to the other posting banks, as opposed to libor is high, which means the absolute level. we had two different events. we had barclays of the high level, belted to the other firms, then the reduction in libor based on the good news in the market, part of which was the fund raising at barclays. >> thank you've talked about setting up in 1998. you have come to it having been global head of fixed income and before that at morgan stanley. how long had you been in the debt markets before you arrived at barclays? >> i think my first position at morgan stanley was money markets which was the same as

1981 or 1982. >> so at least seven years -- 17 years, excuse me. >> your at barclays at that time, to. shared some time. >> tell me about your experiences in markets. you had been in the derivatives markets? >> no derivative person would ever consider may a derivative person. i am able for that's all i was markham -- i was markets. one was actively involved before it was in management, i was in the cash markets or the money markets. >> also markets that were funded of those blood bond markets? >> yes. mostly u.s. treasuries or

european governments or japanese governments. >> in other words, when you arrived to set up barcap you have been living and breathing this for 17 years. >> the fixed-income government markets. >> the opportunity was to use the barclays treasury function to set up banking that use your ideas and experiences as you wanted? >> i would have said it slightly differently but there was an opportunity at barclays. barclays at that time was more of a u.k.-focused as opposed to international. >> i think i heard you saying that it was a sub-scale hiring

people and did not pay them very much. the opportunity to change those things must have been exciting. >> they have scaled in the u.k. but it was impacting their ability to expand internationally. >> when you set up barcap, you are responsible directly for creating senior staff deciding which products you're focused on and markets around the world? those would have fallen under your experience? >> we would have gone to the board on any new projects or regions but i would have been in charge of that. >> did you run it on a very hands-off basis or did you give people a free rein ? >> i think my management style,

it says mr. askin, at the time was to have -- if that's what you are asking, was to have the representatives of the things reported to me. i certainly preferred a consensus style of management that we could agree a bridge -- we could agree on the right decisions instead of me making all those decisions. if that's what you are asking. people would have considered it more centralized rather than less centralized. >> that makes sense. i just wanted to establish that you have a high level of the military at the bank. -- a high level of experience at the bank. >> in the gilt market even today, some of the people have been here 25 or 30 years in

money markets because barkley's had such a rich and strong tradition in that market that many of those people have been there for quite awhile. conversely, as we began operating in areas we did not have much of an operation, it would be typically people hired from the outside. >> so there would have been people in the bank dealing with the bank of england. senior management also treasury people in different parts of the bag. what other parts would deal with the bank of england? >> it would of started with the group treasury. patrick perry was the group treasurer reporting there. all of the group funding which was sometimes executed -- the execution was done through the markets of the government's and the decisions of treasury. one executive had been with the

firm and had the closest relationship with the bank of england in our gilt age operation. >> tell me about your relationship with the bank of england. do you think the bank was slow to respond to the crisis in 2007-2008? does this little lie behind these concerns? >> no, i don't. relative to other banks, one of the best decisions we made at barclays -- if i look over the financial crisis and ask myself what is the single best decision the barclays got right, i think it was when it was clear of october, 2008 that cfsa had made decisions for all banks to carry more capital. soon after, it nationalized

lloyd's, that had been arranged. this 62 billion pound loan had been arranged for hboss think after the announcement of the deal but before the completion of the deal. we raise capital privately with all those things going on in the market. >> i'm talking about the bank of england. >> sorry. >> was the bank of england slow to respond? >> there are many different levels of response. being a market practitioner, we always wanted as much response as we could get from the big central banks in terms of money market conditions. recall it specifically. >> living and breathing the debt markets, you would have seen the operations.

>> i think the fed took the lead. i understand where you're going. i would not have called a critical but we were working with encouraging more activity with the bank of england in terms of the money market. >> my point is whether or not the bank of england's response put unnecessary strain on barclays as well as other banks and if so, that might have made the crash worse and created adverse behavior? >> when we look back, jesse, it would be fair for me to say that barclays, for a host of reasons, tradition, quality of the brand name, the fact that we had a balance of funding coming from around the world so we had

central bank deposits from central bank of japan, china, we had access to funding that was different in many banks. we had a credit rating that was strong, a balance sheet -- >> i was talking about the bank of england adequately supporting you. >> i don't that was an issue for us. our access to money markets and access to funds, would have categorized it relative to the other banks not just headquartered in the u.k. but other global bags was right at the very top in terms of our access to liquidity and funding. >> see you did not have to make asset sales. >> we had to make sales of securities. it was more based on not that we could get the funding but based on the fact that they would deteriorate in value.

i don't want to overstated because the market was in turmoil but relative to the other banks have relative to our need to fund, the bank of england and the fed would also say that barclays was in a good position in funding. >> you are watching the barclays balance sheet like a hawk. you see when is the right moment to come into the market. >> no, i was not day to day on the desk at all or when he came into the market, no. >> you would be forward looking? >> i would have had a report if we had a common problem. >> can we go back to the file note of your call?

he said in answer to the chairman that you thought the senior figures refer to were officials in the government and later on you said members of the government. which do you believe? who do you think they were? >> i would only be speculated if i told you i thought they were and i don't think it is a proper to speculate. my recollection is paul did not refer to he was mentioning. >> would you think he could be referring to, a department? >> senior people? >> are you aware that the bbc was told that libor was a concern? >> someone told me this morning that there was something in the paper about libor and i have not had a chance to look at it. it is relatively new to me by her references morning. >> prior to the phone call with paul tucker, did you have any other discussions with ministers

or officials or the bank of england? >> the treaty was involved and the recapitalization of the banks in the u.k. keep in mind that in october of 2008, i had just moved to new york following the decision that the board made to acquire the u.s. business of lehman brothers. i moved back to new york in that september. john was the ceo. john and i worked well in terms of who had a primary and secondary responsibility and he was doing most of the communication for treaty but oftentimes, a treaty with ask to see me as well. i think those would have been people on the list, not markets. i would see them far less than john but i would see them from

time to time. >> so there where discussions immediately prior to the 29th of october? >> i'm not sure. i would think there might have been. we were not being recapitalized. we were doing it privately. sorry, i can give a better answer -- i do think at that time, it was primarily being driven by john so i was hearing from him about his meetings with treaty but i want to be clear that from time to time, i would seek her as well and it would be after this time. >> were you shocked when you wrote this file notes that in effect senior figures in the

government, officials or ministers, might have been asking you to fiddle with the libor? >> my reaction to that note was appreciation of paul tucker in doing his job. he was trying to tell me that there are ministers in whitehall who are here in the barclays is always high. that could lead to the impression that you are not finding yourself and that's why i took so long to walk through earlier. my first reaction was that you have to get to whitehall there you have to make sure they know we are funding fine. it is adequately. we have an equity issue about to settle in two days. we are raising 6.7 billion pounds of capital and a number british banks had just taken capital from the government. this a very, very pressurized situation. i would not have used the word shocked but this is probably a momentous week in the history of

barclays and in the history of the financial markets. >> but the fact of what you have written down here is that the ministers or officials were in effect asking you to fill your submission. >> i did not believe that, now. >> what did you think they were trying to do? that's what says here, isn't it? it did not be the case that we appeared as high as we were recently down is not the first conversation i had with paul about relative level of libor. i would not say it is exactly those words but barclays had consistently been at the high end during the financial crisis and i was worried, if i can be perfectly frank, you will see what i sent back to john. i am paraphrasing but i said did you explain to the minister's the real story which is that other banks are posting rates below ours and yet not borrowing

money at those rates? it is not that our rates are wrong. we are worried, and i can see this but i did not know this to be true but i was worried looking at that the other banks -- this is why, michael, i have gone to such pains to say this. we have banks with secret loans. with banks that were be nationalized. we have banks in germany that were struggling. by the way, i'm not talking about deutsche bank but west lv was struggling at the time so banks were posting levels below hours and did not seem to be right. if this was going to lead to an impact in our ability to raise equity and the market, this was at the core banking. this is at the core of funding. >this is a huge issue. >> you discussed earlier. are their notes from other meetings? >> not that we have located. that's unusual, not that we know of. >> let me turn to the lack of an

instruction to jerrry del messier. he concluded that an instruction had been passed from the bank not to keep the libor so high and therefore passed down the direction to that effect to the submitors. you see him every day, how did he misconstrue the purpose of this phone call? how did that happen? >> you read the note and i think the chairman said he misconstrued as. gerry has been very honest that there was a misunderstanding on this communication between the communication of the bank of england down and he was the person that instructed. while i was not aware of that, i think it is important to put it in the context of what actually happened and i would refer you

back to the same pages in october and november. if you look at the impact on our rate of libor relative to the others, we never moved into the submission territory. the top four rates are excluded from the submission. it was wrong. it was pressure put a libor assessors but it did not change the published libor rate. it changed our submission but we were still one of the excluded rates. >> i understand all that. i want to know how did jerry del missier get this wrong when you're just talking to him? how did he not understand this was an instruction from the bank or the authorities? >> i cannot put myself in his shoes. cfsa is part of the three regulatory agencies that have

worked with barclays for three years. in addition to this report, they also did an individual investigation of jerry. their conclusion was to clear him that was a miscommunication or misunderstanding. jerry was cleared by cfsa -- i may be using the wrong word, but during this time, the fisa separate from this investigation investigated jerry and said it is a miscommunication or misunderstanding. it is not something that fisa will act on. when i was aware of this, i talked to the fisa to confirm that was their conclusion. the'm going to turn to department of justice on page 42 which refers to general concern amongst your a police -- among store employees that they want to find a solution for barclays

to submit honest rates without affecting other members of the panel. they fell barclays could achieve that with other banks on those rates. were you aware of that argument that your submitters or having? >> i am aware post- investigation. on page 7, there's a chart of how many times people at barclays discussed with the fsa, the bba, the fed, and the bank of england that we were worried that although we were posting rates, there was a worry that others may not be posting rates at the level where transactions could occur. i think it is an important part of this overall discussion.

these are issues that were brought up with the regulators consistently over a number of years. one of the reasons they had not been apparent in earlier years was it took the credit card division to explode the difference between one bank's rates and other banks raised before a very long time. rates were so tight and there was so much liquidity in the market that of someone was a little bit off, it did not show as much. it exacerbated the impact. >> my question was whether you and the senior people were aware that your employees were having this argument. you were not aware of that? >> no. >> it goes on to say that these communications were not intended as disclosures through which barclays self-reported to the authorities. should you not have been aware of that? >> let me get to the exact spot so in a weird is.

which page is that? >> page 42. >> department of justice? recall and i know this because of the investigation but i was not aware of it at the time -- there was a meeting to discuss this between the compliance head of barclays and the fisa and the report back was to carry on. >> not aware of that? >> i was not. it was being in the pack as opposed to being at the top. >> bear in mind how important the rate was to barclays, what does it say about the management that you were not aware of these discussions? >> chairman, i think by putting context of three things we're dealing with with the trader

misconduct, as soon as that was identified, an investigation -- >> and talk about the investigation at the time rather than going all the way back to square one and going through these three separate entities -- why when discuss serious did you relent? >> it was not brought to that level. there were ongoing meetings at level below that. >> why not? what was wrong with barclays that something so important was not reported up? >> i think there was a feeling that it had been resolved. was there a general understanding? i want to make sure which question you're asking. the question of whether there were firms that were not reporting levels? i can >> q answered the question. >> on page 3 of the fsx, is

says barclays acted inappropriately on numerous occasions. between september 2007 and may 2009 they made libor concessions. i will use the short hand. the fsa says on page 3 that senior management posts concerns about what other banks are doing and perhaps not telling the truth, the concerns resulted in instruction being given by managers of barclays to reduce libor submissions to avoid negative media and comment. this is going on well before the 29th of october, 2008. can you tell us when you discovered that this lowball

and activity was going on? >> during the investigation. >> you didn't know that this was going on when you spoke to mr. tucker on the 29th of october, 28 -- 2008? >> no, i was on aware. been before the investigation. >> you discovered during the investigation, what month? >> two things happened -- soon after the credit crisis in 2009, there was a request that came in from the cftc to investigate. i may be using the wrong word but they want to study. it was during that when both

the situation of the credit crisis was part of what i was learning going through the investigation. >> give me an approximate date when you discovered this lowball and which is the subject of the fsa memo. that is one of the reasons why you have lost your job. when did discover this was going on? ">> the findings of the investigation of the things i learned as a witness -- came to meet four or five days before they were published. i was not alone in this but other members of management because of the conversations we had been having as witnesses were not over the chinese law so my job is to make sure we have the investigation going on. give me a date.

>> this month that as late as this month? why on the earth did you not know this was going on on your watch? >> these are important questions. the appeal of the 2007-2008 using the same charts we all have, in almost 90% of the cases -- >> you've made that point. we don't need to repeat that. it was high relative to other banks but the fact remains that the fsa said that was still a breach of principle. you accept that?

>> yes. can i make one quick comment? the reports that came to me daily were the rates of blood or not the relative rate in the -- rate of libor white did not to follow up appropriately? -- why did you not follow appropriately? after words? you had no discussions from the copy the email. >> this was not the first time jerry and i had discussions -- >> on the 30th of october -- had a misunderstanding.

about this? >> i have no separate recollection. >> what did you say after you copied him on that e-mail text it was clear he had a misunderstanding of what was required. he said that, didn't you? >> yes. >> what discussion did to have with them about your conversation? >> about the contents of the note that i was on aware that

jerry had the impression that the conversation i had with paul was an obstruction. i was not aware. >> argue under -- are you under investigation as the former chief executive of barclays text are you under any criminal investigation by the fsa, teh states government? >> i'm not. >> do you think a criminal investigation would be necessary deterrent for bankers who are wrongdoing?

for the regulators. >> i'm asking you. you have been through the mill given that you're talking about the culture, you have quite a lot to say about role of banking in our society. do you think the role of banking, should have a more punitive regime? >> i think things should be dealt with harshly. we should go through a process ourselves of dealing harshly with people. david, when i got the results of this investigation and it was

because of the interviews, i was broadly aware that things are coming out. i got physically ill. it is reprehensible behavior and you are asking me if those actions should be dealt with, absolutely. investigation that there was specific actions, it was dealt with at the time. the investigation. there were times during the investigation where was clear and due process was important. that behavior was reprehensible. it was wrong. i'm sorry, i am disappointed and i am also angry. there is absolutely no excuse for the behavior that was exhibited in those activities

in the types of vehicles that were written. there are a lot of people at barclays who are really angry about this. this is wrong. i am not happy about it. we put all the resources we could to make sure the people were dealt with with regulators in terms of anything we could do in that regard. this does not represent the barclays that i know and i love that it does not represent the work of 140,000 people who work day in and day out for their clients and customers. we have to be very careful knowing about this was the barclays also got on top of it. there is no limit to the fundsit was wrong.

for the country? do you agree? i was not aware of that -- for the country. >> i love barclays and i will not speculate anything -- on anything else. for 25 years, i have been part of the financial services industries and have developed relationships. i love my time here. this is a great place to work. the fourth of july. there's a very unusual filed note. do you understand our skepticism that even though you

talk to del messier every day that you did not clear this misunderstanding up? >> you said we had to worry banks. there is a fear of looking for major banks to nationalize. time. >> that's what you said. you said we had to worry about this because the government was nationalizing banks. did you really think they're looking to nationalize the bank of barclays. >> of a not referring to the

chancellor. >> you said the first you knew that david ask you about phase three, is that the first time you had any activities you know two? anything was going on in your back of that nature? -- bank of that nature? acting on behalf of barclays but themselves.

it is unclear whether it benefited barclays. >> let me take phase one where they were actually cheating pensioners, pension funds, cheating the public, cheating investors. you did not know anything about that but get the regulator can document a trader sitting with a said mr. and shouting across the room "this is the rate we're going to declare. does anybody have a problem with that?" i don't expect you to look at all the e-mails but did you run such a firm that nobody in the firm would think that is

something the boss should know? of the bank. >> this is reprehensible behavior. running? you are now out of a job because of the attack on the integrity of the bank and that was the behavior. there was nobody in your firm one that was happening openly with traders that came to you and said you are going to have to watch this? >> this came to light during the investigation. the organization said we have a problem and have to fix it. >> that doesn't wash. the real worry that you should

have is how were you running that affirmed that the staff did not have the confidence of the interest of the intelligence to make the boss aware. >> none of this i became aware of until the investigation. >> what about phase two? senior management in september 2007, had high levels within barclays and expected concerns over negative publicity. their concerns in turn resulted in obstruct -- instructions given to less senior managers. who do we describe as senior

management? those? >> my understanding from the report -- ." >> now have had three years to find out who the hell or these people, >> it was people in the group treasury. >> right, and it would not think to tell you -- and they would not think to tell you?

necessarily -- >> why didn't they tell you? >> at the time, i was responsible for the investment bank, the asset management business, and the world business and i was not in the group. i am chief executive today but your question is right, this is wrong behavior and as soon as it came to light, it was addressed in this addendum way and i think the regulators have said this is an industry-wide problem. >> this is what the ordinary person out there would think. there were doing this and if you move on to face three, there was a conversation in october 2008 and your deputy misunderstands apparently what you said and and trucks as people to get the rate down -

they did not turn around and say to jerry they have been doing this for 80 months? -- 18 months? from. in october, 2008, i was not aware of the behavior going on. >> i'll go through it again. on the 29th of october, 2008, you had a conversation that you spoke to jerry at the house and there's a misunderstanding to get the rates down. what i am asking is, what kind of organization are you running? why didn't somebody turn around to him and he tell you and say they have been doing this for 18 months?

through 2007. conversation. that's what they're doing. there were doing it. >> the behavior was wrong. >> ok we know the behavior was wrong. >> keep in mind this is not changing libor rates. this was trying to influence -- it is wrong. >> when did john barley discover all this? if he had been in your seat now, he would be sacked. what did he know? when did he say we have a problem here?

>> charm and i were both were both witnesses so it was investigation to discuss. we had to put all of our resources behind investigation and find out what happened and eradicate it. i'm sorry to come back to it again but it is a sign of the culture at barclays that we were willing to be fast and, with this. two chief executives have been running the firm and doing fundamentally wrong things and you as senior management knew about it and you actually would not tell the cheap executor. is there any response?

that when we have a problem, as soon as it was known, we dealt with it. thing. now. does come out? doesn't the report says something about the culture at barclays? wrong.

>> you seem to have a parallel universe. you must realize how and rich people are at the criminality. you have been unapproachable. the traders did this for their own personal gain. this was lynch to profitability, what would you say to that? >> in terms of fact, what is the question? >> do you live in a parallel universe?

>> the behavior when a came out from 2005 to 2007, it is wrong, it is reprehensible. it makes me angry, it makes me disappointed and it puts a stent particularly coming out in this way on the organization. 14 traders, we have a couple of thousand traders -- >> i want to focus on the criminality. the cftc says it took place between 2005-2007. there are 173 separate record requests for information. when you say was a small group of traders, clearly, there was a significant amount of collusion going on.

the libor -- >> you answer that question? >> it is wrong. >> do you agree that this was not linked to a small group of individuals? this was more grant. what can you say about those individuals and the fact that they were incentivized to worry about the proper build -- profitability of their ownwhat does that say about the culture of barclays. >> it was wrong. as soon as we knew it, it was eradicated. and we discovered this, some

traders had already left and some left immediately. when it was clear that there was this behavior, it was dealt with immediately. >> how many? >> i can't change that. i understand there will be followed criminal investigations on certain individuals. is not up to us but we will not stand in the way. >> let's go to the process by which this activity happens between three banks. where did you sit during 2005? did you ever take part in the daily morning meeting? >> i don't recall that.

>> were the morning minutes taken at the morning meeting? >> of was not a part of the minutes of the morning meeting. it was done over the intercom. >> i think that is important because it would be interesting to see of what we would like libor to look like today came up. this investigation. it was a thorough investigation. >> that would be interesting to track down. whose job would it have been in the meeting room to look for criminal activity? whose function was a to be looking for criminal activity and how did they do that? >> it had to do with compliance. >> how would compliance see

evidence of criminal activity? >> and not sure they're looking for criminal activity but they were looking for people complying with rules and regulations. there is many ways. from technology, meetings, training of people, reviews of people, it is pervasive. >> they would have been in a position to say about this type of activity. >> they didn't. this did not get above the supervisor level. once we on covered it, we eradicated it and it was wrong. we did not get a report above the supervisory level anyone was involved. the second we did, the investigation was all over it and the behavior was stopped.

>> would that supervisor know and appreciate that falsifying libor is criminal? >> of course. >> they would have been aware of inflicted in this situation? where supervisors were aware in other cases where they were not. in the cases where they were aware, it would have been doubly clear. have compensation expended if we needed them. need the full testimony. the due process is going on as we speak. i don't want to leave any impression about how sorry i am

and how angry we are and disappointed we are. what i am saying in the context of barclays which is amazing institution that i love, there are people doing stuff for the communities, 140,000 clients and it is not ok for the traders to act as they did. >> i want to get to the attitude within the bank that allowed those traders to do what they did. you are saying every desk supervisor would be clear that falsifying libor wouldn't be -- would be criminal. what action would they be required to take if they knew something was going on that was wrong? what was the procedure at the time?

>> it was wrong. it was not reported. >> i'm trying to understand the procedure they did not follow. what was the actual procedure? >> i don't have the manual with me but i'm sure it would be reported to compliance and their boss. >> it would have been openly at required to raise that issue. it would be helpful to know who's they should raise the issues to and which part of the organization they would go through. compliance. in terms of a supervisor level, the responsibility to inform the law and the clients. >> effectively, you would confirm that these are people not doing their jobs.

>> in cases where that happened, they're not doing their job. it has been difficult to have some of these facts out there. it impacts the reputation. i also want the committee to understand that there are aspects of this which are industry-wide. i'm not blaming anyone. i blame it on the individuals. >> was the possibility of looking at other areas of the bank that could be suspect? >> i was gratified when i got the final report, very gratified, the fact that we did not wait to get to this report which recognized through the part of justice who says -- >> can you answer the question?

which other areas within the bank of new debt? >> it has been many years since this happened and you can imagine -- >> mr. diamond, are you concerned that the market has been fixed by market trades? have you examined other areas? >> that is part of our cycle, yes. >> as indeed with libor fixing? >> i think overall, yes. it was the behavior before the submission was brought in. >> in light of the fact that your audit fails to notice for several years that there was

fraud and corruption going on and very openly, heavy knows other areas that the bank to see if there are some things like that? >> of course. again. there would not be any merit into any further inquiries? >> no, i think the way to do that is to start with our controls and audit reports and of some was not happy with those, we could look further into that that is part of the overall process. this is not meant as an excuse but the behavior was at war and. -- abhorrent. i and understand the culture at barclays. the rate setters at barclays them have been there for 25-30

years. this was not something created recently. many of these people have been in their jobs for quite awhile. the second thing i would say is dead it was not preceded by the industry to be high risk. turnabout was for so many years. for years. >> i did not say that. the areas in the area of rate setting exploded in that time.

>> i'm talking about the criminality in the heyday before the financial crisis. individuals was -- or a miliaria just to become number one. -- were ameliorated just to become number one. will not defend that behavior. based on book. i will not disagree with you. the behavior was wrong. is no excuse.

>> you would say there was something wrong with the banking culture and industry? >> that is appropriate, given the financial crisis and what i've had to deal with in my short time as the chief executive. i think that there are aspects of the culture financial- services which are changing post-a financial crisis, and appropriately changing and evolving bad behavior is wrong in anytime, any age, any business. the context of people being rewarded more broadly for --

>> sorry to interrupt you, but can all of the problems you have had, like changes in regulation -- surely there is something much deeper than as a problem without banking industry. do you accept that? >> there are problems in the banking industry it that -- today one of the difficult things for bank chief executives is to recognize there were problems like ppi that happened many years ago for a period of time, but today you still have to fix it. the best we can do is recognize where the problems were, be completely transparent with regulators, understand what the impact was, learn from those mistakes -- >> but there is something more you could do -- you could join the calls for the merit of

having an independent investigation into the banking industry in this country. would you support that? >> my on opinion is that there is a lot of regulation, now, and it has heightened a tremendously post-crisis what we are trying to do is balance safe and sound banking with the jobs and economic growth and competitiveness around the world. i do feel that the level of regulation, the level of scrutiny is higher, the focus is fire. -- is higher. i looked back to the period of the crisis, when a regulation wasn't this strong, other institutions failed and this has been a burden -- >> you're talking about -- >> i think we have a better regulatory environment today, and i would favor of letting the tripartite --

>> i sympathize and support the goal of regulatory change, but there is something much deeper at work here, and really, that has to be ventilated. do you think there will be a positive result for the u.k. banking industry -- would we establish trust, confidence making it more transparent -- would that be of some benefit to the banking industry? >> it is a balance between what is done, who does it, what the results are, how intrusive it is, against is impacting our ability to do business with the customers? hard to give a simple answer, andrew. >> when the former chairman to resign, he let a statement out which says "the an acceptable standards of behavior within the bank have dealt a devastating reputation."lays'

do you accept that? >> i said in my opening that i think the actions announced last week -- even though this is part of something industry-wide, part of something that was many years shock, and with barclays right now being the only bank in the frame, it has even more pressure on barclays and has had more impact on its brand and reputation. the single biggest reason i stood out is that i have an obligation to 140,000 people who work extremely hard. everyone of our businesses in barclays -- >> i understand -- people impact the tremendous work that the people of barclays and do with their community and customers -- >> let me ask you, in terms of

the deferred bonus scheme for senior executives, anyone that does harm to barclays' reputation may be asked to forgo some of those deferred bonuses paid to you think that is appropriate in the circumstances, given that you agree that barclays' reputation has been harmed? >> certainly a question for the board. >> you offer comments in the press reports that the board is pressing you to give up -- you have heard comments at a press reports that the board is pressing it to give up future share rewards. >> i have a lot been -- i haven avid reader of

the press. >> sorry, you rather to my attention -- rather took my attention. the final payoff, as you leave barclays -- to you think there has to be -- [unintelligible] and what should be done to put it right in the future? >> i think the 16 years of my time at barclays were a time of immense pride. we have an episode we have to fix, and those are questions for the board. i have not asked them, nor has that been of interest to me in the last day or so. since i resign, my focus has been on preparing for today. >> did you spend time way back

when in the 1980's working amongst all the traders? >> yes. >> so you are familiar with that culture of being a dealer and a traitor? > -- trader? , yes.as a tradery >> did you is speculate with their colleagues how much easier it would be to -- e -- is would age m guess it doesn't, i wasn't pre- libor -- >> but an easier way of putting a better result of the end of the day -- >> nothing like that, no. >> never even speculated --

>> speculated about -- no, i didn't. >> easy question. the reason i ask to that -- asked that -- the organization -- >> i'm sorry? >> just looking for a little love. >> lines, audit trails, all the kind of stuff -- i am trying to get to the bottom of the compliance risk. usn quite a lot of time within this industry -- you had spent quite a lot of time within this industry, and with these individuals in their late 20s, early 30's, who were running these trading desks. what i am trying to get a sense of is whatever as you made it to

assess the compliance risks that were inherent in a separate organization -- in this type of organization, and how you established a trail and compliance structure that would take into account the risk you assessed working a way up through the ranks. >> um, compliance was taken very seriously. i got a report directly to my chief operating officer who had all these areas when i was chief executive of barclays -- >> remind you of the architect -- >> it was very important. part of the mismanagement function is to map of the technology and culture in place -- to have the technology and culture in place so things like this cannot happen. while this did not pose a financial risk, the behavior of these traders, -- i mean it when

i say that i was finally given all of the documents on the weekend before this became public, because -- it took me awhile to get them all down loaded. i was getting frustrated with my technology and getting them downloaded. i started going through it and i got to some of the e-mails. the culture was absolutely opposite of anything warranted. to your point, we talked about the no-jerk rule, serious in -- no-joke rule, serious in barclays that when people miss the of, they have to leav -- when people misbehave, they have to leave -- >> but you are in charge of any

bill that system, so you have to accept responsibility -- and you build of that system, so you have to accept responsibility. looking at how the rate-setters work, the july 4 submissions working for barclays banks, based in the lead in money- market debt, is that right? -- london money market debt, is that right? >> some of them were in new york. the rate setters were in london. >> working for barclays bank in london and at that money-market -- under the money market.

they are coming in, and the money market traders i try to make sure that the balance sheets -- >> fresh for would be doing that -- treasury would be doing that -- this is what we have to do to balance our books, when they said it raised 1 billion or sell 1 billion -- >> [unintelligible] money market that would then go out -- money-market debt would then go out -- you also have a profit and loss trading bloc -- >> separate. >> isn't it a large conflict of

interest that you have a group with the department of liquidity in the bank, and you have profit and loss in that department as well? >> they were separated. no overlap between those. >> same room? >> same floor? >> yes. these guys should have shouted across the room -- >> not quite a that -- >> could walk past a dealer taking a position would be able to know what it would be. >> group treasury has that information. >> in practical terms, the

trade -- they would write down the order -- to watch out and buy a half a billion of assets, -- go out and buy half a billion of assets and -- >> i'm not quite sure -- >> but you see what i am getting at, at the risk -- >> there was a separation -- i don't me to be holding out the questions -- >> within all of this, you have the libor -- they are looking at what they are trading, all the things that go into the libor rate. >> they are on the floor, in a

separate area. people can walk by -- >> it is a bit pally, isn't it? you have a trading desk running out proprietary position. you have and it's a kitchen best writing on behalf of the treasury department -- you have an execution desk writing on behalf of the treasury department. it is all about -- >> sorry, they would not have information on the positions of the group. >> it creates an image of compliance -- the other point about this is that we come back to the libor submitters, and this is something i've not been able to work out in my head. i could understand a hot headed idiot thinking it would be cool to send a bottle of champagne

and say, "can you fix libor for us?" why weren't those traders saying, "guys, you cannot do this, otherwise i will tell my boss"? >> some were, some weren't. >> some were saying -- >> somewhere excepting, some -- some were accepting, some weren't -- >> a we see this coming in -- but we see this coming in -- not 177 examples of going to the manager or

compliance officer and saying, "i think we have a problem," until 2007. why were the libor settings not a lifting the compliance department -- alerting compliance department? >> during this period, they were not, and it is inexcusable. >> during 2007, you get information -- the libor dealer emailed his supervisor to say that it was too high, we ought to move it down. he said, "my worry is that they seemed to be contributing false threats, and we are dishonest by definition. can we discuss this, please?"

that was in 2007. it was only then that we are seeing evidence that these rate-setters returning around and saying no. >> this came late to me during the investigation. if i am answering the wrong question, just tell me, but there was pressure from the group treasury in the 2007-2008 period, during the nine enterprises, and there was a recognition that what they -- during the financial crisis, and there was a recognition that what they were trying to do with the libor rate -- that was discussed -- >> we have got over that point a great deal. i am try to get to why the libor setting was so flawed.

paragraph 147 -- "barclays had no systems are processes until december 2009." you did not provide training for this mission is process -- for the submission process. paragraph 148 -- "barclays did not believe that libor was an area of a significant risk." getting this culture right, it is also in the middle of tfice - >> i agree with you. >> i cannot imagine why that wasn't the case. these are -- what has gone wrong

in there? >> i'm trying to disagree with your characterization of people, but i know what you mean. the rate setters have been with barclays 25, 30 years. they are some of our most senior staff to read clearly there were risks that no one understood. usually it is financial risks involved. to your point, the systems and controls, no excuses -- we started right away to get that improved. that is the area where i do feel good that the department of justice has been clear that we have a strong set of systems and controls in that are out now. we did not wait until the end of

investigations. it is improved. >> i have one last question. in 2007-2008, do you feel you were let down by the fsa, given the fact that you were, by this point, reporting what was going on? >> there is clear evidence brought out testimony that the federal reserve bank of new york, the bank of england, there were multiple, many-year, decisions initiated by people that -- many-year decisions initiated by people at barclays, and in the context of the financial crisis, there was an expose a in "the wall street

journal" about libor and the fact that people may not be reporting right. the rates that people borrow at average 36 basis points higher than the rates at which they were posting -- >> if we have time -- >> we cannot sit here and say that no one knew there was an issue libor in the industry. bloomberg to carry this story, "the wall street journal" carried this story, and on multiple occasions, barclays visited with the various regulators. im not -- i'm not going to blame this on anyone else. the behavior is our fault. chairman, i kiss difficult to say yes, but were we to sit -- chairman, it is difficult to say

yes, but were we disappointed -- >> they were wide awake. >> these traders were not acting on behalf of the banks, they were acting on behalf of themselves. or they rewarded for their efforts? >> i have to be clear that that was one of the factors that went into -- >> is that not part -- >> self-serving -- >> is that not part of the package? they were not stopping them, they were actually rewarding them for conduct? >> i would not say that .

we fell down in not -- >> so that there was race every year? -- so the pay was raised every year? >> whether it was for ego or compensation -- >> when the evaluations are made, profitability will be -- >> ah -- >> is that part of the appraisal? >> yes, behavior is an important part. as soon as we realize that, people were fired -- >> that is interesting, because the reports are not just financial. they are public windows of the world into the mindset of your organization. you would imagine that it mentions the word "risk" 1000

th hundred 34 -- once times.d 73 -- 1,734 is that how you want to present barclays to the world? >> you did a word search. to i believe that -- do i believe that integrity and values are important? you bet. they are a precondition for everything else. i don't care how smart you are or how hard you work. i was not aware of it at the time, but there was bad behavior. it was not bad behavior, it was reprehensible. >> you said it was reprehensible and it made you physically sick, and that it was a small number

of traders. what sort of professional development did they have? waterview was ever made of that? -- what review was ever made of that? you had people on the bank to be have been so badly that they made you sick -- you have people at the bank who behaved so badly that they made you sick. do you not as an employer have responsibility to make sure they have undergone proper personal development? >> yes. >> it is my understanding that

since november 2011, the fsa at all mobile phone communications recorded. the conversations in 2000 with the bank of england, would've they have been recorded -- conversations in 2008 with the bank of england, would they have been recorded? >> not to my knowledge. a call came to me in my office in new york. i am sure during the investigation, it would've heard of that. i have not heard a recording. do you regret that? one of your famous quotations -- "the evidence when they are taking calls --" [unintelligible] >> the traders did not be a very

well, no one was watching. -- did not behave very well, no one was watching. >> is that one of the reasons you resign? >> not this specific issue. i was responsible for barclays capital of the time, i was responsible until yesterday. that is given f -- different from personal culpability. i do feel a strong sense of responsibility that when we recognize it mistakes, we are open about them. we report them to the regulators and take action on the people. i know how angry it makes others, because it made me angry

that we had this behavior, but i am also very proud of barclays because state and were not worried about how this was going to look -- because they were not worried about how this was going to look. two of the most successful of large international law firms. >> how about the forensic exercises -- how much did that cost? >> the amount of money it spent on this investigation is about 100 million pounds. >> ethics in the forecast -- >> i'm not sure if that is the word used -- >> in the last three years, what

was actually done, specific actions, to rectify what is actually a cultural rot that led us here today? >> we focus on three categories. if you take the traders first and foremost, there is significant investment in the system and controls in this area. various areas -- upgraded compliance. we have a new head of compliance and people under them in the entire organization as part of ait. each individual involved in this -- we did not have to wait for the final investigation, then we acted.

there were some cases where we felt it would have been better to keep them working -- >> in january 2011, you said there was a period of remorse and apologies for the bank, and "i think it needs to be over." do you think it is? early part of 27. > i think -- early part of 2011. >> i think it came across in a way that was not meant -- banks have to be better citizens, and i was aware of is investe -- of this investigation -- we have to evolve the culture --

>> that is a long time, though. mr. diamond, given that you have grown up in banking, you have a meteoric rise, and yet you say the behavior of these people was so shocking in 80 physically sick -- it made you physically sick, and yet you spent your life in banking. surely the call should not come as a surprise to you -- the culture did not come as a price to you. > -- as a surprise to you. >> i think it is wrong. i am making no excuses. but the actions we took when we

found out, i think all of them were appropriate, including recognizing that we would be ahead of the pack in helping the regulators. we did not think the focus on this would be as intense in terms of potentially harming our reputation. one of the reasons i thought it was important to come here today -- barclays is an amazing place -- [unintelligible] >> you say you don't know anything that was going on. you keep saying, "i didn't know, i didn't know" -- >> i am saying more than that.

>> you also said that culture is how people behave when no one is watching. no one was watching, not even the compliance desk. you forgive us for thinking that there is something more widely wrong with the culture. >> i have taken such pains to go into the things we've done and put it into context, but i don't think i take it any moment are second to excuse to be a fair -- i've taken any moment or second to excuse the behavior. >> transaction reporting -- find millions of dollars for willingly and knowingly

violating international sanctions in cuba, iran. it had to pay 60 million pounds for selling risky investment products to older people. all that was before the issues we're talking about today. what do these repeated breaches of the law and regulations say about the culture? >> the periods were from quite a while and many of them were in areas i am not familiar with because i have not worked in those areas. we worked with the authorities and worked to get to solutions and the changes in place. [unintelligible]

we had ppi -- we had a number of them. there is no excuse for any of them, but many of these go back quite a period of time. one of the frustrations of keeping our organization positive today is that so many of these issues feel like -- it feels like this is correct behavior as opposed to behavior that was quite a while ago -- feels like this is current behavior as opposed to behavior that was quite a while ago. that does not excuse it, and we still have to go through the process. >> you said many, many times today that e-mails you saw from traders made you physically sick. that yourhe case

high-risk, sometimes high- reward investment bank called for help to give rise to that kind of risk taking -- helped to give rise to that kind of risk taking, and sits uneasily from what the public wants from banks, lending to small businesses and looking after people's savings? >> i think it is a fair question. in the period from 1997 mentioned, it is focused on its clients, and it has a track record in the business of compliance, consistency of earnings, risk-management. this is a horrible experience, but if you look at the track

record of barclays capital, consistency of earnings -- in areas like foreign exchange, barclays was not considered one of the top 25 by dissidents in that market in the world, -- not considered one of the top 25 participants in that market in the world, and today barclays -- the investment in technology, the investment in customers -- it is interesting, the fines you mentioned, the sanctions with iran, the ppi is in retail banking and credit cards. it does not excuse it, and the head of the retail bank today -- a lot of this was happening in what you would think of as foreign banking. if you look at the history of the united kingdom financial- services industry to the crisis, bank of scotland

failed, halifax failed. it wasn't investment-banking that was creating issues. i worry that people are willing to throw -- to assume that it was risky behavior that causes these things or bad culture. it is bad culture that causes these things. in these cases, we had a bad performance. if it happened in an investment bank, it can happen in a retail bank as well. we need a strong culture, strong systems and controls -- -- you talkbig part in your letter last week to us about changing the culture. >> i think last week i

recognize, anin spite of the support i have, if you look at the barclays performance to the financial crisis, the things we're doing with businesses in africa, technology is being developed -- the technology coming to the u.k. -- there is a lot of -- >> can i take you back to the memo that was released yesterday -- >> i think that memo was part of the investigation. >> paragraph 1112, which talks about the year before, senior managers at barclays instructed putting in false information about the libor rate.

we're talking about the financial crisis period and your concerns about media attention. do you accept that as accurate? >> yes. >> there was a conference call where the manager said, "this is going to cause a storm." a lower rate was submitted. again, there was a full year before paul tucker called. paragraph 1127 details and instruction to the money market desk to give a lower estimate of up funding costs -- of funding costs because "the honest truth would be a can of worms."

that was in march 2008. and i correct? -- am i correct? >> mm-hmm. >> there is a pattern within the financial crisis where there was consistently dishonest submissions to libor, detailed in paragraph after paragraph of the report. do you accept that? >> we presented in documents to you come from the period of 2000 to 2008, the financial crisis, there was pressure on a libor submissions from the group treasury area to get back on the path. what i want to point out to you is this -- you go to the same barclays wentt

with the regulators and we were consistently on the high end up submissions -- i will answer it directly. it was inexcusable, but the actions of getting away from the notoriety, and the question of barclays, why do you always have to be high, and we were trying to lower our rates, and 90% of the cases in that 12-to-13-month time frame, barclays was not doubt -- knocked out. >> paragraphs 118, 127, does he tell instances where -- does detail instances where barclays

agreed to put in rates that were lower. when you acknowledge that there is a pattern, in terms of the image of the bank, of putting in the words of missions -- putting in lower submissions, why was the release -- was that released? >> i did not release the document. it was a package that came from barclays. i wasn't aware that it was new. the package came from barclays. i think this the package, chairman, that came yesterday? >> yes.

the point i'm making is how significant is this phone call, given the details in paragraph after paragraph of the report that said that you had been consistently low balling your submissions? >> the behavior of the people influencing the lower submissions was wrong. what is the importance to me of the call? the call was alerting me that there was concern about why barclays rates were high, and it was important for me to get in touch with john so that he could get in touch with whitehall and i let them know that there was misunderstanding -- and let them know that there was misunderstanding. the importance of the call to me was the heads-up about the concerns with the white hall.

it might mean something different. >> thank you, chairman. i just want to know if he could remind me of the founding principles of barclays. i could help, and offer to -- honesty, integrity, plain dealing. that is the ethos of this bank that he spent two hours telling us is doing so well. i wonder why you have not made an extra bonus. you told us that it was right that there was a criminal investigation.

you told us that other banks were doing the same thing. i understand from what you are saying that you never questioned the rates reported between 2005 and 2008, and you never discussed at the senior level the possibility of mis reporting, misrepresenting by your traders. >> first of all, in terms of honesty, integrity, and play dealing, that is how i have behaved thermite career in the business -- through my career in the business. i knew -- as 2008, you005 to dro

never questioned were asked about any time there was misreporting -- >> no one was aware of any misreporting. >> did you read anything of other people's suggestions that there might be misreporting? >> there were reports that came out, 2007, 2008, when a different issue -- on a different issue. i was not aware of any report relating to this -- >> nobody came to you, not even those people who refuse to to act -- refused to act criminally -- even those who

refused to acted properly did not comment tell you -- did not come and tell you during that three-year period? >> they did not act improperly. >> no, but they did not come until you -- they do not report that to the senior management? you talked about your obligation to complete transparency, that seeing is believing. you see nothing, heard nothing, know nothing during the three- year period? in 1973, the report about

potential misreporting was written by a u.s. academic. in 2007, another group of u.s. academics produced a precise report into this scandal, alleging that it was going on in companies like yours. that was then repeated. we have a series of academics who are reporting that is going on. eventually it gets into "the wall street journal," and from that, the fed reports on this. you are in charge. you are not seeing this, you are not reading it. i don't understand. >> you are conflicting two separate things.

"the wall street journal" report and the federal reserve report were about -- >> the academic reports -- you have not read them, but you why the man in charge. -- you are the man in charge. people are suggesting from outside in society, and you're not even asking questions internally? people are not coming to you. either you are complicit in what was going on, or you work close -- you were grossly negligent. >> i have agreed from the beginning that the behavior was wrong. it did not get above the supervisory level for a period of time.

>> you said last time that you don't really like barclays, do you -- "i'm in a more favorable group to people out there." you are in charge, you are paid bonuses, 20-odd million a year, you are the man in charge, you are telling everyone that if you cannot work with trust and integrity, you cannot be on your team. you get these huge bonuses, and yet you did not see any of it. you busted been grossly incompetent during that period of time -- you must have been

grossly incompetent during that period of time. >> is there a question? >> last time you were here, you said, "i think it is is clear that if any banking institution gets into trouble, it goes to the chief executive." someone asked you, how would you lose out? you said, "i would lose out by losing any share in the company ." that is what you told us you do in this situation. >> as i said earlier, that is a discussion with of the board. i don't make the decisions. >> you are in favor of consistency. you can take the high ground in this -- >> we have been through this a number of times. we have a profound issue that is

an industry-wide issue, not just a barclays issue, in terms of libor submissions. i would suggest that we wait and see what the ramifications of the industry-wide investigation are -- >> there were no clear lines of responsibility for systems and control. you are the man in charge, and when you are the man in charge, you are the man being paid these huge, phenomenal bonuses -- you are accepting all the good side, the bonuses, and the people working for you, potentially some of them going to prison, criminality -- you are the man in charge. you tell us modestly that if it this is the situation, you lose your job and lose your shares.

that is a pretty small price for you to pay. and how you could show some contrition to the customers -- take's all me money, do i it out of this bleeding bank? that is what they are asking me. you are responsible. >> as i said earlier, i accept responsibility and i also accept responsibility for the actions we've taken to correct the situation, not just at barclays, but the way we have engaged with the regulators did know -- i take no the full results of the organization as having been on

my watch. >> if you -- [unintelligible] what happens to the shares -- it disappear somewhere. your bonus each year is equivalent to the amount of money that all the charity shelters have to survive on. make the proper gesture and put some serious money and pursue others to do likewise so that you can show to the outside world that you do persuaderness, and pe colleagues to do likewise? then you might get a little love.

>> i told you, i feel i have done a responsible thing in how we handled this since the day we understood. the word of the barclays management team, the culture of the organization, whether it is in ppi or this, is to learn our lesson in terms of how we behave going forward, and if any of our clients suffered -- >> the reputation of the bank is in tatters worldwide. >> if you were an english cricketer, i suspect your name would be jeffrey. let me try to weigh this with the culture and ethics of more

than just barclays. i think the question a lot of people want to make is is this problem with libor a symptom of a much deeper and wider malaise? you can answer yes or no. first of all, do you consider traders using libor for their own gain to be unethical? >> yes. >> to you consider managers putting in false quotes unethical? >> yes. >> do you think the submitters during the crisis were engaged in that behavior? do you think selling a complex swap, as reported on the 25th of april, to a turkish shop owner

with very little english, to be ethical? asi don't know the situation well as you do, the specific one, we looked into each and every instance where customer claims -- there are occasions where product has been sold the someone where it should not have been. in the vast majority of cases, going to the issue of derivatives with small businesses, the decision has been in favor of barclays. we do work hard -- >> i understand that from -- >> don't know the specifics -- >> you can find that on the front page of "telegraph" business from the 25th of april. writs against barclays for libel fixing.

would you consider that to be unethical? it is possible to conclude that there was quite a considerable degree of activity that was, at least, questionable and, in some cases, unethical. how does a bank with a ethical? how does a bank with a culture like that have these instances in that number of handling business like that? >> you are picking are isolated cases. there are millions and millions of transactions in the day. i have been with small businesses and medium-sized businesses in the u.k., and a feed bag -- feedback for

barclays has been very strong. the amount of business lending that we are doing has increased. i feel very confident that the team gets it. even the current issue that we announced last week, most of the vader was from 2005 through 2007. >> can i just ask you something? does your board get a list of legal actions against it? >> sure. >> so you all see, sitting on the board, a list of legal actions. you would have known that a writ was issued in april claiming 6 million for libel fixing?

>> i would know that -- some of the legal issues i go to the board, yes. >> and you would say you know what the legal the board was proposing to do about that. >> yes. get a just trying to summary of the suits on notice by the treasury department. how will the actions standing against barclays from the setting of swaps compare? >> i'm not certain of the number. i think the number that went to the frost over the last year, i think it was 40 something. it might have been more. that would not have been in the alito report, because those were handled through the fault. -- through default.

>> the bank trust on is what goes up. 2 million, paying interest. he's got to swap leval tax. he is about to pay another 2 million. that value is now 4 million. >> the economic impact of a swap would be the same as a fixed loan. if you take a fixed loan entire interest rates and rates fall, but -- you mean if libor goes down? >> it is the lead kevin, the value of the lead and the covenant he is given. that would mean they are outside of their covenant. >> i'm not sure of the point. >> the point would be that you

would renegotiate a new margin. there are small to median businesses that have tanked. there is a huge cost related to libor. at which most of my constituents were not aware of 10 days ago, as to what happened to their businesses. the reason their businesses are affected are because of this libor was sold. that is a real cost to british business and no one understood that -- what they were purchasing the but they work obliged to take it because of the bad conditions of the loans. >> i think there are parts of

that that i will look at very differently. let me walk through it. was there an impact on businesses in the u.k. in libor? that the issues within barclays were around dollar life and not sterling and were trimming as opposed to the longer-term business products. even if it was -- again, the relative ranking is being changed. the impact on businesses that have taken out fixed loans for swaps -- first of all, the economic impact of that, of saying you take a loan for a swap or a fixed term loan verses a floating rate loan, and the impact on the business, when you say the libor went down, that went down because the interest rates went down and the bank of england had a low interest rate

because of the economy. if anyone had taken out a low rate loan with a swap, it would be out, not because of the issue on swaps, but because of the issue on overall interest rates, which swaps follow. i do think there has been an impact on businesses who have taken out fixed rate loans. today, it would be more economic to take that loan today. >> un i have had a conversation lasting three or four minutes, but probably has defied understanding by most people. our banks are run by people who talk that language. that is investment banking. our side streets used to be run by people who did not understand it, but just went people money in a sensible way. that is a cultural problem, is it not? actually, what we need is not one barclays but we need two

cultures or everyone would lose. >> and i think we have that. the people who call the -- cover our small businesses, they are throughout most of the areas in the north. they are very focused on what the needs are of the small businesses. if there is a need to provide a fixed term loan where it would not potentially be a corporate from a credit point of view, or you can i get that loan and a derivative is a good replacement -- the job of these bankers is to take someone to the understanding of it. these are not derivative people necessarily. someone else will buy their product. i came back from africa

recently, as you and i have talked of before, and areas like donna and you gotta, and countries that are very -- -- ghana and uganda and other countries that are interested in bringing in barclays because of the small banking enterprise in gnana botswana and other places have to compete increasingly with china and the middle east. they need competing interest rates. i think there is a place for an integrated model. one barclays is not about a business model. it is about our culture. one barclays means that every single decision that we make is the consensus of the group, not the individual business or the individual trading position.

in order for us to really believe that, everyone has to behave in that way. it is about culture, values, integrity, honesty, and to use john's words, it is unfair dealings. i do not think the -- it is about fair dealings. i do not think it is a business model. >> we may have to continue to agree to disagree. >> mr. diamond, in your letter to rise on a 28 of june, you spoke about the integrity of the libel setting process. new went on to say that individuals within barclays raised this issue externally. who at barclays, what label did

you leave these libor concerns within these various agencies? >> i think in one of the letters, chairman, is there not an assessment of who the people were on both sides? like the fed, for example, and both are plaze? -- both barclays? some came from the group treasury area. in some cases they came from the compliance area. >> in terms of the part here, the bank of england is named. what about the treasury of the uk? >> i only -- only in the general

sense. we talked about earlier, about libor representing those events. >> how long had barclays been concerned about other people reading the libor rate -- r igging the libor rate before they raise these concerns with regulators? gregg's this became a much bigger concern during the -- >> this became a much bigger concern during the retrogresses of 2007-0 a. liquidity was plentiful, and suddenly it with the financial crisis we have much more volatility within rates, and banks had more difficulty lending to each other, which is the genesis of libor. because of capital standards, or in some cases, banks had taken government money. to sum up, there was far less

liquidity in the market. more of the money was coming from money funds, large corporate, asset management firms, and far less of it was injured-bank dealing because -- interbank dealing because of the high level of capital required. there was a fundamental change driven by those two factors. >> some of the rate you were seeing stood out like a sore thumb. >> i think there appeared to be postings that were being made at levels at which people would not be able to borrow if they were looking to borrow. >> what about if you raise

rates that your competitors did not believe to be right? >> in other words, no action. >> between january of 2005 and july of 2008, there was some reputation of risk-management. barclays was doing this. and you did not appear to know it was happening in order to evaluate. barclays people were able to notice other people doing this, submitting rates that were repeatedly low. but no one internally was able to verify, even with people shoving it across the floors, that it was going on inside the bank. do you understand where we find

that difficult to believe? >> this is where i've been very, very clear. there are three issues. there was the issue with the traders on the desk. >> [unintelligible] i am familiar with the various technical things and the various reasons. i am asking why people at barclays noticed other people doing this, but were unable, for whatever reason, to recognize it internally, that people were from shouting across the floor below libor rate? >> what was happening was the treasury was trying to influence its own firms.

>> that is not the issue at all. other submitted rates that were too low, just like barclays was doing. your people could notice others doing it, but couldn't otis themselves doing it. what was on the floor -- couldn't noticed themselves doing it. but with the culture on the floor that this was happening? >> the issue of trying to get back on the path during the 2007-08 time frame should have come up with senior management, i agree. but it was an attempt to get in the pack. >> but an attempt to get in the pack so as not to be noticed. it was done in a way in which your people were submitting rates -- >> this behavior was discussed

with the esque as saying. sa.with the f as people were trying to get back in the package by describing some of these is years. it does not excuse what was going on. >> but you recognized it prior to investigation. >> correct. >> [unintelligible] >> it is in the documentation, but i think what the fsa would say that they had a different interpretation of the meeting, but that they had come back to barclays and the chief operating officer of barclays capital was that it was all -- >> >> a quick question. you said -- and i'm

paraphrasing. that you have to get john marlee to get in touch with libor. did he handle the matter? >> yes, and i cannot remember the conversation that i had withdrawn after that, but he did follow up. -- with john after that, but he did follow up. it was a quite delicate time. >> i'm sure it was, but it would be useful to know who he spoke to and what the nature of that conversation was. >> i will see if that can be provided. >> you have explained how you messaged john barley. what i'm not clear about is what

is your understanding of what mr. drucker wanted you to do? >> i think there was some confusion over this within our place. this was not the first conversation that i had with paul, or that jerry and i had with paul, or gerry had with paul. withs job was to work people increasingly and it was closer in activity to the trading desk. i'm sorry, i'm getting to my point. you can see from our numbers going back on the financial crisis that we had many conversations. >> what is it mr. tucker wanted you to do? >> he was pointing out the problem and i was pointing out the problem was not with barclays, but other submissions.

>> what did he want you to do about it? >> as i said, i did not take it as a directive. i took it as a heads up. the what i said there is pretty clear. and i said, the reality is we are reporting a rate at which we borrow. it appears that given a number of institutions posting below was that they are not opposing at those -- below us that they are not posting at these levels. this is the same issue that the federal reserve report after the crisis reported on. i do not think anyone should be surprised that these things are happening. >> it did not cross your mind to launch an investigation inside

your own organization just to check? >> of course, we knew our policies and i was under the impression that our policies were being adhered to. >> it did not occur to you to say, this is a great investigation by the "roster journal" but i'm -- by the "wall street journal," but i'm not really involved. >> we affirmed in that note. >> i am holding a bloomberg press release dated may 29, 2008, which says, ago banks routinely misstate borrowing costs to the british government as the credit market seized up. you have a strategist in your own organization suspecting his

borrowing costs had been misstated. that is before your conversation with paul tucker. how is it possible that you could have been underwear. -- been underwear? -- unaware? >> let's park that for a second and let's have a bigger discussion you keep coming back to barclays. >> you were responsible. >> can i finish? >> sure. >> sure. if you go back to these reports, you will see in 2007 and in 2008, no institution was reporting the dollar amount at the higher and more consistently than barclays. and barclays was getting questions. we were saying, we are high

because we are reporting more of our money. for someone to say there is a big concern and there is in virtually no variable low [unintelligible] along with that, there was pressure from the group. i need to say again, i'm not excusing the behavior. but it is also appropriate to step back and say that it was a financial crisis and if there are broader industry implications -- and all i'm saying is, look at the behavior of barclays in the context of what we did about it once we found out. i think the management team was decisive and unbending and fast, and willing to invest and be open. and regulators applauded them for that.

and there are questions this year about the operations during libor and the implications of the fact that they thought they had. it is bad behavior. >> is and it a danger that people will not see this in the context of the way in which you talk? is in the danger that people will see this in the context of the transaction tax in italy last year? this is a culture that is deeply flawed, a deeply corrupted, and that is where it went wrong. >> i hope that it is seen that

the -- seen within the context of when there's a problem, we take action. >> we have been going to enter a quarter hours. two more colleagues want to chip in and finish -- 2.75 hours. two more colleagues want to chip in and finish. >> [unintelligible] on march 5, 2008, the fsa contacted barclays for their position. the fsa ask for the raid that it was currently paying for funding. -- for the rate that it was currently paying for funding.

there was a request to discuss this with the manager. the manager stated, i would not go there for the moment. and then stated, it is a sad thing, really, because you know, if they are really trying to do something useful, it would be nice if they knew. it might be a can of worms. the truth is, that -- barclays did not share the bank information and when they ask you about it, you lied to them. >> there are other meetings and documentation of that. that is indeed fsa findings.

i'm very suspicious of people who distribute libor ratings for two months. why have you chosen just two months and three months? we're talking about a reporting of of work to end three years. -- two and three years. >> i thought we're talking about is 2007 and 2008. if you do not have those findings, i will be happy to send them to. the 12-month story is similar. you can look at other currencies such as sterling and deerow. -- and the bureau.

there was no attempt here, except for the communications, and the discussion that paul and i had was three months donna libor. >> we try to eliminate much from this report in the last few hours. we have heard about market rigging in the other direction, under reporting, and during the financial crisis, which was not

reported at the highest levels. and mr. del missier did not seem to communicate very well off with you. have you anything you want to add in response as we close? >> i appreciate the opportunity to come here, and chairman, as you will learn today, as soon as the behavior's that the three regulators that we discussed in these reports were identified, they were acted on immediately. there was no expense spare. we have brought in the right firms and taken firm action. the culture i want to see at barclays is that when there are mistakes, we admit them, we

learn from them, we act on them, and then people have consequences. i think the second thing i would say in response to that is, it is difficult for barclays, the firm that i care about so deeply to be isolated on this. i know barclays. if we have another situation going forward, we will still at the same. we will come out and be first to correct it. but i worry that the impact of being first was because we were most cooperative and put the most resources into this, and the reaction of the one from outside of the industry contact does not create a great sentiment for others to come forward. at the end of the day, i look forward to the continued investigation around the issues

surrounding libor. i think some of those issues came out during the credit crisis. if there is anything that barclays can do in that process, we will. >> we recognize it has certainly not been an easy hearing for you. we are grateful for you coming to us. thank you very much, indeed. >> thank you, chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president barack obama two- day bus tour of ohio and pennsylvania begins today. the outcome of the november election, he said, will determine the country's economic future for the next 10 to 20 years and up the health-care law is here tuesday. here is a portion of his comments. >> i am running because i believe that in america, nobody

should be bankrupt because they got sick. i will work with anybody who wants to work with me to continue to improve the health care system and the laws i pass, but the health care law is here tuesday. [applause] -- is here to stay. [applause] and let me tell you something about me. it is going to make the vast majority of americans more secure. we will not go back to the days when insurance companies can't discriminate against people just because they were sick. -- can discriminate against people just because they were sick. we will not tell young people that they can on -- cannot be on their parents' insurance. we will not let it turn into a voucher system.

now is the time to move forward and make sure that every american has affordable health insurance and that insurance companies are treating them fairly. that is what we fought for. that is what we will keep. we are moving forward. >> president obama and his first stop in ohio over his at today's -- two days of bus tour. tomorrow, his campaign bus trip that wraps up with a speech at carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh. we will have live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. republican presidential candidate mitt romney is in east hampton, n.y.. he is back on the campaign trail on sunday with house republican leader eric cantor. you can see his campaign video online at c-span.org.

the >> we have pulled in for the refueling the morning around 9:30 a.m. >> the former commanding officer of the u.s. has called on the events surrounding the al qaeda 2000 -- b. al qaeda 2007 attack. and >> there was a thunderous explosion. you could feel all 480 tons of destroyer quickly thrust up and to the right. it is almost like we began to hang in the air. we did this twisting and flexing. the lights went out. the ceiling tiles popped out. everything on my desk came up about a foot and slammed back down. i literally grab the side of my desk underneath and braced myself until i could stand up. >> more on that sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a.

>> now to a discussion on social media impact on news reporting and what defines professional journalism. social media editors and journalists from silicon valley spoke at a symposium in mid may. and you'll hear from the creator of google news, as well as the executor of yahoo! news and the social media panelists. this panel is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon and welcome. >> welcome to the symposium. i am the director of the journalism fellowship at stanford. i will be the moderator for today's symposium, how social media is revolutionizing the news. the lecture series is sponsored by the department of communications at stanford. it began in 1964, and it honors an independent editor and executive who was known for

never giving in to entrenched viewpoints. he was a progressive sort, and i think he would enthusiastically endorse the symposium.today's i know he would be impressed by the quality of participants. he is a distinguished scientist and the founder of google news, which he created in the aftermath of 9/11 to keep us abreast of new developments. google news aggregates news for more than 500,000 sources, has 70 additions, and is published in 30 languages. he was born in bangalore eventually got a ph.d. in human-computer interaction from georgia tech. am pleased to say he is on the board of visitors of the knight fellowships. andy carvin senior media strategist at npr.

a huge audience relied on his messages for news and intermission developing in the arab spring uprisings. he has helped npr and pbs stations collaborate and work with techies and public media fans to collaborate on projects. before coming to npr, he was director of a program that helped to bridge the digital divide. our third panelist is editor at oakland local, a publication that focuses on social justice issues. it includes diverse voices. she has worked as a consultant and trainer, and has consulted on the california project. she is a former senior director of yahoo. our next panelist is the

director of yahoo news. a board of editors and social teams, with bureaus in new york, washington, and sunnyvale. he also manages yahoo's news partnership with abc news. before he came to yahoo in 2010, he was editor of newsweek.com and managing editor at new york times digital. i do not think i have to tell you that we are in the midst of a social media revolution. hundreds of millions of people use the social networking services of facebook, twitter, and google plus. and not just to share to cat photos. >> not that there is anything wrong with that. >> by this time tomorrow, with facebook's first day of trading, mark zuckerberg will officially be a gazillionaire. [laughter] the premise is that the

services have had a major impact on the collection, distillation, and distribution of news and information. the project for excellence in journalism, in its state of the news media, said that social media are important but not overwhelming, at least not yet. that is a quote from the report. no more than 10% of digital news consumers follow news recommendations from facebook or twitter very often, our survey finds, and almost all of those who do are still going directly to news websites as well. but there are many other indications that social media are radically altering the news landscape. word of the shooting of rep gabrielle giffords and the killing of osama bin laden, not to mention the death of donna summer today, spread fire early on twitter and facebook. reporters now routinely use social to find sources for breaking news situations and

complicated stories. when journalists use these platforms, they create a conversation around a running story or topic of interest, whether it is to hone their own stores or to engage their audience, or both. i think we have to say that something revolutionary is happening. that is what will be export today. let's get to it. we will dispense with former presentations, and have a q&a discussion. you noticed the cameras. c-span plans to broadcast the symposium sometime over memorial day weekend. it will also be available on stanford itunes. when he moved to audience questions, please use the microphone here. i'll begin with some basics. i will ask each participant to address this in question -- what are social media? what are the significant platforms?

what are their impact on your news operation? i will begin with you. >> thank you, tim. there are many platforms out there. there'll be more coming out. what is more important, in my opinion, is the people who use these platforms, who either produce the news or carry the news or distribute the news or are in the news. how they interact, that is the big focus here. in the case of google news, we have tried to increase diversity in news by bring together thousands of articles covering a story and organizing that in a compact form. initially, the way that was implemented was completely

based on observing the publishing actions of publishers and stories they found interesting. over time, we started looking at social signals, the actions of people on the networks, the commentary, and so forth. by integrating the google plus, our social network, we started writing stories from that. google + allows you to comment on news stories in googlers. recommendations from friends are surfaced. we also have hang outs on there,

which allow people to post ato get your laptops wherever you are and have a conversation about something that is extremely current. by lowering the bar and have these conversations happen in real time, we are increasing the amount of information out there. >> on the other end of the panel, how would you address that? >> first, i fundamentally agree. it is not the platform, it is the audience. all media is social media. the only media that is not social is media that nobody consumes. social media platforms are different than social media. that is one of the things that we often get caught in. we think of a platform as defining interaction as opposed to the audience and the media defining the interaction. i am sure we will talk about this. we in the news media often think of the platform as a tool, as a mechanism to do our job. in a lot of ways, news media has been more comfortable in

some ways with social media platforms because they have not been disrupted yet. they have not changed the ways we need to do our job yet. they will. then will probably not like the nearly as much as we do today. but, i think that the focus on the platform is really less interesting than the focus on the interaction and the focus on the way that the values of the audience affects the consumption of media, and overlaps and layers and creates something where the reason they are consuming media interacting and distributing it themselves becomes the story. >> to some degree, when you are talking about interacting, the audience interacting, that is different from our traditional journalism perspective.

>> to some degree, yes. but in some ways that is only because we can capture the interaction. it may not be any different. the difference is that the contract it. -- we can track it. we know it. also, the degree of signals we can capture and pay attention to is fundamentally different. i do -- i think that at some level we do have to think about, what is the media consumption pattern and narrative we are trying to enable? what is the narrative and the pattern that the audience is looking for? talking -- i was talking with somebody the other day about the epitaph of howard zinn. there was a word in there, live a life not fragmented.

that is one of the challenges, to figure out how the fragmentation of the narrative becomes something more than what it has been. >> i will take a slightly different approach. part of what has happened today in the inevitable move towards mobile and portable devices. i have a very intense relationship with my fund. some people probably have the same relationship with a tablet or a kindle fire. we have to remember, part of what is happening is that so much more information is now crowd-source. photos. to think about the plane landing into the hudson, or a bombing. we are becoming always-on, always-network. the platforms that have been the most successful have really been the ones that have been the most accessible to people on

mobile devices. we will see a lot more investment on those platforms to work on tablet on mobile devices. if you look at the android -- i am fascinated that now i am going to npr app. it is a web browser that is set up as an app, pulling away from the web into these little silos of content that are really good for the provider. we have to think about social media as being something portable and personal. that is where we will see a real acceleration, especially if there is more wireless broadband. people can send more and more digital media. >> can you elaborate on what the implications of that are? we are crowds sourcing, but mobilely sourcing and consuming information?

>> there are two implications. one, we can have greater immediacy. the other is that we have greater risk of deception. there is a man who was in oakland. it was fascinating to see his account of everything happening with the police in the occupy demonstrations.

on the other hand, if somebody tried to present an accurate, unbiased reporting, you could not take this information as fact. so that is an interesting position to be in. >> we will come back to this issue of veracity. what is your take on this -- what are social media? >> to me, social media is any platform, service, tool, whatever, that networks people together and give them opportunities to engage each other, collaborate, and create, to one extent or another. i would not consider traditional forms of media like tv or radio to be social in the sense that, with a broadcast, a person does not have their own satellite dish to immediately communicate back. to not only be a content producer. the closest thing we had to social media was the next day, when people got around the water cooler. that was the platform. there was nothing that gave the opportunity to have engagement in real-time. the trend social media has been around for five or six years.

people love to make up new terms. before that, people used web 2.0 a lot. before that, we would talk about the read and write web. go back to the 1970's, when people were creating the first e-mail lists or bulletin board systems like usenet. they were very crude systems. they had a limited audience, because the internet was not ubiquitous. if you look at any of these things, or lack of them now, because they still exist in one form or another, this -- they are level playing field. things sometimes get created that way. there is a long tradition of social media existing within the internet space. the internet is ultimately about

the people who use it. >> help me understand how that -- how is social media -- were talking earlier about the earliest times when people would post the newspaper on window fronts and so on. what is it different from that? >> some of the practices we are doing now that we think are relatively new have been around for a very long time. the very first independent newspaper published in the u.s. was in boston in the late 1600's. it was called "public occurrences." it was a four-page weekly paper. only three pages out of four had print. the last one was planned. -- blank. the reason for that was that the publisher knew that he could not create a circulation that would cover the entire city of boston, and that things happened

over the course of the week. he theorized that people would leave a copy and would jot down some doubts. right there, network journalism, a crowd sourcing already existed. i have the feeling that this guy did not come up with that. if you look at the history of publishing in britain in the 1600's, you find other examples of that. the tools are different. the playing field is a lot more level, obviously. it still took a guy publishing a broadsheet to give people the opportunity to do that, but now pretty much anyone with internet literacy has the ability to be a dingy organizer, a publisher, or if they just want to be a consumer.

>> can add one thing? >> absolutely. >> one thing that has changed is that some of these distinctions between who does what activity are starting to disappear. it used to be that we had publisher-consumer and that is it. now we have the middle area, where you have the ability to look at a lot of information. everybody does everything. there's a conversation where all the actors are contributing, to different degrees. even publishers are looking at what other people are publishing and are reacting to that. also what other influencers are saying. everybody is saying, here is the other thing you should look at.

what is interesting is how there is the premise of these two different roles, and that has changed completely. if you ask somebody if you years ago what is journalism, they would say, you read something. now, there is a combination, some people are talking, others are listening, and that is causing the conversation. it is a completely different model. >> the other thing is the ubiquitousness of it. the decentralized nature of it. a broadsheet in boston in the 17th century was only available among people who picked it up in the public area.

people who consume it. the people allowed into the club. the diversity of the audience, the fact that communities have built up independent of intent or action and can tap into this new dynamic and shape a narrative and create that feedback. that is the most powerful nature. it is not about the platform, it is about the people, the audience, what they are doing there. >> when we talk about feedback, we need to be talking about miniature feedback loops. for a lot of journalists and news organizations, they think

of social media as, we will do the work we have always done, produce the stories, stick them on line, and will have a common thread below that. that is feedback in one sense, but that is not that different from letters to the editor and other traditional mechanisms of getting people to that news organizations know what they think. with social media today, you have feedback occurring throughout the entire process, before the story even occurs to a journalist, as the journalist is working -- citizen journalists, the public is creating something and get a platform from the media to share it with a wider audience. >> when google launched, the idea of an automated trading -- automation duration -- automated duration system was so radical. people said, could this be good or not? things like blogging have mediated newspapers and publishers. the process becomes spread out. we'll also see a new role more and more powerfully of the

curators. the curator is really displacing the editor. during the arab spring, there was a curator who was passed in all these comments back and forth. he was abrogating them. .- aggregating them pic i'm fascinated by pinterst, where people put incredible amounts of energy into curating collections. think of people you know who are experts on something. what is happening now is the way that social media is changing but the publishing model. now we have the role of the editor change, where we do not look to the movie critic for the restaurant critic -- people who could be very hyper-vocal or needs. -- orphanag or niche. those are the kinds of -- those

are going to be the resources. all these roles of own and control of information, meaning authority, keep breaking. i like the fact that one of the fashion experts is a 17-year- old girl, the style rookie. she was very young and became this giant authority. that is a huge sea change that we now can look to people who are distributed all over the globe who either have a certain passion or just are filling a role as a facilitator that in the past was reserved to people certified as experts. >> it is interesting that you mentioned in curation replacing the editorial process. conveying a certain piece of news to the audience -- you lose some of the control, but what editors to get is a more

efficient mechanism for having this find its way to the networks and to the people who care about it. it is an active network of intelligence eyeballs who are putting this to the task of the community who cares about it. that is making it more efficient. i think it is a fallacy that the publisher should only publish and not curate beyond what they publish. increasingly, people are coming to the news applications or news website and saying, help me navigate. it is not -- to the user does not believe that what they need to get is truly the contents of

one publisher when there are five dozen other publishers. you can look at google news or yahoo news for that product content, but they help you. that is a better starting point. >> people are fighting to keep that old model alive. a few months ago, there was a a big controversy when sky news announced a new social media policy. they said, if you work for sky news, do not break news over twittered. do not talk to your competitors. all sorts of other restrictions. that runs completely against witter culture and the use of twitter as a potential journalistic tour. within a matter of weeks, the best-known internet personality on twitter resigned in protest. he could not do his job anymore because he was not able to engage people. they then were so concerned about keeping the content focus on them that they completely

ignored the reality of how everybody is sharing everything right now, and we are all learning from each other because of it. >> another thing to look at is the incredible popularity of people posting on open platforms like huffington post or salon, where a community invites comments. oakland and local, we do a huge amount of crowd-sourcing of stories. we have 40% of our content from inside community contributors who are often riding on facebook. we invite them to publish on oakland local so we can distribute that content through our partnerships. we can give them a much broader distribution than they would just have been their own network. we are very much an amplifier of interesting parts of the conversation that we find. that is very much the wave of

the future. >> what andy was talking about. for media companies, there is something really important here to go into. that is, where do you find value? the sky example, they assume that value was in the brand, and the brand represents them. the value is in your audience. the value is in the connectivity with your audience and the degree to which you can engage in your audience -- in a major audience, now 24/7. that is a fundamental shift in the business proposition and how you build value. >> i do not think it devalues or brand to, in addition to doing your own at journalism, connect the audience to other things. >> it challenges you to think of what you are.

if he thinks are brand is a publication, a consumable entity, then you get let down this road. >> let's change focus to the use of social media and social media platforms as important tools. -- reporting tools. andy, i want to talk about your coverage of arab spring and how it started. we talk a little bit about this. what did you learn from this? >> a big part of my job is they give me the space to experiment with new tools and techniques regarding journalism innovation and collaboration with the public. methods that work or seem to have legs -- i work with reporters on their shows to expand them. i have been active on twitter

for five years now. we have used it in a variety of ways, during the 2008 election, during the presidential debates, to collect reports on voting problems, and i was very comfortable with interacting with people on at twitter to get information who i knew nothing about. the work i had done previously, i knew a handful of bloggers from tunisia and others who were living in exile because of the government had repressed them. i also knew about the global voices product, which launched with harvard in 2005. i was not close with these guys, but i read their blogs. late in 2010, they started using a certain hashtag. at first, i thought they meant it was a cute tourist town near tunis. i realize they were talking about this other town in the middle of nowhere in south- central tunisia were a man had just set himself on fire in protest. people were coming out to protest in support of him.

a couple of people recorded video on camera phones and allowed to get them on youtube. does bloggers, because there were all network with each other and somewhere in europe, they began curating everything they were finding. they were using any network they could find to overwhelm the tunisian authorities. in a country of 11 million people, 2 million of them were already on facebook. as the conversation started on twitter, it quickly spread on facebook. having been to tunisia and

having experienced the police stayed there, i was completely fascinated by the notion of people getting away with protest. i kept watching it, tweaking about it, tweeting about it, and i remember i said we were seeing the beginning of the jasmine revolution. the jasmine is the national flower of tunisia. after the revolution happened, i had a tunisian colleague come and visit. she said, thank you for everything you did to cover a revolution, but next time let us in our own revolution. i said, sure. but it was not until the final days of the revolution that the media really took it seriously. nobody paid attention to tunisia. anybody who knew about it thought it was just the place

for star wars was filmed. it suddenly came on the radar. i started taking the techniques used in tunisia and expanded upon them, until it got to the point where my twitter followers essentially became my newsroom. rather than being in the studio with producers and researchers and somebody talking into my earpiece, i was sitting on a park bench with my phone having dozens of twittered followers doing all this for me. i could essentially to anchor coverage of these revolutions and fact-checked and is coming out of it. >> some of it has become more low-tech. participating in journalism is now easier than ever. >> is also rather old school. the basic principles i applied to this, they are the types of things that anybody who is studying journalism, it makes sense to them. if i only have one source on

twitter, that is not good enough. but it can people are all saying they are getting shot at and i know some of them do not know each other, that is more likely we have a story. when you pick apart the methods that i used, it is really grounded in very traditional reporting methods. >> i love the fact that there was also this community before this. in global forces, community is what forms that official german. >> i have interacted with a lot of those folks developing on- line community is responding to disasters like the tsunami and katrina, the haiti earthquake -- there were already a critical mass of people in different parts of the world who were on- call for each other if something big happens. if you combine that -- people want to volunteer online and help -- with a subset of them who are also political activists in their own

countries, it plays some type of role. i will not argue that these were social media revolutions. i hat it when people say that. people had to die for these to succeed in some places. but social media did play a part in different countries, in different ways. the kernel of these began because of those types of human networks. >> i wanted to ask. and he was doing this from thousands of miles away. you are on the ground in oakland. i've heard you talk before about the value of crowd-sourcing and the pitfalls of crowd-sourcing. is there any kind of editing that needs to be done to make sure that what oakland local- bus is viable and credible? >>oakland local started in 2009 after oscar grant was shot by a police officer on a subway platform. there were a lot of issues about accountability. eventually, there was a trial.

we found ourselves in the middle of covering this. we also found ourselves in the middle of covering occupy oakland. for us, we have always relied on professional reporters on our team to help validate what is happening. whether it was the devastation surrounding the death of foster grant and the trial, or occupy oakland, we have never relied only on the crowd to validate information for us. we maintain a small mobile

newsrooms were we have had people coming off the street a few blocks away with stories to deliver photos. these reporters are able to that information. combining that with the kind of information we are getting from the crowd -- that has given our coverage a depth and diversity that a lot of other coverage has not been able to get. but we are very scrupulous about not taking was reported on social media as fact. we will say, people are saying this, you are hearing this, this is what is being said and reported -- we report it and say it has been discussed. we try to stay away from anything we do not know as fact. we sit between the very large

mainstream media that often takes the expected line, and then people who are very angry and saying a lot of things they are feeling. we try to be in the middle and be a constructive, credible resource that is on the ground. we take that very seriously. we also tried to -- i think that reflection is important. when an immediate event is over, we are assiduous about making sure the people who want to write op-eds or statements have the option to do so. we will post those on facebook. in places where there are huge digital divide issues, underserved communities -- people get trapped. people are good at facebook. there is a lot of incredible work on facebook. if we did not surface that, a lot of people on these networks may not see it. we work with them to help push

some of their content so that people outside of their immediate communities can get a sense of what the thinking was. >> on yahoo.com use, yahoo news, how you use social media? >> you look at it a couple of ways. it is the primary early warning system. it is what you look at to understand -- you are looking at a velocity. you are looking at what is taking off. what has gone from 0 to 60 in 30 minutes. in that way, it is purely a newsroom tool to indicate, hey, we need to start looking at this. doing that in real time. the other thing is looking at how you can begin to look at multiple social media platforms

and systems together into a narrative. i am not going to say that we have done that in a way that we found it satisfactory. that is the other interesting thing we are trying to struggle with -- how you tell a story, how you creed in narrative, a dynamic narrative, not just take a bunch of tweets and publisher story. an article is not the story. collecting tweets is not the narrative. that is the thing we are looking to try and capture, particularly after a major event. >> you mentioned professional journalists. in a time when the social media platforms are becoming more ubiquitous and powerful, what does it mean to be a professional journalist? >> oakland local has a team of 15 people who work on a free-

lance basis. we do not have any full-time paid staff. we're producing a lot of content in a model that is there a different than what has been done before. we train our professional journalists to affirm the importance -- we train many community contributors, who like to rally around a certain topic, food, justice, things they are passionate about, we train them for professional journalism standards. we talk to them about being thorough and accurate. we really believe in thoroughness and accuracy and transparency. we do not -- having these community guidelines that go up into actual professional standards. we are trying to combine community voices with a high standard of telling a story that needs to be told. people have really appreciated

that. we have never gotten any negative feedback and people we work with. >> in my first job in newspapers, years ago, my editor was a great editor. he told me something i have never forgotten. remember, hundreds of people will read your story who will know more about your story than you do. it is understanding that our job is not to know -- our job is to try to find out as much as we can and convey it in the most responsible and accurate way and the most timely way. in every story we work on, there are perhaps millions of people who know more than we do. our job is to connect those

people with our audience. >> oakland local puts an emphasis on working with people who live in oakland. we do not have reporters to drive home to a suburb. we prefer that our reporters covering an area live in that area. if you want to write about east oakland? it is even better if you live in some part of east oakland. we want nuanced coverage -- it is coming in from the helicopter level. our staff has a much deeper understanding of the history, the contentious problems. they're able to bring that to the front. what you are talking about is totally right. we try to have a degree not only of respect, but of sensitivity to the fact that we are writing from a position in the community. there is no us and them. it all us.

>> as many of us in the valley have often encounted, sometimes there are pieces about technology in mainstream journalism that are amazingly naive. you feel there could be 100 people in a one-mile radius who could weigh in much better. some of this information is not organized as much as other people's knowledge. sometimes you have to sink in weeks of work to produce something -- an investigative piece. that is not possible with social media. part of what social media is doing is that it is taking away stuff that you have to do

because nobody is doing it. some of the on the street reporting that is now coming to you. some of the curation that other people are not willing to do. it allows journalists focus on something even more challenging, during the in- depth pieces. >> we have a journalism program. i will ask each of you to imagine that you are the

director of the journalism program, and you need to think of one or two things that every journalism student needs to know about curating, aggregating, using these social media programs. what is important to know? >> they have the ability to be a community organizer, in the sense that, if you are going to interact with people online, you have to be prepared, on what level, to serve almost as a master of ceremonies, bringing people together to coast and relinquishing some of the power associated with that. facilitating a conversation with everybody to upgrade the journals and your strive for. so most people can be taught how to take topics and call that curating. but it should be a lot more nuanced than that. if you are going to do this well, you want to tap directly into your community's subject matter expertise, your personal experience, etc. i would not be able to do what i have done over the last 15 or 16 months if it were not for the fact that a lot of people on twitter who know more about these countries than i ever could if i had studied them for the rest of my life.

>> when i was a young reporter, becoming a community organizer would be a huge paradigm shift. you worked in a news organization that is a pretty substantial establishment. how is the community organizing part of that? >> i am at somewhat of an aberration. part of my job is to experiment. that said, more and more reporters at npr are expanding their social graf, it is sometimes called, the space within the social media world of the people they know, how the find people and cultivate sources. how they get them to talk to each other. they are expanding and

diversifying their sources. how many talking heads do we see every single day on tv or on whatever medium just because we are comfortable with our current rolodex? one of the greatest services social media provides is to not have to fall back on that same set of people. more diverse resources and will be better. i see things happening with reporters all the time. they do not have to have a mashable article written about what they have done, because it is so routine to talk to their twitter followers and get things going. >> one way to think about it as a community organizer -- you could just think of it as developing your sources. i think that, in a weird way, if you are talking about what skills a young student needs, tell them to go to a 12-year- old.

to get a 10-year-old to get you to build a story -- that is difficult journalism. building sources is now how we develop our stores. there were times when developing sources meant you went to the bar where you know the cops went after work and you bought drinks. that is not how you develop sources now. >> i also think that a young journalist today, one thing that has changed is that trying to write in journalism-speak does not work. i believe in the value of research and reported stories. i am a huge fan of investigative reporting. but when i see people trying to

copy the voice of "the new york times" in a small, local entity, i shake my head. it is important to recognize that you are writing for real people that you need to connect with. the need to write for them in an accessible voice. i am a huge fan of "news day" which really brought the content of "the new york times" to a better -- to a more clear voice. they do not have the synonymists journalistic mantle of the fake journalist speak. there is a phony tone that journalist speak, just like in press releases. the role is to find out your own voice -- combine your own voice with a credible research that you need. to try not to play that role.

journalists playing that role is over. that can be a hard thing to learn when people are so admired. >> the style that they called "the voice from nowhere." >> the first and foremost, partially what susan is saying, if you are writing for a local audience, try to have a voice that -- do not underestimate what your audience wants. part of that is going even further and going into the experience of the individual, creating an experience that is compelling and immersive.

so do not be afraid of technology. work shoulder to shoulder with technologists, computer scientists, designers, to build an experience that works for the audience you want to go after. all right? then the role of news is that you are a guide, you are a community organizer. you're not an oracle, you're somebody who is walking with that person through the maze of information, helping them experience it in a way that works for them. so that's what you're trying to do. this is the experience you want to create. additionally, perhaps you also want to create original reporting that is going to be used worldwide because imagine in addition to the current

audience, the rest of the world that may also draw from here. firstly, you have to do original journalism because there is way too much redundancy out there so focus on your assistant and try to figure out -- on your strengths and try to figure out that way. so trying to find a good market for what you are producing, not just for the audience you originally intend it for but more broadly. there have been, you know, part technologist, part designer, part businessman the >> just to add to what susan said, it's the real important to not sacrifice your sense of humanity for the sense of seeming more professional. unfortunately, as some reporters or journalists in general become more successful, the more distant they seem from their communities, it can be very hard to relate to people who have become very, very successful and see their world in a somewhat elite way now, whereas there is so much to social media that's about authenticity and i go out of my way 0 to not just talk about journalism and what's going on in the news on my twitter account.

i talk about going out and adopting a dog or my kids have the flu and they just threw up on my computer or whatever. >> ew! >> ew, but that's what happens. part of it is to remind them i'm not just a bought sending out tweets the one person just described the real banal stuff on twitter, people talking about what they had for lunch as a form much social grooming, like the great apes sitting around grooming each other. the reason you're doing that is you're investing in the relationship. it may not seem important at the time but when things hit the fan, they've got your back. so if it's a slow news day or weekend or whatever, i still keep talking to people. if they ask a question that has nothing to do with the job but i know the answer, i stop and take the time to answer it. it is reinforcing those bonds.

>> abandoning the assumption that there is conflict between authentic and professional is critical. i would say that the flip side to that is the ease with which you move from authentic to sort of a journalism affirmation, that if you think about i am writing with a voice for an audience, the degree to which it begins to become a television form of journalism and that's sort of the bad side of what is a good development i think in news, to basically say no, our voice should be authentic, should be accessible. but our voice should still be a journalistic voice. it should still be talking to a total audience and presenting the full story as opposed to potentially flipping into a we're just going to tell you

what you want to hear or tell you what you know you're going to get from us day in and day out. >> i also think social media has really reached out because of the crowd sourcing functions, what we think of as news. traditional news is all about conflict. going to cover crime, people fighting, people doing bad things, all that news at night that you can't sleep after you watch it. the social media has helped with more stories and issues than the traditional conflict models that were considered news up until fairly recently. i think of news as being stories of discovery, things that need to be brought to light and talked about, sort of a positive and negative. it can be an expose, it can be speaking truth to power, but

there's a lot of news that people have shown they're very happy to have that doesn't fit that traditional conflict model and i think social media has made it more obvious that there are other ways to think of what news is and that people will consume that kind of information. upwe're going to open this to questions from the audience so if you would like to ask a question, please make your way to the microphone. while people are doing that, back to you, andy. tell the story about -- the hope story. the blogger who hasn't -- don't give away too much here. [laughter] >> i just did. >> you just did. that's ok. so there have been all sorts of crazy stories that have happened over the last year, especially related to the arab spring. one that came to light last june had to do with a blogerer, a syrian-american woman based in damascus who had been very active in online communities for five or six years, moved to damascus a few months before the revolution started and when the revel lution started she became an incredible voice for what was going on on the ground. news organizations began to interview her.

the guardian, bbc, cnn, she became a bit of a celebrity in the journalism world. then one day in june a relative of hers posted on her blog that she had been kidnapped by state security or something like that. immediately people began to mobilize. they began to put together facebook pages to support her cause, creating avenue tars for people to news solidarity. some organized protests at the syrian embassies. y was very -- was very interested in finding people who knew her to find a sense of how much danger she might truly be in. as i started asking around i started getting messages from my contacts in syria and they were saying well, i'm part of the local gay community here and i never heard of here. others would say i haven't met her.

each would pass me onto someone else. i got to the point i was saying does anyone know anyone who has met her in person? it final by -- finely got to the point where i contacted the reporter at the guardian who did the very first interview, interviewed her in person and he said what can you tell me about this person. what they told me is that the two of them had skyped through texting each other for a few days to get background information, then they agreed to meet in person at a cafe and if one or the other didn't show up within a certain period of time they would assume they had been compromised and regroup later. so the blogger sent a photo to the report r, said this is what i look like. you will find me here. the reporter showed up, waited and waited and waited and she

wasn't there. so she went back and contacted her through the phone or whatever back channel they had and the blog said i was followed, they're following me more an more, i can't do this, let's drop the whole thing, i can't meet you. the reporter said that's ok, i think i've got enough background material, i'm going to go file the story. the story was filed and the story said the interview had taken place in person which gave license to all the other organizations to interview her through email or texting or skype. then a serbian woman surfaced saying why the hell is this blogger using my photograph? and all the photos on the blogger's facebook page were stolen from this serbian woman's facebook account. so all of a sudden this became a mad dash online to figure out what on earth was on -- going on here. some people assumed that because she was gay and involved in revolutionary politics, she just had covered her tracks very, very well. others thought she was a moll plant -- mole planted by the security services, and a few

people thought it was a hoax. but she had been on line for six years. she was part of yahoo groups back to 004 and 2005. my twitter followers kept digging and digging, looking through tax records, property records, tracing i.p. addresses, the little code for any computer connected to the internet. after a week of this a couple bloggers finally decided they found who it was. his name was tom mcmaster and he was an american living in scotland and going to grad school there. for about 48 hours he said it wasn't him. but eventually a colleague of mine and i were able to look through some of his wife's photos on a social networking site that matched the meta- data, you know, the background

material of the photos that the gay girl character had sent to her online girlfriend. she was dating someone online and that person never knew that she was a guy. but that ended up sealing it and she finally -- he finally came out and confessed the whole thing was a hoax and he had created the character five or six years ago because he wanted to have more authentic conversations from people in the middle east. why he changed the character from straight to gay and started posting on personal web sites around the world, that's a whole 'nother matter. >> ok. time for questions. quickly identify yourself. >> my name is janine and i covered much of the beginnings of the arab revolution for the "washington post." krishna, if only it were true about all social media leading to an extension of journalism and long term projects we would all be so much better off. andy, i agree with you that reporters using twitter and

facebook to find leads is phenomenal. i was in bahrain when it all started and i found that. i did it in saudi arabia, all these places like you did from washington. but what is happening in social media right now, i think it's the era of noise and i worry deeply about what we talked about with the fragmentation and i'm not sure we as a society and public are better informed about issues because of this phenomenon. i think there is still a role and need for places like "the new york times" which has been repeatedly bashed today, for what jim was talking about, a trained journalist you can go to and rely on and more importantly knowing the difference between a trained, well researched article and a blog post by somebody who doesn't have that kind be training. i don't think younger readers like the students i teach today know the difference between

these things. >> well, for the record i said the exact opposite. i said social media is not going to replace investigative journalism. that's going to take a considerable amount of evident by a professional. that said, i do think there is going to be a way to find leads and sources and data online that could in sum be journalism. but i agree with you that one area where it's not going to replace traditional journalism. >> i'm pretty sure i agree with everything you said. there is always ail place for hard core journalism on the field. i find it funny when people say well, what you are doing had ultimately get rid of reporters on the ground. why do people assume that? why can't this be complementary to the kind of journalism that exists.

no one is trying to destroy people's jobs or pull them out of their bureaus or field offices around the country. the bigger issue is of people not being able to tell the difference between professional, vetted journalism and what other people are posting, that's not my faultd. that's a failure in media literacy in our society and i think it's important that more people who are involved in news become part of the conversation around media liltrassy because this is a trend that's been going on for well over a generation now. i'd like to think there are aspects of social media that could actually help correct part of it. sure, there will always be idiots tweeting that george clooney has died yet again. but i don't worry about the noise. notome have said, it's about information overload, it's filter failure.

once you become more accustomed to sorting out what to pay attention to and what to ignore and who say better source and who is not, things begin to come into focus. all this takes practice. it's a different form of literacy. most people won't necessarily get it overnight so we need to spend some time thinking about the implications of all that. >> i also think it's real important not to make assumptions about privilege. the "new york times" is a fantastic organization but it's been heavily representative of male reporters, though it's being led by a woman now and of people who are middle class and above and i'm very, very concerned that social media has offered as great a diversity of voices. i totally agree with that -- you that there is noise and that investigative journalism is very, very important, but i would tate -- hate to give all the power back to mainstream

organizations because a lot of the people i mare -- hear from, i wouldn't hear from any more. and i want to hear from those people. >> i think it's fair to ask the question whether the explosion of social media and the ways in which it's shaping the national narrative has made it better. i would say it hasn't made it worse and that the challenge for us in media is not to say how can we stop this? how can we build more walls? how can we build the gate when the wall has already fallen down? our challenge is to say ok, that's now the media face. that's the world our audience is living in. how do we use it to create the narrative that actually means something?

what i find frustrating sometimes is that there is a tendency in media, particularly in certain parts of media, to play defense and to say no, no, we don't like this. we don't like the way it's changing. how can we stop it, how can we turn it back to what we were comfortable with? as opposed to saying no, it really is about our audience. it's about what they're doing and how they're engaging and our job is to engage them, provide them the information. and that's what we're here doing. our job is to be professional journalists, not to be newspaper reporters or to be broadcast reporters. and as soon as we begin fixating on the method that we knew when we started the job -- >> well, i'm not disagreeing with you, but one of the issues in professionalization is that the rise of i would say the rise of social media and news had come at the same time that there's been a huge loss of professional journalism jobs, something like 40,000 in the united states alone.

one of president reasons the mainstream media was slow to get on to tunisia is that there weren't many reporters there to see it. so i think the false notion that somehow social media will replace professional journalism, there is sometimes today that equation made. >> right. no, you hear it all the time. i think people who say that journalism is dying don't separate journalism from the platforms of -- and the economics of journalism. they're very different things. and so the reality is that social media has become a part of our world and certain aspect of journalism, certain types of stories within reporting require engaging people in the public sphere. you can't say that facebook and twitter and all these other

spaces are not part of the public sphere. so i spend time on twitter because that's where some of my sources happen to be. i do the same thing on facebook and elsewhere. when i'm able to meet them in person, i'm thrilled but i don't have the resources to get on a plane and be in tahrir square on a regular basis. when the fighting in libya started, none of us were allowed in the country the first few weeks. we had no choice but to rely on people on the ground who still had internet access and were able to share it. it was our job to vet it and figure out what was accurate and piece it all together. there will always be times we can't be where we want to be the i wish we could have a more nuances -- nuanced conference about this instead of assuming everything is black or white or good or bad. >> you have said these two things happen at the same time but correlation doesn't mean -- >> no --

what really happened is the internet took amay -- away the monopoly that media companies had on -- to deliver information and commerce to the doorstep. that went away. you could get ads to consumers other ways. people could take it or leave it. now when you put news out, in the past they were forced to get your paper because it was the only one in town. so social media is in some sense allowing, could correct forsome of those problems. >> please direct your question to one particular -- >> i can direct my question directly to susan. based on something that you said about the phony tone of traditional journalist speak

being overly objective no longer fitting with our culture. asking what we've been throughout the panel is what is a professional journalist and what is a professional journalist's role? frankly i think the goal of objectivity should always be paramount. it is an elusive goal, it is something that cannot be fully achieved. but if we don't train our professionals to at haste try to be objective, to try to use their abilities as filters of this new social media in objective ways, we're doomed. so i think part of what i'm asking is, do you really mean to though the baby out with the bath water and say objectivity, eh, that's yesteryear and we should go forward with more subjective journalism and what journalists should be doing is providing analysis from a subjective point of view? or did you mean actually objectivity needs to evolve? question a great because i agree with you 100%. i like to combine the idea of

objectivity with the idea of transparency, which means we're objective within the framework of who we are and ha we believe. as a mog person, anything i choose to feature as important is a reflection of my values and my interests. so on that level all of us have an agenda and the important thing for journalism today is for us to be transparent about what that is, to teach objectivity, those principles are totally essential. it's one of the things we want to hold onto but not to say because i'm a journalist, i'm objective, the high priest of objectivity, but to say i'm trying to be object've but here's where i'm coming from. >> i think there say fallacy that every component avenue -- of news media has to be objective for the consumer to get an objective viewpoint. sometimes the best arguments are made by people who feel passionately that one side of the argument is correct.

that's fine. you don't have to listen to them directly. you can listen to the people -- person who is guiding you through the many facets. that's what happens in a court of law. you have attorneys come in who are pretty strong arguers. so the so-called objective reporting on climate change, we talked to these people and those people and it could be either way. part of it is the responsibility of the person interpreting the news is to say here's the strongest argument on both sides and guide you to that, not ride -- hiding any of them from view. social media plays that role. there are people there who have a reputation purely because they interpret the news and they look at many strong advocates and say timely i think this is what you need to believe. so i think it's actually creating an opportunity for those who want to gain respect

in social networks by providing the objective viewpoint and i think there's something really important here, the distinction between objectivity and balance. i'm sorry, but balance in everything is phony. you know, basically, you know, would dodd-frank have prevented the j.p. morgan chase crater? either yes or no? there's not one says no, another says yes. that in my mind is lazy reporting. so i think there is -- and authenticity and objectivity do not need to be, you know, mutually exclusive. but phony balance, which is where a lot of us, like you've only quoted democrats, you have to go quote republicans, that's not objectivity. >> i'm deb petersen. social media director at the news group which includes the "san jose mercury news."

a comment first and then a question. i agree with andy. i caution because i think the conversation does need to be a little more nuanced when we're talking about traditional media. i invite any of you to come to our news room and you won't recognize what it is compared to, say, two years ago. you know, we are on pinterest, we tweet, we're on facebook, tweet deck is running all day. we have a community engagement team, our news media in the morning starts digitally with the web site. so it's a different news room than it used to be and many news rooms are so it's not really kind of a -- i don't think it's as much a black and white conversation -- and it's very difficult to not talk about it in black and white terms. and you guys, it's great to hear you bringing all this up. our problem continues to be to

monetize. so i would ask the tech company reps to give us some ideas for that. i would love to see next year that to be the topic. thank you. >> we'll let will and krishna answer that. i'm a tech guy, but i'm an editor. as i keep getting lectured, i'm just a call center. >> oh! >> but no, i think that -- i think the one thing, and maybe krishna can provide better insight here, but at least for us, it is still fundamentally about the audience. and whenever someone sort of it looking for a silver bullet that, ooh, isn't this the new thing that's going to final by basically turn on this mythical ad spigot connected to a new

platform, it's almost never there. and i think ha we found is in fact there's like a million silver b.b.'s and it's finding the way you can monetize what we have always done, which is providing advertisers a way to connect with and access the audience and doing it in either as targeted and therefore high cpm or mass and therefore lower cpm as possible. as far as i have seen and hopefully there are smarter ad guys at i can't ooh han they, there is no silver bullet, no new magical monetization that's going to come down the pike tomorrow. >> so i agree with will. if there were a silver bullet we'd have seen it by now. we cannot change fundamentally when monday ol -- monopolies disappear so we've got to figure out what it's going to be

that will pay the salaries of people who do substantial journalism. part of that is to walk away from the idea that everybody covers the same thing. so if finally the publications that will succeed, and unfortunately for the ones that are going to actually focus on building something that is unique, has unique value and that causes people to prefer them over other options. that's one thing. secondly the experience is what is going to get monetized. it's not the individual units of reporting. we all understand that. that requires innovation. again, not everybody is going to succeed. the companies that are going to succeed are the ones who are going to have the best experience.

where people say the only options available to me are i will use this service, it's something that exposes the entire world of news to me in a manner that works for me, that adepths to me, that knows my interests. so here's where embracing the opportunity that the open web provides, that social media provides and at the same time trying to rise above the competition in terms of experience is going to allow to you command that massive audience that's going to help you pay your journalists. but i think there's going to be efficiencies that technology brings in in terms of how much it costs to do the reporting. there are example of the kind of equipment you need to buy to do journalism in the field. well, that's rapidly becoming cheaper. that's one example. and the technology being applied on the other side in monetization, making it more, you know, lucrative by not necessarily tethering the ads to the article in question, are

you going to make the ad that because it's about iraq or about what the user is likely to buy at this point? so being smarter about the way you make money and being efficient in the way you actually use your money to do journalism i think is going to drive down costs and increase revenue but ultimately it's the most innovative company that's going to succeed. there is a lot of innovation going on right now and i am hopeful some will try and distinguish themselves. >> i want to say while i think it's great for people to use social media and social media tools, using the tools isn't going to make you successful with this new generation of business models. in oakland there are a lot of people that we would like to collaborate with who would

really like to see us disappear because they see us as a theat so i'm kind of cynical about news entities that don't link out, don't have partnerships, yet talk about how they're the next generation. npr and the atlantic are woth -- both fabulous examples of organizations that have reinvented themselves, started as legacy media but have really linked out, partnered, really been very open to supporting new entities. there is a lot of lip service from newspaper companies. they want to be community driven, but none of them has ever offered to do anything that would be beneficiary to us. that has to change. they have to walk the talk all the way. going halfway is nice. not enough. >> i'm john grakin. i'm not a reporter, i'm not a journalist.

i'm an ex-engineer who has been accused of having fortran as his native language. i'm not able to direct this to any single person the if i did, which i don't, tweet and blog and manage to get more than any own family to listen to what i am tweeting and plogging, can i declare myself to be a journalist and veil myself with the protebtions that have evolved over law protecting journalists and their sources? >> um why don't you, you probably have the most experience with the issue. >> there is a man who -- a woman who lost a very expensive lawsuit because the court ruled she was a blogger, not a journalist. so this is a very painful, controversial area.

there are no universally held standards. people have the power to publish, to take product endorsements, to do things they may think are professional but may not meet the standards of journalism. we worry about this all the time. we have insurance, libel insurance, and at oakland local we vet everything that isn't published as a community voices piece. there are things that can go up on the site that are just people's opinions. they have to follow terms of vfer guidelines around no slander, but i think you're raising a great point. it's a complete gray area, right? this is an area where we don't really have a set model yet. >> free speech can have conflicts with legal requirements, right? >> to get to krishna's point from earlier, it's a continuum and that's the challenging part. it's not just a gray area. it's that there are so many

points along the continuum that, you know, at what point does the legal opinion stand? add what -- at what point on the continuum? and how do you measure in each individual case where someone is on that continuum. i don't think it's any clearer. >> my sense of it is that there is a move from side to -- trying to decide who is a journalist, which is a personal status sort of question, to who is doing journalism, and protecting the act of doing journalism as opposed to the individual. but it is a very murky area of the law right now for all the reasons we've been talking about, who is a journalist? who is a professional? and so on. so we'll have to solve that one for next year's symposium. we're going to have to wrap up and i'm going to ask each of the participants to give us a quick to middling idea of what happens next in this realm of

the impact of social media on the news. krishna, i'll start with you once again. >> i think it's a good tomorrowation i see in the next decade, traditional media realizing that in order to thrive they need to be part creator and part curator. and i think becoming the trusted guide that takes you through that journey is going to allow them to ultimately succeed. >> no doubt we're going to continue to be more networked. the internet is going to continue to be more affordable. new tools are going to make it easier for people to connect and contribute to public discourse which makes me all the more fearful for the people who are still left behind because we take -- it's easy to take for we take -- it's easy to take for granted that we are connected