because they wanted to turn the pages and look at the ads? >> one of the concerns i see is

that trend. we are seeing especially it in the online space and lot more news organizations that are not funded by advertising revenue. they are funded by an ideological agenda. you have the huffington post and political better getting the vast majority of their funding not from advertising, but from a left-leaning interest that are providing the investment dollars. >> we're left-leaning, is that your example? >> is an example. there are also those that are funded from a conservative perspective. for a lot of conservatives today, to be very candid, whether it is a drudge or breitbart, a lot of the funding for that was not done by ad revenue, but by investors who wanted more of an ideological perspective.

that can be problematic. but at the same time, we have to know where the biases are coming from. i think it is problematic from the perspective of a consumer where the only source we're getting our news from is breitbart or drudge vs. huffington post. at the more traditional news media plays an incredibly important role. keeping that fire wall between the business side of the media and the news and the coverage side. but if we are to recognize that we are talking about the right of free press, the right of free speech -- every right has to have a corresponding duty and that duty is living up to the obligations of a fair and impartial and providing in context the media for the public to be able to make their own

conclusions. i would like to see as their way from the notion of having all the sunday talk shows or even the 10:00 news be so full of commentary and analysis. but the commentary an all-out -- an analysis happen by people talking around the water cooler the following day. get the news out and let people make their own judgment. >> when people watch tv ads, i do not think they read the fine print at the bottom of the ad. people do not look at their news when they take new zinn and think about who is funding this website or who owns this tv station or this newspaper. what is the publishers' interest? i do nothing to many people think about that. there is the blurring of the lines. that makes it harder for traditional media sometimes to break through. sometimes, we have so many voices out there, what breaks through is who is talking allow august.

you see that reflected on tv and the cable news ward. the most profitable network is fox news. msnbc has become increasingly profitable by becoming a leftwing counterbalanced to that. by focusing -- and you see this in terms of the stories the cover -- fox news is concerned with things that msnbc has never even mentioned. it is profitable. it is profitable to talk to one audience and not worry about the other and build a strong audience. that is part of the problem. it is all media and it is all mainstream media, but there is definitely a blurring of those ones that make it harder for those of us trying to keep that flag planted to do objective, straight-down-the-middle stuff. >> i have already had one hand raised. please wait until they put the microphone over.

you got him? go ahead, please. >> i have a unique take. i spent 35 years inside a newsroom, even though i was reporting weather. i got to watch the news and i got to watch something different back in the 1970's vs. today. 1980's,the 1970's and when i was in the business, it was cbs, cbs, nbc, and a little bit of pbs. now we have all the other idiots. i have read left turns of the have been in there myself. the majority of reporters are on the liberal side. sorry, can, but they really are. to answer the question over whether they show their bias -- they do not think they show their bias.

we would sit and watch all of the other tv stations and see what they were reporting on. today, what is going on is that the major networks are watching what they're other major networks are reporting on, not what facts and -- not with fox and msnbc and some of the other ones are. that is why you and of seeing the same things a lot of times on abc, cbs, and nbc that you see so different on fox. they do not think, as bernie goldberg would say, they do not sit there and specifically said let's put our left wing spin on this, but they do because that is who they are. the people at box do what they do because that is who they are. but i do not think either one of them spend as much time as they should looking at what the other side is doing. unless you're watching both, as

a viewer, you don't get to see both sides of the story. i think that is issue #one that i would like you to address. i will make this other one a lot quicker. one of the things that happened back in the 1960's and the 1970's when you watch the news is that one of the most popular parts of the newscast was commentary. today, there is no commentary in the news. there is a lot of, well, we want to try to reported as much as possible, but why not have something, like, if we report on herman cain's 9-9-9 plan, let's ask somebody who talks about what they think is good about that or somebody that they don't, versus just -- or somebody who thinks the planned sox for that matter, but at least -- the plan sucks for that matter, but at least has an opinion.

>> when i was younger, again, nbc, cbs, abc, walter, cried and stuff like that -- everybody watched those shows, whether your on the left or the right. now people do not watch the same news. the people who watch fox news, for instance, i think that fast and furious is the big story. people on msnbc think it is something else. it increases the polarization of the country. i think the country is much more polarized than it used to be. what i have seen is that people who get elected to office these days because there are elected in partisan primaries in six districts, they do not think that the of the site is wrong. they think that the other side is evil. it is hard to work with people you think are evil.

in fact, we see the congress and state legislators do not work together. since we're talking about what the media could do, i think that action could be something that the media could do. zero natural in making the united states more polarized -- all in the its role in making united states more polarized in order to make more dollars. i have been invited as well as ryan, to some extent, john made an effort to balance the panel. i think it is a serious problem and the media should not just say, it is good because we can make more money. they should show some social responsibility and reduce the partisanship. >> polarization may not be the objective? -- might not be the objective of the news media. >> both are seen as making

money. if you come from an ideological foundation, where your funding comes from and why are you telling happened yesterday. is there a reason? >> you do not believe that most reporters are most newspapers in this country would absolutely quit and create a storm and go out and write a story from an advertiser's point of view? i cannot imagine doing that. no one i have ever met would ever do that. >> i do not think that is what she was saying. >> but we are very much asked to write with people read about. so they want stories that are more popular, what gets more clicks on a website, what gets for it the most, what gets talked about the most.

>> is the public always done? you know the best selling newspaper in this country is "the new york times." >> for eight years, i had ryan's job in new mexico. every election cycle, a big story that came out was low voter turnout. so, kristin, your colleagues in santa fe contacted me and said what are you doing to increase turnout? of course, we were doing just what ryan does, which is fine debt to our supporters were and getting turnout among them. no, they said, just increasing turnout. i believe that the people who do not turn out are the people who do not care enough to have paid attention to what is going on. so i will not lift a finger to get one of them to the press. so i am saying that you can lead a horse to water and not make him drink argument is

absolutely right. you are in a business. so my question is, particularly to kristin and eli, dns dummy out there in the media that has done a good -- do you know someone else there in the media that has a good job rather than just going through the motions for those who will pay attention. who is really grabbing them and holding their attention? if the answer is no one, then that is fine. but i would like to know an example that we could hold up for some praise and see if we can improve the public interest in getting information. >> this may be controversial or like -- locally, "the devore post" does the best job of making politics emphasized and putting it in a place that

you're looking for. not everybody can seek out political coverage for public affairs coverage. i am not just saying that because "the rocky mountain news" went away. anyone committed to doing it -- i will beat my own chest and say that our station does the best job of this on a daily basis and putting the stories out there. you'll like it to every story. but you try to be consistent. you try to inform the public. you try to show what is going on. what is being debated, was actually happening so that people, if they're interested, they can find it. maybe it is a low bar. but anybody engaging in these issues come anybody who is writing or blogging are at least putting these stories out there where people can find them. that is an important step.

i think anybody who's doing this work is contributing to the conversation. on a given day when you sit there and used director quarter feed or a blog, there are a lot of different stories out there. and for a post that only has five people covering it, you will not cover everything. if you are engaged in this community, there are enough places to go to find coverage and i think it is up to citizens' to not just vote with their remote, but to be engaged with news reporters at the newspaper and everybody and say, hey, why are you not covering this? if there is something we are missing, let us know. >> we could go further with this panel and i wish we could, but i want you to thank them. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] while alabama and mississippi hold their primaries tomorrow, mitt romney was an alabama for a rally. that is the only scheduled stop for him today. rick santorum will be spending the first part of the day in mississippi and go to alabama in the afternoon. newt gingrich has also started the day in mississippi. ron paul has no campaign events today. the alabama republican party will hold a candle at a forum in birmingham late this afternoon.

newt gingrich and rick santorum will be there. it starts at 6:30 p.m. eastern. we will be there for tomorrow's primary results also on c-span. the u.s. senate is to get it today. it will resume discussion of the transportation bill. senators are still negotiating over amendments. live coverage is at 2:00 eastern on c-span2. >> i hope that as we move forward in this world, there are a number of problems that we have to resolve. problems of genocide, problems that are growing, a growing problem with iran. we have a lot of problems to deal with. i think the diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne who passed away this week was the

first african-american to serve the house from new jersey. elected in 1988, he was the former head of the congressional black caucus. watch his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances all archived and searchable on line at the c- span2 video library. -- at the c-span2 video library. >> we look at media coverage of the 2012 campaign. held this month, a gathering focusing on the media's role in politics. this portion holtz -- includes the denver post column editor. this is about 45 minutes. >> i do not know if anybody else shared with me the observation that, when one of the previous panelists said we need

conversations, not catch phrases, that sounded like a catch phrase to me. but in order to be evenhanded, i would say that, when i was told by bill o'reilly, that i was in the no spin his own, it put me on my guard. -- in the no spin zone, it put me on my guard. spin has become important in politics and journalism and not to our betterment. does anybody have a hustle to put on you? that is what we want to explore in the next panel. professor chris wheeler and joined our faculty this year. i consider him a high draft

pick for your professional sports team. he did educational work in colorado springs for a number of years. he has a degree in political communications. his putting that were creating a debate team which we have never had before, which is already achieving competitive success in its debut year. chairman of our next panel, prof. chris leland. [applause] >> i had a student walked out of class the other day, meet me at all, and the first thing she said to me, she had a question, so i thought it would be about an exam workers are something. she said, "don't you feel guilty?" i said, "what you mean?" she was referring to the illustration i ended the class

with. i was a political speech writer, and in working for the national governors' association, there were opportunities to help newly seeded governors get their staffs ready for the state of the state, the major legislative 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 the speech. what she was referring to was the fact that i talked that day about the strategy we had any time the state of the state was given -- we would place in turns with key media personnel on key legislative leaders because we wanted to hear immediately after the speech what they were talking about. they at about 15 minutes to listen and they had to buzz back into the conference room to create the prepared address the governor would give in the press conference in about 30 minutes. what she was saying was very insightful. don't you feel guilty a but manipulating the information

we're getting? don't you feel guilty about playing the system? the concept that john just introduced with spin doctors and the idea of spin gets to a lot of this, what are their perspectives we are hearing from the public. i am excited to hear from our panelists and their expertise. if you would be willing to talk about their take on this concept of spin as you introduce yourselves. michael, let's start with you. >> my name is michael brown. i'm a former secretary of homeland security, director of fema, most famous for "heckuva job, brownie," quoted by george w. bush at one time. the thing that amazed me -- if you are going to go testify in front on progress -- in front of the congress, their testimony has gone through a rigorous

process with the department itself and the office of management and budget and back to the legislative affairs office and back to your desk. here is what you can say. that is the spin that people put on things with andd a great expa 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] >> alabama and mississippi have presidential primaries tomorrow. there are 90 delegates at stake. coming up this afternoon, the

alabama republican party will hold a candidates forum in birmingham with appearances by newt gingrich and rick santorum. live coverage begins at 6:30 p.m. eastern voters will cast votes in hawaii and american samoa. you can see the live coverage of those results on c-span and see the delegate count at c- span.org. so far, mitt romney has 454 delegates, compared with 107 for newt gingrich and 474 ron paul. 1144 delegates are needed to win the gop nomination. coming up this afternoon, we will be live with the japanese ambassador to the u.s. on the one-year anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that hit northern japan. those events triggered a crisis at the fukushima nuclear power plant. the cleanup could continue for decades. the ambassador will talk about

gov.'s handling of the crisis and the lessons learned but you can hear it starting at 1:30 eastern on c-span. >> at some point the federal government has to be able to say to a private business with infrastructure you have to meet a standard of defending yourself and defending the country. >> in the year 2010, the estimate is there were 3 billion cyber-attacks on private and government computer systems. 3 billion. this is a threat that is growing exponentially, and that we simply must address. >> senators joseph lieberman and susan collins, the chair and ranking member of the homeland security committee, discuss how their cybersecurity bill differs from other bills being considered this spring.

"the communicators," tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. congratulations to the winners of the studentcam competition. the theme was "the constitution and you." watch all the wedding videos on our website, studentcam.org, and join us in april as we showed the top 27 videos on c-span and talk to the winners on "washington journal." it looked now managed of political advertising. we hear from two democratic political operatives who are also co-authors of a book on the issue. they are among several speakers hosted by the new america foundation. it is about half an hour.

>> they are some of the archaeologists with coming up with some of the raw data. one of the things i learned in reading their fantastic book -- they by the authors of "we're with nobody." they just published this book, and they have been the beneficiaries of the highest, most of us stamp of approval in washington, d.c., having been on "bill daley show" this week. congratulations. -- "daily show" this week. congratulations.

michael has worked as a journalist in texas and mississippi, director of two occasions and political adviser for the office of the mayor of the city of jackson, and he has been a political adviser to the attorney general of mississippi. alan has worked as a farmer, newspaper reporter, aide the mississippi attorney general and mississippi governor bridge we are pleased to have you both. michael and alan will give a short presentation and we will continue the conversation. >> first, and thank you for having us today. we are the guys who are out there digging up the dirt on the candidates. we don't have you ever long time. we are the guys you hired to go

out and tell you everything you need to know about the person you are running against. equally as important, to tell you everything you need to know about you. we don't win a lot of popularity contests, because sometimes the things we find in our candidate are as damaging or worse than the guy we're running against. we will show you a couple of ads and explain how the stuff you see gets there. you watched these things today probably with it and i then we do but we're not looking at all the great music and images and voices. we're looking at the sites, to see where the information came from, if he's convinced gave you the information. >> the u.s. supreme court will

decide about health care, as it should. simpsonhas steve's been up to? he spent $72,000, including 22 trips, took a state-owned rv met for disaster relief to nascar race. >> this is steve simpson. this is his yacht. the same year he bought it, he failed to pay property taxes. they put a lien on his house. buying a yacht? as public safety commissioner, he took a pay raise to 100 to the $8,000 while cutting the state highway budgets. steve simpson, living it up at

our expense. >> obviously, a lot of-the heat to desperate we never had an opponent with this many negatives to him. it just kept going. what happens is that these commercials are based on information that we had put together at beginning of the campaign. they were sent to the pollster. politics is a very defined process ideally. they tested and see what resonates with voters and it goes to the media guys. know't know if you guys bill or jay, but they did the ads. there is one that jibes with

what we give them in the report. the scripps come back to see if those are accurate. we take the report and distilled into a 30- ward 60-second spot. every word in those spots is a story unto itself. you have to be so careful to those things to make sure it is not getting distorted. we knew we were going to use. but anybody who understands campaigns knows that they are incredibly fluid. . most of the work was done in these ads were produced, but in july, and like i said, this campaign we got through it in november. in july there was a newspaper article from thabout a priest wd been murdered. we looked at that and said, you know, our guy used to be a judge

on the coast. let's check it out and see if there is any connection with this guy who had been arrested before. we look at the records, and it turns out that our judge, mr. simpson, had seen in individual who killed a priest, come to was court on a child molestation charge. he could have given him 14 years. he gave him one. he gets out of jail. because he is out of jail, he had the opportunity to kill a catholic priest. this happens in the middle of a campaign. you hate to say this is like christmas -- [laughter] you don't get these things very often. you don't get those willie hortons very often. to continue the story, we were not going to use it. we had so much already, and our

candidate was afraid of the blowback of using this. we were talking about a murder, and we had information on this guy two factors changed that. just so you guys know how these things go on and know that it is not a willy-nilly process. our candidate was and still is the only statewide democrat left in mississippi, ok? this election year, we were going through a lot of change. republicans were mounting and a credible campaign to take both houses. we were worried, because we did not understand what impact on our race was going to be, even though our guide was a very popular. you can just run on your record. we were worried about that. that was one thing, and we had considered that. two weeks out from the election, we got a call from a newspaper

reporter asking us to respond to this incredibly outlandish charge against our candidate about misappropriating, spending money that no basis in fact to it. i remember sitting in that campaign meeting and talking to everybody about it and finally, the decision was made, you know what? let's just do this and make sure this is over with. two weeks out -- i don't have that ad to show you, but we did produce an ad talking about the priest and the judge, and we want with 33% of the republican vote, pretty unheard of in a republican state like mississippi. the work we do ends up on tv. we traveled the country and work on many congressional campaigns, research projects from

presidential appointments all the way down to local school boards. without the things that we do, you would not have -- you could still have, but you would have less documented, factual information to go with. the way we operate, if we can not chase appease the paper down and give it to them, it is useless to us. some of them he would not take seriously, some of them have good information. even though it may give us the information, if we cannot go somewhere and support that with documentation, you not doing anybody a service, and the blowback from that can be worse than it would have been. you have to be careful on that. i will turn it over to alan, because most of you have questions about the crazy things we do. alan has another one with a

segue to the current residential campaign. >> listening to everybody talking about whether or not negative ads are good or bad, i realize that we are kind of outside the margin -- in the margin, i guess, with that, because our basic premise is that no one is fit to rule unless proven otherwise. that is like what we do for a living. we are kind of negative by nature. michael kind of gets on my nerves. the feeling is mutual. that is the way we roll. we are looking for what is wrong. if any of you saw us on "the daily show," one of the questions jon stewart asked us is who is below us on the political hierarchy? hmm, there were guys harassing

us in a pickup truck. we did not bring that up, because we are pretty much on the bottom level in that regard. we are out there gathering information. if you are running for office, we want to know your strengths, sure, but we really want to know your weaknesses. strengths are great, but witnesses can be devastating -- weaknesses can be devastating. we look at our own candidates the same way. we don't win a popularity contest because of that i. sometimes we see that our candidate is the worst of the two. it is is disconcerting he threw a pipe bomb at a homecoming float when he was in high school, and he is your guy -- as happened to us. we go out in the country looking for those things.

the reason we decided to write the book was two reasons. one was we have this vantage point that no one else has, exactly. we go everywhere. we are in some old courthouse in kansas one day, then we are in washington the next. we felt like we had a lot of really good stories to tell. that is why we started talking about writing a book. if you can imagine over 18 years wandering the country, behind the scenes in politics. the other reason is -- when we look at these ads -- someone made a statement earlier that it is not the media's role to question if there is truthfulness to these ads. that bothers us. it is fine to be negative, but you need to know when you watch

an ad if there's anything underlying eight. often there isn't. that really distresses us. they are somewhat slicker and impressive. we were on fox news last week. they showed some ads and had us critique them. the one that stuck with me -- i don't know what it was about, to tell you the truth, but it was really impressive. great graphics, really cool music. really an impressive ad. i had no idea if there was underlying documentation. one of the things we want it to do with the book is show people that it is still possible to know what the truth is. we're not trying to be lofty and put ourselves out there as finders fo the t -- >of the truth, but that is what we do, really. we want everybody to do it. we want everybody to do it.