you lived in this town when you were really young. i'm curious as to what you think. this moment where people get their information. if you're covering a campaign, you're more likely to see the candidate on an entertainment show or daily show than in front of you answering detailed questions in an open-ended interview about policy. popular websites and pop culture often drives political coverage. how should journalists negotiate this? bring news of politics and government to this world. do you want to play these games? do you want to be on social media? do you want to be a character on tv?

>> i was shocked -- the same thing happened to me. they took a picture of me without my shirt on. [laughter] >> got that photo right here. [laughter] >> but you did not have it first. [laughter] >> there were a bunch of questions. these guys did not invent that kind of television or information. i honestly -- these things have been around forever. they do it in a different way on a different medium at a different level. i do not find it particularly threatening to journalism at all. in fact, if you listen to what

he said, we make lots of calls and we check it out and verify and then republish it. that is pretty much what journalism is. that is pretty much what it is. they do it on a guy with a really good abs, but it is just journalism. if arnold schwarzenegger was not a hollywood guy -- i'm sure the mayor candidates felt quite lonesome here. he is a celebrity. i do not think journalism has changed. i think what we all need to do is stop pandering on it so much. get back to business.

he is interested in these stories. i'm not interested in chasing his stories, but i am glad he is not chasing my stories. i want to make sure that my guys are playing the same discipline to the stories that we are chasing that his folks are applying to the stories that they are chasing. >> journalists say, i am under pressure to be on facebook and twitter. >> it somehow did not get in a lot of people's ways. mark might be the most prolific tweeter on the face of the planet, but he is also the most formidable, white house correspondent there is. if you are looking for a reason

to bitch and moan, i had to tweet today and could not get the story, but honestly, it is 140 characters. let's be serious. your question was about 940 characters. it cannot be that hard. [laughter] >> fair enough. >> no offense. >> none taken. >> your network seems to be under incredible pressure. >> look -- >> how do they do it? >> figure it out.

caness they figure they cover cruise ships for a really long time. equate a vacation with a natural disaster. it is more entertaining. cnn has always been cnn. it is a public utility of news. you want to know what is going on. you fill your pail with news. you turn it off and then you want to be entertained. you have mud wrestling and bill o'reilly telling someone to shut up or whatever. that is more entertaining. what cnn is yet again trying to figure out -- it is a hard thing to do.

figure out how to make the day when the national disaster does not hit and the day that planes did not hit the towers. make those days as engaging as every other day. you know, it may be that you cannot do that. on those days you better hope that anna nicole smith dies. [laughter] just to pick a name out. >> on that note, let's ichaeduce our next guest.m l spent nine years as a film and tv producer. he covered the entertainment business for the wall street journal.

he has degrees in european intellectual history. michael, there was an interview in 2001. a great line in the movie business is that the material is everything. the material is actually nothing. it does not matter. you can show up with the greatest script on earth and pop it down and thought abc to executive and can come back with the greatest reasons not to get involved. what really drives the entire business is by star power. that is true. do you see that change, some version of that change happening? >> i think so. i'm coming out of print and

you're coming out of broadcast, we're coming together somewhere in the middle. there are radically different equations. there is sort of a false dichotomy here. we're talking the infotainment and how that might be changing things. tmz, having looked at it up close, i would say it is one of the most intensely organizations i have ever seen occur in this town. you have to look underneath the skin of the subject matter. it can distract you. you realize you may or may not be interested in that, but within the small, contained universe, i have looked up both and am fascinated at how you work with courts and law enforcement and you get it right

and you do all of the things that back when we were better staffed and print publications, we used to do, for print locations are broad. staff are coming down. we no longer have the intensity of focus. you are ganged up in small areas. is that lack of importance of the material taking control of journalists? yeah. look, what i see happening let's say internally, i do not want to say if it is good, bad, or different, that is a different equation. it is hard unless you study it meticulously to make a judgment. if you look at the way we handle

entertainment in the new york times, particularly on the web, there is now a vast amount of material posted and sometimes printed that does not matter. it is absolutely vacant stuff. if you ever driven to the south and look at miles of things that choke out the real stuff, we have miles and miles of that on the website in the paper. those of us -- because we are old timers trying to jill in and do some things like tell people something they do not already know, which is getting to be one of the rarest elements in the news. much is a regurgitation of what is known. getting that first impression is rarer inside of print stories

and telling people something that matters. we have web reducers that have evolved over the last four or five years. people who used to post my stories go out and will do a q&a with any celebrity that draws traffic on their own. that would push stories that might take us a week. i will look and there will be seven stories pushed down because the celebrity junk is basically clouding it out. it is taking time and space and energy. it is fundamentally all traffic driven, at least on the website.

the more frequently you mention a celebrity name, the higher your traffic will go. if you want a lot traffic, keep a constant flow those things. it is not matter if people have done it or set it. you have got to keep moving those goods. >> i do not disagree with that answer. i will tell a little story that is in your world, but you will disown it, as you should. the single worst day i had on tv was after robert blake was arrested for popping his wife. the actor robert blake had won a very good performance in a tv series and is arrested for killing his wife.

we spent four hours on it. not like a figurative four hours, literally for hours. we were asking extra correspondents who we booked for no reason that i could figure out to keep this sucker going. how do you think this will impact his career? he has no career. [laughter] there is no upside to being arrested for your wife's murder. four hours -- so i go home at 2:30 a.m. in the morning. my wife who is a reporter looks at me half-asleep and says, why? [laughter] honest to god, i do not need this right now. i do not need it.

the next day at work, there are 15,000 e-mails. on an average day we get about 4000 e-mails. i looked through a few hundred. not one said, dammit. you promised us you were going to do serious news? not once did you do enough robert blake. my bosses were going crazy. you have got to decide, too. that was the biggest number we had since a plane crashed two months after 9/11. 10 years ago, celebrities were driving ratings. 20 years are now celebrities will drive ratings. i just don't think it is new.

>> it has just gotten more painful. to think about how bizarre it is, think about the oscars. 10 or 12 years ago, we wrote about the oscars two times in the course of a year. there were nominations and then it happened. that was about what enterprise was worth. starting in about the year 2000, i believed i was personally responsible for a terrible, terrible corruption in this process. i was working that time as an editorial director for inside.com. it was kind of a first early experiment in web news. like instantaneous news, traffic delivery, we did all the media covering. the only thing that made money on inside.com was something that

i and a couple of actors called the oscar crapper. we figure it out as a lark, we would get him to do a mathematical model and add up all of the factors -- from color of hair to nominations -- create a model that you could then feed information into and every single day for five months, rank all of the contenders. he said to take it down to a decimal place. that will fascinate people. for five months straight, we posted a ranking, a horse race of who is getting ahead. we instantly sold the entire page for the run to an auto company.

every day for 120 days, i had to write a handicap that went with this oh stop i was doing as many as three appearances a day the cable news shows. i would be called in because people found this fascinating. as you go forward -- >> i knew i knew you from somewhere. [laughter] >> they found something that worked. why did someone not apply that to the rest of the operations? they found a working formula. what you are saying is that a lot of what you do -- the scary part is when you feel that you have become a slave to it. >> any story that takes -- look, when you'd be the papers everyday, there are lots of intelligent sounding stories in that paper.

they are still pretty intelligent. if you know them from the inside and you have done them for 20 and 35 years, you know that there is a styrofoam quality to many of the stories that are being done in a day of what used to take a week. a classic example -- not that this is not a great story. i think every story has to be valid and do something. back in the middle of the 1980's when no one in this town -- everyone in hollywood talked about someone who is hideous and running the hollywood business and is corrupt. there had never been one single newspaper story about him. not one. he prided himself on doing this all in the dark. i'm sitting on the wall street

journal and i thought, screw that. we will figure out a way to put them on the wall street journal. i took two months and i dogged that man everywhere. he would come down the stairs. i would piece together who the hell this guy is. ultimately we ran on the front page of the journal. it triggered this entire reversal in his behavior. he decided he could not hide anymore and went public. many stories came after that. if i took two weeks on that story today, i would be fired. >> aren't there ways to exploit it? my own experience with arnold

schwarzenegger becoming governor of california was a gift from god. people read our stories. i got stories into the l.a. times about hard topics, local government finance, taxes for businesses. i even wrote a book about the initiative process. i was able to do that because i dress them all up as stories about arnold schwarzenegger. he was the way into that. >> it came giftwrapped as arnold schwarzenegger because he was already a movie star. a lot of people in congress or the senate, they are very interesting people. if you can get to that and peel back a couple of the layers, you might find that they are interesting.

maybe seeing one of your representatives playing basketball and realizing he has a great jump shot might be interesting to some people. >> do you have an agenda? >> no. like i said, we will not delve deeper. sometimes we talk about someone's politics, but we try to make these politicians personalities. learn something about the personality and you might be interested in them. hear something about them on cnn, marco rubio voted this and this, though, that is a guy i saw on tmz and how he is into hip-hop and talk for five minutes about why little wayne is not the new tupac. [laughter] we had this conversation with

him. there is a part of me that thought badly we do not delve deeper into his politic and what he is voting on, but that was not the conversation. i really want to hammer him about reaching for water in the middle of his response to the state of the union. we had a fun conversation with this guy. maybe the people will be interested now and what his politics are. we will hand it off now to people who will delve deeper into the politics. there is still huge appetite for that. we can create more of an appetite for to learn about politics. people are turned off by politicians right now. why not make it more interesting? then people might pay more attention to what they are voting or not voting on.

>> here's a question -- media has real consequences. i cover this area of chemical belts. a plant that the blowing up. i kept asking an engineer why this kept happening. he said, the problem is that it is not about -- they think they know how the government work and how politics work, but they don't work. i guess it gets to that question of are we crowding out things that would make us better informed? should we use celebrities to better inform us? >> that is outside of everything we are talking about. maybe people have it wrong.

i'm not a great believer in the church of journalism. i think it was jon stewart many years ago who said the only hope was to have maximum freedom and maximum outlet and maybe if we are lucky on a sunny day, the truth will find is take shape among all of it. i think there is a huge multiplicity of outlets. god bless. let everyone go at it. the more you have got, the greater the hope that ultimately you will be able to feel what is real. >> just a little point here. i'm a great believer in democracy.

viewers and readers, they will figure out what they need to know. they will make judgments that are appropriate to their lives. our job is to put it out there. but we need to put out there correctly. it comes back to charles -- in the last couple of weeks there has been an amazing story. a story that sarah palin had signed a deal with al jazeera. there was a story that a person had filed for bankruptcy. both stories are put out by a satire website. they both made it out there. maybe rather than worrying about all of this big stuff, we ought to worry about the small stuff. check it out. before you run it, part of the conflict with the web is that it

is killing us or you. it makes it -- it is like an e- mail. you say things that you never would have written in an e-mail and you can say things on the web you never would have written down. it is easy to push a button and it is out there. i may not care about the guy with abs, but i care a lot about teaching students with the journalism they are doing. if you learn to be a reporter, you can report on celebrities, politics, sports, the economy, but if you do not know how to be a reporter, all you can be as a celebrity. that is all you can do. >> what scares me the most is

that the huge vacuum, the stuff that we do not know that no one is touching it. the illusion that everything can be known by getting online and tickling something with your thumbs leaves this gigantic vacuum aren't actual information that is never uncovered. in santa monica last year in the branch court, there was a stunning case in which 20 young, jewish professionals filed a lawsuit for anti-semitism against a hotel, which they had been thrown by the owner on a sunday afternoon, for the alleged was afraid -- she was pakistani -- and that her family would pull funding if they found out there were 20 jews raising money at a pool party, which was authorized by the hotel staff for the idf.

she came in and threw them out. they filed a suit. this is sitting in the santa monica court. one quick round based on the complaint goes on the internet. i wonder who is right and who was wrong. what really happened? what did she really say? what are these young professionals like? do they have a chip on their shoulder or are they for real? my wife looked at me and said, i have grown up there my whole life. get down to the courthouse. i want to know if this happened in santa monica. believe me, i will go do it. uninvited, i dropped in and sat in the courthouse with what turned out to be a three-week trial. i kept dodging my duties and running in there to listen to testimonies. it was amazing.

the jury found against the elder and with good reason after she testified. there was not one reporter at any level in that trial. there was no local reporters. nothing. if my wife had not chased me into that -- i thought for the executive editor of our paper -- these people are just like your daughter. we will run it. how many times a day does that happen that we do not know about these things anymore? >> there is this blurring of lines and no one seems too unhappy about it. i look at it and i can tell. i'm allegedly a professional journalist. i cannot tell if the actors are running the government. it is also the mixed up. there are political scientist who argue, this is great.

we are returning to the late 19th century when the public was most engaged. the ones who could vote, voted in huge numbers. there were parades. those were the glorious times a real political engagement. now we are much more cynical. the blurring lines, does that have consequences for things like ethics? there are some media organizations that pay for tips. tmz i think is one of them. there are others that don't. should we worry about that? should we worry about confusion? >> two things -- first, we do not pay sources or pay for information. we pay for photos and video. now -- [laughter] >> i had something in my throat.

i do not need a rubio. [laughter] >> clarification made. >> why do you care? what difference does it make who is running for office? what difference does it make? it seems like you want us to be upset about this blurring of the lines. i do not know what caused this and why there is this fascination with celebrities, but you cannot deny it is a reality. you can sit and whine about it. you can complain that it is harder to cover a story now or you can deal with the reality of it. this is the way it is now. i do not have any issues with

having politicians or entertainers becoming politicians. i think the problem with ethics your deadline is two minutes ago. you cannot wait for the printing presses to start running. you had to do it now. that can cause a problem with ethics and people decide they will play loosey-goosey with the facts. if you do that, you have a problem with ethics. i always tell the interns, what is really important here? what is important is speed. what is more important is accuracy. we need to have this now. i want the actual story now. that is what you need to wish for.

before you hit the button to publish, make sure what you're publishing is correct. the day that we publish the michael jackson death was literally six people standing around the button and harvested their and said, we double checked. we have this and this. are we sure? yeah. hit the button. that was a story that was so big that you have got to triple, quadruple check and say this is correct. then hit the button. but if you just ran off and printed something and hit that button, you will get screwed. >> i'm not opposed to being contrary.

for what i'm being paid tonight, i will be contrary. [laughter] i remember jackie o's time. i wrote something about it to my editors -- and brought it to my editors. everyone was really excited. we ought to find out if she is dead. [laughter] pretty much of the baseline. >> it can be really embarrassing. >> honestly, it is no different. the speed pressures are different. i imagine they are.

are the economic pressures different? absolutely. but the basic truth of journalism is that if you do not get it right, you do not last very long in this. i do not think it has changed much. >> focus on the area where lines have blurred. i personally find it troubling. it makes it incumbent upon all of us to think more clearly on what we do. a lot of the political and historical information we get is coming from movies. i cover movies. what has occurred is that movies at the lower end and a fair number of dramatic films of long as they're not the big, special effects driven blockbusters, moves very quickly.

this physical activity, new movies like "social network" and "zero dark thirty" -- come across almost in real time. i think there's something very beguiling, particularly about documentaries. you're sitting there and you are watching the movies and it creates the illusion that everything you're being told must be true because i see it. i see but a horrible thing he just said. the back of your mind or thinking we'll must be true because the camera never lies. the camera always lies.

in film, the camera of the director restructures reality and doesn't report reality. how are we being used and manipulated in seemingly benign or inspirational political tales that are being told? i would love for some to do a split level documentary and see all of the same footage -- i would like to see the first minutes as an anti-bush documentary and then re-edited with all the same materials but to pick it up and now make a pro-bush documentary.

you can do that. that is the one place that -- >> two things. i think most of the documentaries are preaching to the choir. whatever harm there is, i believe there is some harm, it is confined to people who suffer from this primary information disease of our time, which is simply wanting to hear things you have already heard or believed. thus on the subject of historical, i live in phoenix. i go to movies really early in the day. it is what you do when you're old in phoenix. [laughter] it is fabulous. we walk out of "lincoln" and there is this elderly couple. the husband says, i thought that was great. the husband said, i cannot get over how much he sounds like lincoln.

[laughter] i go through life trying not to be noticed. i turned around and i was like but my wife grabs me and says, come on. maybe things are happening too damn fast. >> that is maybe one case where the lines are blurring. maybe it is an issue. we were discussing this today. does it bother you that the first family seems to be attaching itself -- and this started beforehand -- attaching themselves very publicly to celebrities? is that an issue? does it bother you that maybe they are getting too close to them?

why are they getting close to them? because they want to be seen? they want some of the shine that they get? >> maybe a celebrity wants to hang out with the president, maybe they get the shine the other way around. >> there was a complaint about the oscar show where they were upset that michelle obama showed up. not one person i talked to that morning said they like that. hollywood rebelled deeply. >> this is a great conversation. we want to bring the audience into it. >> time for questions. there'll be dozens of them and really have a limited amount of time.

everyone from the forum will be at the reception upstairs. please come to us. say your first and last name before your question. this is being reported and will be put up on our website. you can share it with your friends who could not be here tonight. c-span is also here tonight. it will probably air next month. jennifer has the first question. >> my name is aaron. i was troubled by the fact that one topic i thought was not really discussed much was that we live in a democracy. people vote and our innocence -- and thus are responsible for the decisions made by our government. when entertainment starts crowding out real information

that people need to make these decisions, i think that is a problem. if anyone is going to vote for or against marco rubio because what he thinks about some rap star, we are in real trouble. i think so. is that not something that bothers you? isn't there some responsibility that journalists have to our society? >> i agree. it would be a huge issue is someone voted for marco rubio a cause they also like tupac. maybe if you listen to what he says and make an informed decision, listen to what he says about issues and then make an informed decision. he is on your radar because you heard about something that appeals to you. you are right.

all of the information is still out there. i guess the problem is that it is harder to find. they used to be you could turn on the news at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. and you would get that information. now you're not getting it there. it is still out there. you just have to search for it a little bit. >> a slightly different take on this. you will be offended by this. i will tell you put this in a gentle way. if you go back in your lifetime or my lifetime, you'll find that the more likable candidate wins the presidency almost every time. there are ties. johnson and goldwater, neither you wanted to hang with. goldwater was less likable than lyndon johnson. say what you want about george w. bush, but he was more likable than al gore in my opinion.

the more likable guy wins. particularly in a president, the one the guy who comes into our living room every day to be likable. while i do not think musical taste is a reason to vote for a person, knowing who the person is tells us a lot about those things we can't anticipate happening, but do happen when someone is elected president and they had to respond. that might be more important than knowing how they feel about the deficit. >> but the camera always lies. i don't believe for one second -- look, you read a landmark book. it has been 40 years that we have been dealing with this phenomenon. the nixon-kennedy debates.

we are trusting image. >> no, there are truths here. kennedy was more likable than nixon. even nixon liked kennedy more. [laughter] >> many of the things occurred, he might not have been more likable. >> let's get another question. >> hi. as a former longtime print reported that handles social media on a new site, i'm curious. you talk about the speed driving the decision making process. the other thing you did not get into was the impacts of big data, our understanding of the stories that people want to watch. part of what is driving the infotainment interest is that

what are the audiences are showing in a very hard to refute way what they want to follow. it is like big data in understanding the hard numbers of social media and seo are changing. they are going with the money is. >> true. that happened to magazines. magazines told you about something outside of yourself. it shrunk and died one by one. stories that you could hardly dream were occurring out there. every magazine was demographically driven. magazines have been put in a place where they fundamentally a mirror reflecting the desired readership. it became a niche market.

there was a wallpaper for the people who are ready feel that way. -- already feel that way. what is happening with the internet, it is impossible to refute the pressures of traffic and the numbers. you will always do better by giving people what they want to -- what they want. but that will not necessarily create value. sometimes a single, true fact that no one wants is still a single and true fact and is important. >> to me, what this stuff has done is make that data more precise. but the data is what it was before. it was clear.

people and executives would call and say, what happened at 10:15? we covered the war. i do not know what got into us. [laughter] >> has it been painful? >> it is funny to me. there is a lot of -- literally, lawyersople who watch -- when they watch lawyer shows our doctors watch dr. shows. first of all, no one is having that much sex. [laughter] it is never really that good. [laughter]

like a lot of things about the internet, it increases speed. speed is an issue. the information is more precise. it is not that we do not have a sense, before we did. , like a lot of things, it is a somewhat what hased sense of always been. soldincess diana magazines, but we knew that before. >> that is a vast difference. with ratingsew up and feedback and knowledge. even unto this day, we still have editors who say, i do not care one person cares about this.

do it. i had a story not that long ago about chinese censorship in american movies. it was difficult to put together. it have to do with the fact that american movie studios are running their scripts through chinese censors. they want the movie to play in china. nobody asked for that story. one kid in the whole world, a colorado state student who ask about that. there is no demographic value for it. >> but it ended up in the paper. >> it did get there. >> hi. i want to push on a simple story question. you have been kind of alluding to it. overall,, is this a crisis or not?

is it the same old thing? the crime rate is down and life expectancy is up. it does not seem like society is unraveling. i do not wantl, to sound offensive of this, but this is a pretty good clue that i am about to. [laughter] represent cnn and i do not want to. it does not that they do not want me to either. [laughter] i'm comfortable on network television broadcast. i do not want to be seen as uncomfortable. i was employee of theirs and --, but they do not want me abc, but they do not want me speaking for them either. i do not see it as a crisis. i think information democracy is kind of messy sometimes.

things can get messy. but it has always been that way in some way or another. this may sound like a copout and maybe it is, i do not know, but what we need from you is an diligence and what you do. you have to look for stuff. it is there. honestly, i mean you would not know it from this conversation, but the times is an amazing newspaper. whether it is that little. or an avalanche in washington state -- i cannot find that anywhere. people only look at the homepage. you do not get it. in every sense. and the kids we teach, we need to work harder, better,

faster, smarter, and more efficiently. is are's a question -- good infotainment and bad infotainment? what is the difference? if it is about important things -- completely subjective. i cannot put my finger on exactly why. i hate that word "infotainment ." or --either entertainment what we found in research is that people do not like the word news. they don't seek out news. they get the news, but they do not like to call it that. they want to be entertained. that is sort of what aaron was saying that maybe people watch msnbc or fox because they are

entertained while getting the news. i do not think it is a crisis. i do not and you can say whether there is good or bad infotainment. what do people want? it is a democracy. if you want to read about lindsay lohan, that is great. if you do not want to, you have the right to go read the new york times. >> i think you're right. it is not a crisis. for it to be a crisis, you would have to believe that things were wonderful before and that wonderful has died now. you have to be an idiot to think that is true. it is not. it is a time of enormous chaos. it is like periods in china history where we had 1000 years of chaos.

things have not changed. it is incumbent upon everyone to do a lot of thinking about what they are reading and seeing and what it means and where they're getting it. can you imagine that you would've had get-togethers like this and that they occur all the time? everyone is sharing in that process of what is happening here? what is this all about? i think it is a good thing. >> it is time for one last question. please go upstairs for some wine, beer, soft drinks, whatever you like. you are great company. all of our guests will be there tonight. last question. >> matthew ross. i wanted to talk about this idea of feedback journalism. you talked about how some parity information has come out and is turned into actual news, like

what you said about palin. people have followed stories. it seems that the back journalism is happening so frequently now. -- a lotis on the same of misinformation is going out because of this. if one person gets it wrong, everybody gets it wrong. it seems dangerous. >> i do not know if i would use the were dangerous, -- word dangerous, that there are sites that are aggregators. they want a start up on the site that they know people are searching for. if sarah palin is a hot topic, they will with that story up there. that is what i was referring to when i said that can be a huge problem for ethics if you are running a site and your goal for the day is to get the biggest

numbers you can get, it doesn't matter if it is true or not, and is going to find the stories that i know people are searching for and it is easy to find the information, anyone can do that research and i'll put up those stories. then yes, that is dangerous. i have had many ties were people walked up to me and said, is it true about -- i think my sister called me and said there was a rea to dick you start. i said, no. that is not true. -- there was a story. i say, no. that is not true. the last 18 months, there has been a shift of some kind. that' dominant has created

enormous opportunity or ufor us. once everyone gets in the habit of piggybacking and moving in one direction, it makes it far easier for someone who has a simple common sense to act in a contrarian way and pick off the next story and lead the next wave and lead the next wave. when an individual reporter or editor's develop that have it -- and i know many who cultivate exact lead that skill -- it turns that into great opportunity for everybody else. what tmz does, you are transparent. you have a show that shows the process. should everyone do that? anyone can watch tmz and get a

fair idea of what you do and make an informed decision of whether to trust you. there are morning shows where you see a little bit of behind- the-scenes, but it is the mainstream, the new york times, the big networks where it is more of the wizard of oz thing. it is still behind the curtain. behind thekes into times story meetings. i was in one. into a story meeting and distracting all of them -- one of the great problems you still have is that if you are grilling in hard on something that is difficult, a story that people do not want you to tell, you are going to deal in anonymous sourcing. you have a choice.

liecan print on the record or you can get to the bottom of something that is anonymous and off the record. i would not be we to assume someone should be able to put a you'll see a great deal of truth running out of the system incidentally. -- instantly. >> i've been thinking about the sarah palin thing. and i don't know how to quantify stupid. [laughter] >> you know, honestly. >> the thing that worries me in all of this is that part of what i've learned i think as a young reporter is not simply what was the story but what isn't is story. and if there's one thing that's beyond me is the gatekeeper. there is no gatekeeper function. nobody ain't saying that isn't the more anymore.

there was a story back when john kerry running for president about john kerry was having an affair with an intern. he was having an affair with an intern. it ended up going on drudge. doings said what are you with the kerry intern story? i said, nothing. >> i've got a problem there's not a single fact in the story. i don't know what to say other than people are talking about a story that has not a single fact. that was the gatekeeper function of journalism. that's gone. the next day the candidate goes exactly ao is not

place for journalism. if a guy's having an affair with an intern, at that point i have no choice. the candidate has denied it. what we do, we've played this all game which is why we're sitting here tonight. we did the story about the anatomy of a rumor which we called dressing up a pig. but it was stick a pig. what the internet has stolen from us editorial. it's not like the best thing goes out there more than it does. it's that step that shouldn't be throughout at all the gatekeeper function is gone. and it's never coming back. and you guys have to live in a world where news is just thrown-up. and for you to pick through it. you know? that's what scares me. wordf you want to use the

crisis, i'll agree that that's a crisis, more so than anything -- some dude's abs. well, i think -- we'll leave it at that. [applause] >> the event in los angeles from a couple of weeks ago hosted by zocollo public square and cohosted by the cronkite. here on c-span we are going to continue the conversation to get your thoughts. we are opening up the phone lines for your participation. what's behind political organization? where do you get your news from? topics like that. here's how you can participate. the phone lines are for those

of you on the east, 202-585- 7880. -- 3880. 202-585-3841 in the mountain area. and for journalism students that number is 202-585-3882. make sure you mute your television. also facebook.com/c-span. we have a current of posts already. and on twitter we're following the #infotainment. also joining us this evening here at c-span is january hall. -- jane hall. you've likely seen her on fox news channel and cnn's reliable sources. and via skype it's patrick gabin who covers politics.

fishnly at politico, the bowl d.c. and patrick gavin. thank you for joining us this evening. i look forward to a conversation about the broad issue of political news and entertainment. jay, we'll start with you. if we had to do a survey of your students, walked into the classroom and you would ask -- who are they reading? >> they look at c-span, but also get a lot of their take on the news and they enjoy the daily show. and i think that's true of a lot of young people. they watch -- they like to take on the news on those kinds of shows.

>> during the commercial, there was a lot of talk about the nuts and boats of journalism and the duel pressures of both getting it fast or getting it right. what's that pressure like for you at politico? >> sort of beat the competition. they wanted to make sure they get it right. politico has sort of a hierarchy and editorship you know we made mistakes as other news organizations have. but that is a risk every reporter has experienced either through your day job or on twitter or on facebook. it's weighing back the decision -- a fast sort of facts. there are a lot of pressure to get things out quick. because you've got to do it for your own reputation and also for your employees to shoot it

right. >> go back to jane students and her comment about some of them coming from the daily show. how does he walk that fine line between being attention grabbing, informational and nbc covering a very hard political scene. >> politico might be slightly uniquely defense. we a very narrow scope and vision. political-- intense junkies. so under that umbrella for us, anything that is political is relevant to us. and so that could be something about the americans. -- gay marriage. it could be about the nexus of celebrities and politics that we see all the time. that could be ashley judd, donald trump.

not to make the white house correspondent dinner. and for us, if it's about that and we see that with celebrity culture. back to the nuts and bolts issue with january hall. -- with jane hall. there was a lot of that in the conversation at zocalo public square. what are you trading your journalism students for. where do they want to go work for a tmz for example? who would want anybody wants to work for tmz. some of them all worked for political. my students. -- i teach politics in the media or from a news study journalists. i get future journalists. my students are interested in journalism.

and i think that they are -- they know they need to be multimedia. they create their own personality in a way. and they know that -- you know, we believe that they need to know how to report which is previous. everybody was praising tmz because they gave up the facts. we are also trying to educate for a universe that is online, multimedia apps, smart phones. you have to file a lot and quickly. >> we've got lots of calls waiting. you mentioned an interesting terms, you said multimedia storyteller. do you consider yourself this way? >> absolutely. flipwould just grab your foot

cam and talk to whoever is there. everybody no doubt does that and it's gotten much. thead reporters covering 2012 campaign that they would have an interview with mitt romney and we would have it on the website minutes later. you're everybody -- if not utilizing your camera, your or when you can that's something that's unfair. >> evenlyn, welcome, go ahead. >> i have a friend who collects headlines. they were collecting comments, whether they should be checked out.

>> where did you read that? >> on the station. and there were flashing head lines as part of the show. >> you mean on "washington journal"? yeah. one of them was aggravated felon released -- >> i'm going to let you go there and we'll go to patrick gavin first on this on the role of headlines because politico does get some very attention grabbing headlines. how important is that in the editorial decision there. >> it's certainly important. as at least political it's a uniquely difficult challenge. if you look at our website, this main argument he's got a decent amount of real estate to expand on your numbers. you've got maybe 35 characters

or little bit more. it is a very challenging things. she not only described arguments about driving accurately. describe it accurately. the web can be a very difficult format because a lot of times defending on the platform you're writing for, you might have a very, very limited piece of real estate to get the point across. your need to make interesting -- is something that people can write their paychecks with. evening,lumn this dylan byers' meeting, was not attention-grabbing but certainly news from the politicians and celebrity and rush limbaugh made comments on his radio comment. this issue of where media personalities make news about politics.

it's more and more common. >> well, you know, it's very interesting, the gay marriage story. politicians are now falling over themselves to endorse gay marriage. when they were arguing that this is a reason that they needed to intervene because this is an oppressed group. now you have a lot of people in the media. still until the republican side. i guess you would call him a celebrity in a lot of ways in the sense that he carry as lot of weight, what he says when he wasn't after that young woman in georgetown. he said about her, about contraceptives. that because news. news.t became that it something that came in the campaign. he is setting the political agenda. >> let's go to allen town.

allen is in brooklyn. go ahead. >> thinking backing the last 30 years when it was considered a personal choice and freedom a lot of people or drive without seat belts or drink as much alcohol because they figure it's their prerogative. now we realize that there are social costs to their behaviors. i think we are today about what these issues of the personal cost of personal behave. how much people pig out on sugary entertainment news. it's a matter of public concern that an electorate is voting wisely for the later generes -- generations that are going to be affected by our decision. they are collectively one that steers the ship of zate. state.

later generations are passengers on this ship. and we are going to shift. theonly way we can steer ship, this will be the debt, infrastructure is that if we have so much understanding, no a victim was crying. victimlesse is not a crime. we are affecting people we're responsible for. >> allen, thanks for your comment here. >> well, think that's a very important point. you know, neighborhoods still -- newspapers are still according to the latest one. are losing circulation. i think the collar makes her -- caller makes that. a serious point.

i personally say that that is lamentable in so many ways. it seems be a way where kids can put their issue forward. you think his fame to try to spot lying be which people -- spotlight darfur. not be covering that could be a good use. the bad news is you have ana nicole smith who ha a sad death over and over and you're not covering serious issues, that i think is a more center. serious issue. >> john on facebook writes that why do we make and i rather get celebritiessrs and s -- facebook.com/c-span. we go to sandy who is in milford connecticut. >> hi. i'm very happy to be on here. i think the prom was excellent.

the program was excellent. i was at the director's guilt in california and i talked to sam watersome. i asked when was the show going to be on again. this should be a typical news, program today rather than the growth entertainment that we're seeing and i would like to see a real news program at 7:00 p.m. in new york, come into the "new york times" which i -- they sent a message. he said in there writing that this is just reported over and over again. sometimes for two or three days which is really doubt. -- really not news. newsld love to see a real program. they were looking for it at 7:00. and i thank you for the show. >> patrick, what did you think about her comment?

there's not a real news program. she said. >> all those organizations obviously have a certain responsibility to, you know, to be respectful and to do the news in a way that's beneftional to -- icial to the reader. i'm also fairly consume oriented on a lot of good questions that are being raised. there's c-span, charlie rose, cbs. there's a lot of great educational training. the "new yorker," i mean, if you want to have substantive journalism, it can be found. as we all know, "dancing with the stars" is going to dwarf. what we're doing right now. and "dancing with the stars" is going to dwarf the charlie rose show.

our organizations are providers. viewers need to meet that content. that expectation has to be there from the consumers in order for that the demands to be met by the businesses as well. >> that caller, wanted to give our viewers a flay that he -- a flavor of that offers an apology for the war in iraq. >> i'm will mcivoy. beforetestifying congress march 24th, 2002. i liked that moment. adults should hold them

accountable for failure. and so today, i'm apologizes for the american people for our failure. the failure of this program during the time i've been in charge of it, to successfully inform of the american electric. electorate. let me be clear that i don't apologize on behalf of all blood cast journalists. journalists. i speak for myself. i was in an unamended train wreck of a player. -- of failure. i'm a leader that they call the results. and failed to report on tectonic ships in our country. in the truth to how strong we are to the dangers we actually face. >> that hbo program a fictional setting but the material very real. how often would we see something

like that happen? how rare is that that an anchor or a major network news. would take -- make them apologize for something in the reporting. the sometimes and "the washington post" and how they didn't question the administration and how we didn't know enough. and we were look to people who said they aren't in iraq. i just want to add a little defense of the network newscast because they still at 7:00 on abc, cbs, and have a new cast. but they have done a lot of very serious news. the caller may disagree with me on that.

there are -- it's almost a problem. you know, c 33 got big problems -- cnn got big ratings by ship.ng the cruise he just told me it was addressed. there's always this conflict. and giving people what they need. but i think to be fair they're a serious newscast. >> on that cruise ship story. you're the managing editor for the day on cnn. jane paul would that be the story of the day? >> you put me on a tough spot. they have a new nbc. newhey have a

president who came from nbc. they didn't spend a lot of money to cover that. but they and other nets -- and i think they probably might have pulled away. let me get ea quick response. same question to pavin gavin. -- to patrick gavin. they've got all this story, do you cover it or not? >> if that is a direction they face it's going to bring in more viewers. >> it's difficult to blame them. i didn't qualify. but that certainly would not be the news of the day. but the reality is you do have to cut the cable network a little bit more time. they are 24/7. and they do need that air time. it's -- i think that the one they made, they got of looking there.

>> political journal, this one is from pamela. she writes about the political story. rush limbaugh. politicalmerges with news. our politicians, celebrities and celebrity politicians? >> and one more, infotainment. dumbing down of america is nearly complete. james, welcome to the program. >> thank you. i m a writer, a poe -- and i'm also a part-time editor for those who want a meeting here in central mass. there are too many stories like

the ones that don't have any facts -- keep getting reported. they should be caught off. mitt romney's income taxes were one where it came out with no facts. didn't form -- and those carried over and other and i bore them. i appreciate c-span's -- i would say 80% of news listening directly. i'm retired and so i have plenty of time to plon store that. -- to monitor that. >> let's go on to journalism student. there.hi

>> i've been watching the show the as students we are taught to plug the gab in. the bridge between the celebrity world and real life. but also in real life. my question is where am i supposed to do this? can i follow my heart to give the attention? or do i watch everyone in the students it's hard to be realistic. don't i'm very critical of the media. but i do think there are places that are doing straight moves, -- straight news, serious news. align yourself with those.

there are plenty of outlets. you know, there's a lot online that can do with it. it's not all terrible. but it is true -- you know, i used to by things in magazine. the three second rule which is whatever you've got on the cover of "people" magazine for example, has got to go so people and that is what we're up against in a lot of ways but it doesn't mean we're going to abandon the idea of it. i really feel stronger about that. how important is that for you? building a brand. perhaps i would say a special

knee. -- a specialty. but the reality is is that branding is important for a lot of time because you do see here in washington journal. you didn't see a lot of reporters jumping from news conversation to news conversation. if you didn't have sort of "the washington post" made behind you, you know, you are essentially not paying them now. you don't need to have that behind you. he's with the dale -- daily. his -- he took his work with his out of sight. he's done pretty well. that is a rare example of how branding can be.

>> patrick gammond from politico -- gavin from politico and jane joining us here on c- span. by taking your comments about and political journalism certainly wasn't of the folks that talk about mentioned where they get their news, is the daily show with john steward. here's the issue on the gun violence issue from the program. >> we were going to have to take real and substantial action to reduce gun violence in the country. it's been three months since then. and over 3,000 environments. violence.ctims of gun weakenedly votes have

gun control in america. >> ok. >> those votes to prevent the justice -- >> to prevent the justice department, for example from taking a look at gun shot owners inventory to make sure there haven't been theft. >> that makes sense. >> prevents the justice department from attracting them. america wins again. weve got guns just where want them. >> we've got the judge for a weapon. >> the daily slow request john stewart, jay hall quickly on that clip he's obviously talking about some things that actually happened. i think he definitely shakes -- shapes opinion. that's a pretty p.c. slow.

i've been doing it a lot of reporting about -- about what he was talking about which is gun control and why is it is. most of my students is that he puts out the hypocrisy often. he will edit something where she shows karl rove or sarah is very experienced but kim k. -- but tim kaine is not. he edits -- i think selectively what kind news pundits say and i think that's punctures a lot of the pretense. sadly there's a kind of synergy that you can have. but that is part of his appeal. he cares about very serious issues too. >> let's get to this john. welcome to the conversation.

>> hi, good evening. basically i wanted to talk where jeff daniels was talking about his apology for the iraqi war do you think we'll see any newsperson or anybody a -- involved in the match. the media apologize for benghazi?ned in i mean, it's just -- it's not even the elephant in the room anymore. i've heard -- wilson is bad and -- references to anna nicole smith and other minor celebrities issue. i was thinking about it as journalism.

military journal. aaron brown brought up the fact that john carry you're going to -- had an alleged affair. i just want to know how these "people" feel. where are we? what do you think about his comments that isn't thoroughly covered. >> i think the answer is know. --ple can disagree or green or agree about that. >> the main of how the us handled the situation. that seems to be one of the runt of the criticism goes. that's for better, for worse. they teal i think that's -- that does stop with the

administration and the state department for if there were any wrongdoing and how they handled that. so i don't think that's the best example in which you might see a network anchor apologize. i think that -- you know, the reporters apologize all the time, but they're usually on very, very bad issues. we plagiarized. there have been policy discussions where both sides do have their own talking points and their own intentions. news considerations generally will not apologize for that type of thing. >> next up from warren, pennsylvania. >> i'm absolutely amazed that there's something on tv like this on tv. yeah, you guys.

my question was with the validity thing, how are you supposed to find news on the internet when you can't find -- you know, who are you supposed to do? and what happened to the freedom of press. who are you supposed to do if you can't trust the people on that for years that our grandparents have been telling us? this is supposed to be the news. it's like none of its' happening the way that it's supposed to be. >> let jane hall take an on that we were talking about the brand name in journalism. >> well, you know, i think that you have to -- you know, don't agree with this thing that is often said which is -- it puts it back on the consumer saying you need to sample broadly. and you decide. i think that is the most tremendous copout.

it is better to go to sources that you feel have some level of depth and object activity. -- objectivity. what has happened in cable news in general that you have opinions more than you have reporting because of the economics of how it cost it gets back to this other question which is it's also fun to see a food fight. john stewart going after that. that is entertaining. find the sours that you see -- find the source that you see really reporting this story. i guess i'm a huge fan, newspapers. i think they've had cup bags. -- cutbacks. they started doing what we call stake out on gun control, on how the n.r.a. has had power for many years if you think the

n.r.a. maybe would i have been in the past. i just was a to come back to the one thing if i can. muchfeel they can report more independently about what hatches. -- what happens. you get into a political story of susan being attacked and hillary clinton getting in accounting. i'm not sure if we're going to know the truth of what happened actually. let's from bob. >> go ahead with your comment or question. >> all that matters is that i have a -- >> hi, there. >> i'm a little nervous. >> that's ok. go ahead. >> i sam so -- i'm a little bit upset because you've been talking about on the newscast, but you never mention things like "democracy now". every morning i watch her

because they tell so much news that no one else covers, yet i am amazed that no one is talking about that. >> we asked you at the beginning of the program, where are you getting your news from? so you listen to your democracy every day. and she -- not one other station covers. >> del, thanks for chiming in. the will get back to previous comment that jane made in terms of reliable sources. what does politico do on a daily basis to ensure that political itself is a reliable source that people keep coming to politico for news they can trust. >> they have the same type of sourcing that other organizations do as well. journalisming about

is that it is sort of self policing in the sense that if politico gets something wrong, that's egg on our face, that's going to hurry our reputation. every blog, independent writer and reporter is facing the same type of thing. there is very little incentive to mess things up. and when you do, that's going to be a huge step for you and your organization. it's a very tough thing to climb out of. if you don't have straight policies in place, make sure you're getting it right. make sure you report the reporting of others. >> both of you have spend times in both newsrooms. i want to take a look at the clip from tmz and comment afterwards on -- not necessarily the comment. because it's political in nature but the dynamic of the newsroom. >> paul ryan electrifies the

g.o.p. convention last night. but insiders say there is something he could do to make his speeches even better. a little bit more of an attire will accentuate that physique. >> that's aaron. >> they think he needs ea box over. >> it's boxy. >> like when you lose weight and you're afraid you're going to gain it back. >> it's true, ryan's a fitness fanatic but maybe that suit is from a before picture time. or maybe there's another explanation. >> he borrows chris christie. >> that would explain it. >> tmz senior editor there harvey levin and his staff in the tmz newsroom. how close is that though the

topic are different? ourt's not very similar to newsroom. >> you know, i think stuff like that could be pretty good fodder for people. i don't know that necessarily get too worked about i. the reality is that that's exactly what you would expect. you'd be a little bit -- you'd be taking it back. but the reality is there is plenty of room, i think, for people to cover politics the way they do. that's how tmz does i. the fact that tmz is interested in d.c. as much as they are is a very, very telling story and tells you a lot about the kind of culture that's over the air. i don't blame them. >> you mentioned that up a can of your students at american university would like to go to work for tmz.

what's behind their motivation? >> no, i didn't say that i said i hadn't had -- i'm not sure i'd encourage them. i just want to be on the record about that. i think what they do is very interesting. this is definite, you know, sort of mocking tone to that narrator. when they report that michael jackson -- they only reported on michael jackson, you know and they had their packs straight. -- facts straight. i think that clip speaks to me about -- someone tweeted about this. now, i think we require both men and female politicians to be very good-looking. wasyou know, sarah palin very attractive. and other publications put her on the cover in running gear. it was from "runner" magazine. people were showing pictures of

obama standard. i shirtless.i we require a standard of good looks. abraham lincoln may not get elected. he didn't have abs as far as i know. this is important. so they look good and we cover them. it seems to be a factor in politics. >> well, on the issue of celebrities here a tweet from nancy who says infotainment -- here are some news i don't want to hear again, kardashian, arias, bieber, royal pregnancy and lohan. >> back to mount prospect, illinois. >> hello? you're on the air. >> yes. i just want to make a comment. i remember it was a couple of --r ago and i think we were

mario cuomo was on the o'reilly show. cutting things because we 45d had a difference of opinion. you'll come back once again, won't you? he says i won't come back again. he said you're an entertainer. you're not a journalism. >> you've been on bill o'reillys in the past. >> i would defend bill o'reilly. i don't know that i would say he's an entertainer. whatever you think about him, he has a point of view. he goes off the news. he is big into combat. i, you know, have two years where i defended him every week. i always thought the obama -- and they were being interviewed by them. if people go on there i think he can give them a shot. >> benson is on the phone.

>> first of all, i listen to tom harken. they took him off the radio. and we have to list them online. right now some apartments in washington d.c. addressedt you have are the issues back in the information. i think that's the reason why it has to dumb down. newson't have the organizations. i could remember as a wilchild watching walter cronkite. it's one thing else i would love to say. i -- the video about what's the senator's name? bob dole.

were you back in 2007? i thought it was awesome. >> uh-huh. >> i'm liberal. >> in our video library.org. do you think now a days as opposed to 10 years ago, there are fewer. >> i think there are certainly more media outlets. like the color mentioned -- you know, that happens in some isolated cases which other reporters have talked about the pressure they feel from their "corporate overlord." but i do think -- it's hard but attend of the day any organization and our parents companies help us to make a profit. i think that if they do, climb it up here. -- if they do create this climate of fear

if they do, they would get it done. it can or can be covered. but ultimately bad new gem. it's not good. friday journalists. but he's certainly great to happen, it's the kind of nervous culture that's been created some newsroom today after they take over. i wouldn't have smelt to make it a red alert issue. >> we've got about 15 more minutes in our conversation on what's infotainment and political journalism with james fromfrom-- jane hall american university. and patrick gabon from politico. i'm taking your phone calls here. and for journalists the number 202-585-3882. off to bellevue, washington. this is ward. welcome. >> yes, good evening. by the way, thank you for c- span. i'm old enough to remember when there was some semblance of a

distinction between opinion and news in journalism. i believe that from the early 1900's they were receiving a code on that. and in the 1960's you ended up with new journalism which was kind of great for magazines like "time" and news week. it seems to have bled over to newspapers. nowadays we have this self- selecting silo from people who listen to rush limbaugh or they listen to msnbc. that disturbs me greatly because i'm still a reader of newspapers, even if it is online and it has to be reuters. one thing that bothered me was the comment about the n.r.a. in a sense that the treatment is -- i don't think -- i think it's gone over the line in terms of

the so-called gun culture and that sort of thing. i wish that pbs and the a.p. and other news sources will stick journalism. that is basically it. >> do you want to follow up with a comment? >> i knew when i was saying they didn't think i was as clear as i was trying to be. jon stewart has a clear point of view. i was trying to make the point that newtown fostered a lot of looking at the power and players involved in legislation or lack there of. or why a certain bill is sun setted or why this hasn't happened in the past. my point was more to reporting and i think that is a thing that has gone by the wayside. reporters are under pressure and they don't have the same resources. if you looked at most news organization they have had

cutbacks and buyouts. what you lose in that is the kind of reporting that allows you go in depth. >> going back to "tmz" for a second. here's their website. this is a story with barbara walters. she was doing an interview with president obama. she made some mention that she's going to retire next year. 20seems in the last 10 or years that the presidents are often seen with celebrities. it doesn't seem to be news anymore when the president shows up on "late night with david letterman" or on the jay leno program or recently in the oscars michelle was used to present one of the awards. we much more frequently are seeing this, patrick, and what is the benefit to the president or the presidency with the association with celebrities? >> there has been a spike in it.

the reality is there's been a long time relationship between the presidency and hollywood. the two of them seem like kindred spirits because of the egos in this town. in the last four years because hollywood has been very supportive of president obama, much more so than his predecessor george w. bush, you have seen a big spike in celebrity visitors to the white house in particular. i think we've also seen as well is a little reduction in the stigma that politicians that might feel with associating themselves with presidents. if there was a stigma you wouldn't see michelle obama at the oscars. i think this stigma mass gone away with this presidency. but the reality is, you know, you see a spike in the celebrity in washington, d.c.

you've seen a spike in celebrity coming to washington, d.c. talking that "tmz" is about barbara walters is more in their wheel house, they talk about paul ryan, they talk about president obama, they talk about michelle obama. there are so many outlets that traditionally have no interest in washington because washington is traditionally thought of as boring and stale. but the sex appeal for better or worse, in the past four years has significantly upticked. >> from politico this evening, from the click column people watching in washington, d.c., the head library is that the daughter of senator mccain gets a tv show. we go to glen. >> thank you very much.

i want to say about the comment about the appearance of politicians and that kind of thing. one, i guess that means the old chi shea that politics is -- chee shea that politics is show showiche that politics is business. over.gly people is i kind of disagree with you. i don't care what these people look like or anything like that. i don't think most people do. underestimating the audience, which i think is a big problem. that's where you get a lot of this nonsense because of the powers at be, what sleep shea you want to use -- cliche you want to use. by and large, most people wouldn't if they thought it has a drastic impact on their life and that kind of thing. you were talking about the

decline and the standard of living for average of americans and that of stuff on a consistent basis. >> where do you get your daily news from regularly? >> anywhere i can get it. newspapers, radio, television, anything available at the moment. >> i think one thing we haven't focused on is people in the public eye using their celebrity. michelle obama for better or worse we look to the first lady in some way as a person who personifies style. that's been a tradition. there's a lot ofation, probably -- attention, probably too much on what she's wearing. she has highlighted american designers. she made a whole initiative about exercise and making school lunches more nutritious. i don't think an unknown person who wasn't already looked at

and has people curious about them would get that kind of attention. there's a youth of celebrity and i think this first lady is in some ways is a celebrity. you can use it in a positive way. i think if i was that kind of person i would be looking for ways to use it. >> "tmz's" harvey levin is at the launch of what he is calling "tmz d.c." and he's looking to get younger people interested in politics. here's what he had to say. >> the fact is young people are not interested in tradition alameda for the most part -- traditional media for the most part anymore. it doesn't speak to them. it is getting -- the audience is getting older and older. so when young people aren't coming and the old people are getting older, you know what happens in the end.

i mean, it's inevitable. so when you look at what happens with the dynamics of the audience, then the question is what are people doing to attract those young people, to regenerate interest in what's really important, which is the news. when i say the news it could be politics, it could be city government, it could be celebrity. be but what do you do to attract those people? then the question is how do you reinvent yourself? >> patrick evan on the subject -- gavin on the subject of attracting younger users. what is the demographic of politico? >> what we want to focus on is -- like asaid before, it is a narrow group. we want the country and the world's most intense political junkies. the people show are most devoted to what goes on in washington and in government around the cub.

around the country. that is not a wide field. that is not as wide of a field as harvey levin's site or cnn's site. >> do you think the way news is delivered today or more specifically, twitter with people having news feeds streams of news and that they get quick hits of stories from articles linked on twitter. is that the way of the future? long-oes that say about tomorrow -- long-form generalism -- journalism reporting? >> i think people get their news in different ways. but these things swing back and forth. for the past decade or so you see hyperspeed news cycles. then it swings back then you get the slow news movement and you get people reporting and people spend more time flushing a story out.

you get readers sick of twitter and it is information overload. the reality is, i think the news psychological go in cycles. you're going to get periods in which news is coming out in hyperspeed then you're going to get periods where people are overwhelmed by it. these are people who don't have time to check newspapers all day. they want someone to tell them in a newspaper or in a 30- minute broadcast here's what we need to know. there's still a big audience that is not necessarily on twitter, that is not getting their news online and wants somebody to tell them what is going on in a more traditional manner. >> let's check twitter one more time. writing this is the wrong titlele for the program. this program. isshould be infotainment

political journalism. we'll get a couple of calls from ohio. welcome. go ahead. >> hey, how are you doing? just wanted to say i'm a big fan of the show. about the infotainment, i was wondering, if it should be info slavement. with the government sending out and telling them what should be done is the difference between news and i see on the tv. it feels like shackles and chains. but i took a pop culture class, i went to columbus state. the pop culture class seemed to crazy because i did not fully understand what was going on. you kind of see a higher level, i guess, you see a higher level of what the elites or whatever they don't want you to say it as glen point it out earlier. >> i will let your comments stand. let's see if you guys have

something to add to his comments. >> i want to add about what patrick said. ipads, mobile devices, people are getting headlines that way. . .

u?ooacq1qqacs#

so now build off your optimistic position you just established, why don't you tell us what's the latest on the 787 dreamliner? >> the 787 -- you are referring to the battery issue undoubtedly. i think we are very close, we have a high degree of competence in the technical solution that we are testing right now. with the faa. and i think it will be sooner

rather than later that the tests would be completed in several days, and we will all look at the data. and i have a high degree of confidence that that data will tell us and we'll tell the faa who are the decision-makers here that the fix is what we need to be and we'll get this airplane back in service in due time. you know, this is been a difficult time for us. i mean, we've got this fabulous airplane back, and none of the promise of this airplane really has been diminished by this, and why do i say that? because there's nothing about a battery that needed to be fixed, that impacted the other things that make this a special plane. whether it's a 20-30% improvement in operating cost of the airplane, or the range of

passenger comfort of the airplane, all those things. as a matter of fact, we've taken some of his time to sort of tighten up some things and just make sure we are in good shape as we get this back into service. but it's been a frustrating experience. i must say that, that the faa, michael her to, -- michael her to has been chance you. they put us through our paces. and they have america's best interest in mind. they have the safety of the flying public in mind as i

.

let's shift a little bit. we have a few minutes left. you started at boeing at a difficult time for the company. it made great plains. -- planes. they had high profile ethical issues and so on. you came in and i do remember when everybody was trying to recruit you to do that, there was no question you could run the company. i think everybody is really interested in how you came in and fundamentally changed the character of the institution and what it stood for and how it

will function. and i think you should tell us about it. >> you are giving me a chance to be not modest. no, i think the root cause of the situation back then was boeing made a lot of acquisitions. had never been really stitched together. you had four or so different cultures. the language was different and the functional things that protect the company, financial or legal, were not stitched together across the country. mischief could happen very clarity on expectations of employees, not only their activities but their behavior, was not as clear. the first order of business was to decide what we wanted to be and how we wanted to be it. that was one at a time, moving around the company and deciding what the mission of the company and what the strategy of the company and what we wanted to be

as leaders, what are the six things that define a boeing liter, down to 100 things when you add it up. it was sort of what i would call, leadership, circle the wagons. it was more returning -- less the defining some new set of values and a new way forward. it was more reminding people what they were. more reminding people what boeing was and what douglas was and hughes was. these were all fine companies that lost their way for some reasons. sort of returning to what we wanted to be. and articulating exactly how we were going to go forward. i think it gave people a renewed confidence. alignment gives people confidence. it was one conference room at a time.

>> how would we do the one conference room at a time up on the hill? i saved this one question in case we had a little time. we talked about sequestration. we talked about the fundamental issues of our economy. but it is time to get business and labor and everybody in the room to talk about how we deal with this budget reality that we face here. we had breakfast and i thought we had a good chat about that. i think it would be interesting if we could hear it from the position of somebody that is really sitting in all of the conference rooms at the same time, a major company, the roundtable, other groups in town, working all over the world, give us your view about that?

>> it is extremely frustrating right now. the inside game on the politics dominates, which means the two parties are more about who gets credit sometimes than getting things done. that is a little bit of a harsh assessment. i see more of that than i would like. on the other hand, i see the moderate size of both parties, when you talk to them independently, you can see a solution. so you know it is there. if we can just shift the debate, being dominated by the fringes, and get it back to the people who are right minded but caught up in the politics right now, i have confidence we will get there. this country is ultimately a pragmatic place. it may take us a lot longer than any of us are comfortable with.

we cannot give up. we cannot come back to your question about, should we be here? we have got to be here. i have been frustrated many times. i got out of town after some disillusioning set of events that happened that day. you have got to pick yourself up and not stop. we will get there. we really will. >> so that is our national challenge. now, you have your headquarters in this state. that is amongst three, four, five blue states that have a massive financial challenge. particularly driven by tensions in medicaid. what are some of the reflections about that? we have manufacturers from europe planning to come here because of energy. they are visiting states.

you look around at states yourself carried how do you see the state's thing? >> illinois is a problem. medicaid is the biggest part of the problem. when you brought in your question to what you learn from your states, i think someone, because they have to face the issue and confront it because they cannot print money, there are seven or eight governors out there, some on the republican side and some on the democratic side, but this moderate middle i was talking about, that, if faced into the tough issues, i think those are the kinds of people we need to get into this town. i think state and local governments are going to be the source of the people who will solve our political problems because they have done it. >> that leads me to my last question. you could characterize that as

leadership. you sketch the issue up on the hill saying we need leadership. i think, and in most of my speeches lately, i have been talking about the need for leadership. the beginning in companies, the government, the medical profession. fundamental leaders who have come over the history of this country, driven change, improvement, and correction. where do we get them? >> one source is state and local governments. i believe that. i am biased but i think there are business leaders in this country who have had to face analogous problems in their companies that can be a source of leadership. if you want to be inspired, read what i am reading right now. george washington's biography. you talk about a leader. you can draw inspiration from reading about him.

i have an abiding belief that this place will find leaders. we have to keep the ball rolling in the meantime. >> thank you for doing this. i would suggest, i think you should read that book. i would suggest there are a whole lot of leaders sitting around right now, and we have got to elevate them a little bit and support them. my own conclusion and the reason i really enjoyed working with you is you sort of lead that pack in many ways. thank you for what you do. thank you for doing this today. thank you for your support for our conference. god bless. [applause] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> the impact on the environment

was the focus on one of many panels on this year's chamber of commerce aviation summit in washington dc. representatives from the u.s. and european union took part in this 45 minute discussion. >> you have heard so much today about aviation and airlines being and jeans of the economy. continue to see if they are green engines of the economy as well. scene setting and i will introduce the panel. the assembly came up with a provisional agreement on how to vote globally on aviation greenhouse gas emissions. they came up with some emissions targets, came up with a focus on technology and operations and infrastructure.

they said, we need to do more work on the types of rules for our current measures. you will recall market-based measures is a euphemism for economic regulation, taxes, charges, emissions trading, offsets, the kind of thing. so here we are three years later. since then we have been working on that, industry has been working on it, government has been working on it. we are coming into a assembly in 2013 where all parties hope there will be progress made on actually implementing or getting implementable agreements going forward. , and i messy process think we will hear about that today. we have experts on our panel who have been involved in that work. we will get into some of the inside discussions on high- level meetings. a group of 17 countries focusing on trying to hammer out key elements of it. there are

international negotiations. parts of them are confidential. so i'm not going to do my usual pain somebody to the floor and put my boot on their neck exactly to get the details, but i think we will still have a robust discussion today. i hope you will help me honor the limits of what will be said about ongoing international negotiations. so a quick introduction of our panelists. you will see a range of issues, including my personal favorite, the emissions trading scheme. the executive director of the air transport action group, which is really and umbrella organization representing the broader aviation industry. the transport counselor of the delegation of the european union to the united states. vice president of public affairs, communications, and corporate responsibility for

lombardi. responsibilityed during his talk. kudos to you. the vice president of european union affairs from lufthansa who can give is a good insight to its be like -- to what is like on the regulated side of the european union. and the administrator of policy, international affairs, and the u.s. faa. thank you for joining us. let's start with a question for paul. i noted they agreed to some elements provisionally and the industry was cited as having done a lot to help countries go forward with the elements that they did. here we are in 2013. is that industry is promoting the types of promotions they were -- the types of things they were looking at in 2010? what do we see going ford?--

forward? >> thank you. that afternoon, everybody. when you talk about this issue, it's important to put it into the context of what this industry is. it's not a collection of independent industries trying to provide services, it is really a global network that bides the world together and is a key driver of the world economy. we represent about 3.5% of global gdp and contribute about 2.2 trillion dollars to the economy. we employ directly and indirectly about 57 million people around world. if the industry was estate, we would be no. 19 in size, we would be a member of the g 20. all of that does come with environmental responsibility, and we estimate last year that this industry produced 676 million tons of carbon, roughly 2% of the global bedmate carbon

-- manmade carbon emissions. if our industry continues to operate in the way it does today, we could see those emissions of grow at about 3% per annum. our industry has come together around this issue in a way i don't think any other industry has. it has come together around this issue in a way only our industry has been able to do around something like safety. is an issue that affects everybody and there's been a huge commitment to moving this forward. that is why back in 2009, we came together to set three very ambitious targets. we were the first industry at the global level to set targets like this. you heard those targets this morning of 1.5% fuel efficiency improvement between 2010 and 2020. trying to stabilize our emissions to what we call

carbon-neutral growth and with that objective in the longer term by 2015 to bring those emissions down to half the level they were in 2005. as far as i know, no other global industry has made commitments on that scale. it is fine setting targets, but it's also about have you reached those targets? we agree to what we call a fourth pillar strategy and it has very much merit be approached the industry has taken. we are right technology-driven industry. we heard a lot on the panel talking about technology, about all the things happening in that area. there's a huge commitment to making sure we reach that target and hopefully go beyond that.

the second area is operational improvement. many airlines have taken magazines of the aircraft, anything to reduce weight. the third area is air-traffic management and we've heard about the need for renewed vigor in implementing improvements around the world. something the industry itself cannot deliver on. the fourth one is market-based measures. we see that as a way to facilitate meeting the carbon- neutral growth goal. another is a gap filler where the infrastructure will move forward. we put these on the table in 2009 and they were picked up to some extent in 2010. nothing has changed since them. in direct answer to your question, the industry remains committed.

if i go back over the last 12 years, this industry has purchased 25,000 new aircraft at a cost of $3 trillion u.s. dollars. if you look at the time frame from 2005 to 2010, we saw the rate of purchase of aircraft increase. that was at a time our industry was going through some of the biggest shock it's ever experienced. we had sars, volcanoes, and the financial crisis. why is that purchase of aircraft accelerated? you heard it this morning -- the cost of fuel. the average cost of fuel in 2003 was about 14%. today, it's in excess of 33%. there is no better incentive for our industry to continue to invest. the commitment there, you heard it from the manufacturers, we

are working together with the air traffic management committee to make improvements as far as we can and on the ground at the airports. the commitment is still there and that's where we want to keep it. >> let's pick up on that before we get into the market-based measures. it has been weaved through the conversation all day. perhaps from your perspective, are we making progress on those measures? what is there and what more needs to be done from a european union perspective? it would be interesting to see if there are differences across the globe. >> thank you. what we are after is our license to grow. they're so many opportunities to keep connecting to people who trade in countries. we want to do it responsibly and

to achieve that goal relative to 2005, we need to make some progress on the pillars and we are making progress. we heard it this morning on the manufacturing panel, but as you replace older generation aircraft, we are making significant progress. to replace older generation aircraft out of production, there is going to be 50% to 70% reduction in co2, which is significant. why are we getting that? with the 7872 or with the new technology, i think all of these technologies are important and the incentive is there. we know 60% to 80% of the environmental impact of an

aircraft is defined at the design stage. that is why it's important to keep that in mind the early stage and that's why we design for environments. that is making a difference. then you have the claims. there are more and more claims on that front, but you will never get as much reduction as a completely new technology. you don't get the reduction and waste from materials and the improved aerodynamics, by it is going to make progress. we were the first one to put winglets on the jets. these things are done and it makes a difference, but when you do it with technology, it is one plane at a time and it takes time. technology is making a

difference but it will take time before we see these improvements. that is why we need the biofuels. the cost -- we could impact all of the older generation and new er word generation. we know we would make progress, but there is a lot. we are making progress where we need more progress. >> we will come back to that. lufthansa has been a leader in a number of these areas. are you getting the recognition you should for those types of measures where they fit into that package? >> as many of you know here, the focus was on the market-based measures. we had the focus of the

environmental discussion but it has diverted from the fact that the operational measures are not getting done. we have heard the implementing. that's a big issue that we heard this morning. we have given up on the implementation from a carriers point of view because what we want is improvement. we're trying to focus and get that done. like many other airlines, we use biofuels. we heard this morning that the technology is there and is safe. big question is how do we get to our goal, which is to use 10% of biofuels in 2020 in a sustainable way. how much do we get involved in securing supply and the necessary quality is a very important strategic discussion

we're having with in the company. at the same time, as we probably will come to later, we are using too much energy dealing with the fourth pillar, which is market- based measures. >> there has been throughout the day, a few punches landed on the next generation progress and single european sky. in terms of progress, it is obviously an operational issues and a big issue for governments and an environmental issue. do you have an answer to some of the criticism? where does that fit within the package of measures we are talking about to address environmental issues?

>> let me take a step back before going to that. the united states is definitely addressing the issue of the impact on climate. we have been focused on developing and implementing a robust system of policies and measures and goals within the u.s. environment as well as working very seriously to try to make it serious. with respect to that u.s. side, we have a pretty ambitious goal in 2020, the 2005 baseline is more ambitious than the industry. it is an aspiration for us, but we're not going to make progress unless we put ourselves hard. we have an approach similar to what paul described which focuses on development and

implementation of advanced technology to advance and deploy alternative fuels and work on air traffic management operations, developing and improving our scientific knowledge and our ability to analyze and understand the situation and policies and measures. we don't currently have market- based measures, but you could pose that in theory. we have a pretty ambitious approach within the united states. the question of operations, i was here not for the whole day but i heard a number of comments about it.

pretty much of what i described as the u.s. plan program, this is very difficult to say this is a government responsibility, this is an industry responsibility. this is a collaborative effort, and one that is not going to make significant progress without focus on partnership and working together. the next generation efforts we have is something where there is government responsibility, but it is not something we can do on our own. most recently, we have been extremely focused not just on developing and applying technology, but on operational technology to make sure we are producing benefits for the users of the system. even among the complaints throughout the day, i heard be grudging acknowledgment that there are improvements being made. it's not a yes or no thing, it is a process and we have been making progress.

we have been engaging much more collaborative lee with industry to understand what they're seeing, what their needs are in terms of benefits and what changes do we need both on the government and industry site to produce those sorts of benefits? you heard reference to the need to change procedures and focus on training, that is both for the controllers in faa as well as on the industry side. we are currently -- the next gen advisory committee, that a committee in which we're engaged at very high levels, focused on how we are moving forward and how that is impacting that industry, where we can make improvements, how we prioritize. we do hear what folks are saying

and we are committed to trying to make those improvements and generate benefits that really make a difference. >> there is a lot of focus on industry. if government doesn't meet its targets, are you going to change the goals for carbon neutral growth or other things? >> as i said, these are ambitious goals. i would not stand here today and say i'm going to guarantee we will meet growth with a 2005 baseline. we are pushing ourselves to identify a target that is ambitious and pushing ourselves

to meet that. are there reasons why it might be tough to meet that? sure. are there things that could help us succeed that? sure. we are much further along, and you would appreciate this -- we are much further along than people thought we would be with alternative fuels or the promise of fuels. we have proven alternative fuels, we certified them, we develop them, and we have proven they work. what will it take to prove we have the feels that generates a large portion or comprise a large portion of the fuel usage? we have a ways to go, but we have made a lot of progress in the last several years. there are reasons why -- could

be budget environment keep us from making progress as fast as much as we would like to make in other areas? probably. we reevaluate the goal if necessary -- we don't reevaluate the goal, but we are keeping track. >> i like your other answer better. >> there are a lot of uncertainties. you have to roll with the punches. single european skies, there were punches as far as aspiration being there. where do they fit in to the scheme and what are your answers? >> a lot of focus was on the ets.

we don't call it four pillars or five pillars. covers many different areas, including air traffic control. we are investing billions in aviation research where we are trying to develop biofuels and technology and aeronautics. that said, your question was about european sky. we are working on what's happening with the next generation and it is that way on two fronts at the same time. on one hand, we need to bring together 27 different air traffic management systems from are different member states. is where the european union has taken the approach of trying to

bring first couple air spaces together and there is so-called functional airspace blocks and trying to bring them into line with performance measures. there, the member states which it put these blocks together have not met the targets that they had committed to. the target was december last year and the european commission is going to oppose another measure to do it more top down and really force member states into complying with the targets they have set. that would require legislation and we need to push that through the council of ministers for the european parliament. it is something that will be coming hopefully this year. >> if it doesn't catch back up, a similar question on air

traffic management improvements. will you discount the cost for that lost efficiency? >> you are speaking up the next generation or? >> we will get to the next generation. is there scope within the current scheme to credit the airlines or at least reduce the impact per the government not doing its part? >> we are doing our best in trying to bring these aspects together. we're working on the technology front, moving into deployment from just research oriented approach. but i don't think it's going to have an influence on the target. there iscurrently. >> you can't fault me for

asking. it looks like you are getting twitchy. >> i find this debate fascinating. from an industry perspective, we have gone further than any other industry i know of in laying out a plan, laying out clear targets of what we need to do, say we're only going to do that if we work in partnerships with the government. the feeling in the moment is we are doing all these things and there's a huge amount of activity. look at where we have come on alternative fuels in five or six years. it is unprecedented we have made the process -- we of the progress we're able to make. is no longer technical issues. we know we can use this stuff. we can put these things into existing aircraft without any problems and all. we need the support of governments to put the right policy for a marketplace because of the moment, the available -- mass is going into by a

biodiesel and bio ethanol for road transport that have alternatives in terms of electrification. there is no joined up thinking in terms of transport energy that would bring these bits together, and that is one of the things we're constantly trying to get. they talk about a basket of measures that it recognizes all these things. it is in all our interests to push that process for because that will guide what individual states try to build into their own policies. in that industry, we are running at work factor 12 and way behind us, there are governments trundling along thinking we ought to do something. let's just put taxes or put a price of carbon and that would solve everything. i totally disagree with that. we need to do it in partnership. we know what we need to do that we need to do it now.

>> julie noted that the u.s. has been a leader in this area and you mentioned biofuels and the importance of bringing together different agencies. the faa has been a leader in the u.s.. >> full credit on that one. other parts of the world are not quite as advanced in their integrated thinking as you are here in the united states. >> maybe we should move to the bigger picture so we're focusing on the measures. there is a clear agreement that all of those things have a role. how do you capture those in a global industry with a set of rules that honor the four pillars or five pillars or the comprehensive approach? we are facing efforts to try to get an agreement, and i'm going

to come to you again. felix, the european union has pursued it fairly relentless in, but last fall, and of state policy where the flights to and from europe would be stayed for 2012. it is called the stop the clock clocka initiative. the parliament and council are working to finalize that anti it off. part of the stated reasons given for doing that was to give more breathing room to the international civil aviation negotiations. as i had testified, the analyst was an obstacle to being able to have those negotiations and a wholesome way. there's a lot of appreciation and 41-year stay, but it is a for thenal state. --

one-year stay, but it is a conditional stay. if not enough is done, what is it the european union is looking for that would cause the european union to stay the application for air national national n aviation. >> i'm not going to give you our negotiation line here. that would be totally detrimental to whatever is negotiating. the global aviation community, to come to a framework that would allow the introduction of regional or national market- based measures or to come to a global measure and what we might expect from the assembly would agree to such a framework.

at the same time be able to write down some sort of road map how they might come to an agreement on a global market based measure. how that looks and fits into the objectives would have to be assessed once we're there. we would then need to convince our legislators that this is a better option than the position we have faced in the past. >> do you hear the european union wants a free-market leading to a single measure? what does that u.s. want to see out of the assembly and do you agree with the from work toward

-- framework toward a single market-based measure? >> i recall a year ago sitting on a panel here where we were talking about the european union and the opposition the united states and other countries have. i am pleased about where we are today compared to where we are where we were a year ago. we are now in a much better place of working with the european states and others to try to advance the issues in the multilateral context in which is inherently international issue belongs. we are participating actively in that effort. the high-level group in which i have participated is trying to make progress in three areas and put forward recommendations to

the assembly on steps to take in each of these areas. one has to do with not market- based areas. for a range of things in the 2010 resolution that are being carried forward and some new things in that area. the second one is a framework or market-based measures where we are trying to set the what are the rules and criteria that should govern decisions by individual states or regions should they choose to have a market-based measure if it is to apply to airlines of other countries, is that ok, and how should that work? third is to look at a possibility of a global market measure, be it the 2010 assembly resolution which called to study the feasibility of a global

measure, so part of what we are looking at is where are we in terms of the value and what happens after that, and we are active in all three of those areas and we're very interested in having recommendations to advance the work in that context. >> we should not forget market- based measures in that framework is a gas killer. -- gap filler. it's to help us stabilize and get to carbon neutral growth until the other pillars kick in. the technology, biofuels and management measures where we get to half by 2015. we are having this debate about these market-based measures and we hope it is going to be a temporary measure. we all know putting together a temporary measure is a tricky

because once the government put something in place, it's very difficult to move back. the one thing we are happy is that hopefully stop the clock will remain stopped. we need to be realistic on what an international negotiation could deliver. we don't want to go back to a patchwork of various systems and i think the industry is demonstrating more than a good will in demonstrating significant results. i just want to say iko is delivering on a number of things. this is something new that was mentioned in the resolution as one element we wanted to make progress on. there has been some certification metric on ways for

years and over time, there is more stringency and the industry has decreased the noise of aircraft. even if there is no certification effort, we would continue improving the emissions, but all of us in the industry were able to agree on the metric that's good for all types of aircraft, including business aviation, general aviation, small, large, medium size aircraft. we agreed on a way to measure that. we are not there yet on what is the baseline and how stringent is going to be over time, but we have made significant progress, a lot faster than when we identified the first noise metric 30 years ago. so i think it can actually deliver on some of these environmental measures and the

framework is one element and we should keep in mind to stabilize the emissions and we should give ourselves a chance, but we might need a bit more time. >> that see is to standard is expected to be finalized in 2016 to apply to new aircraft at that time. that's a step in that direction. before we leave the issue, there is a stop the clock for to and from, but as an airline within the european union, your airline are solidly hit even though they may be safe for a time, the european union did not register who qualifies -- they don't have an exemption for business jets for the minimus flights, so they

are still covered. where do you see things? does the stop the clock resolve things? there may be some litigation in europe criticizing the european union for stopping the clock. >> at the global level, things have calmed down for a certain time. within europe, we still have the problems. it's a bitter pill to swallow for us that the initial aim was to avoid distorting competition, and now we have the situation and the politicians told us would not happen, that we end up for international routes, all of the flights are still subject to that and a bed european

airlines, it gives us the figures. we are now last in competitiveness and economic strength. the last thing we needed was another factor for repairing our competitiveness. it is difficult to live without legal certainty. our friends from the local itctor say they will challenge legally, and we say that may be a wise decision to look at it because we have the european court of justice who has set out what are the parameters and all of the seven part of that reasoning is -- all of a sudden part of that reasoning is certainly gone.

in the live tons a group, we have swiss airline and all ofs witzerland is not part of the european union, it is part of the european union. we have heard from some officials to be quiet and be happy we solved it and shut out. -- shut up. >> what this underscores is the need to have an agreement. so much time and effort has gone into trying to sort out this mess and it's not the only one. if we look around world today, there are a whole series of schemes emerging both voluntary, domestic and international. we have airlines like qantas having to deal with three different schemes and different reporting requirements in each one. governments are raising around

$7 billion a year on direct environmental charges, of which the biggest is the u.k. apb which raises $4 billion a year. the patchwork that was mentioned is going to be a nightmare scenario for our industry. we really do need to get a situation that will help regulate it. the market based measure is not just a political hot potato, but it goes to the core of the commercial viability of the industry at the end of the day. this starts to get into the commercial workings of the industry and that's why it's so important we get this resolved as soon as we can. >> with the stop the clock legislation, the european union has shown it can revise the ets. there is the fact that business

jets don't get any at all. is the scope to make revisions to address those types of things that have been raised by the united states government as potential inequities? >> how to start? if the assembly comes to a meaningful resolution in the fall, that european commission will consider how to best revise in that context in whatever context has come out of it. there will be a need to look at how it comes at and cutting just one element out of the system that was supposed to not be impairing the industry.

if and when such a proposal comes, there is plenty of scope for looking at the whole thing again. the question is how many boxes do you want to open or how many spirits do you want to free when it comes to that point? >> we want to free all the spirits. >> there is a strong environmental policy in the european union. there's a certain logic. this morning, we heard airlines are a business and should be considered as a business and more than half of european businesses are participating with stationary sources it is a difference context. but there is a certain logic why europe is doing this. it is part climate action and the part against climate change

at the european level. there is a strong push from that side. you want the spirit, free the spirit. >> maybe that leads to a question for julie. and then maybe we will have time for the audience to ask a question. you sit on a touchy subject there. things like emissions trading -- how far can the administration and state department who are leading these discussions, how far can you go in showing a little leg on market-based measures when you year from congress some ambivalence about that? some people want market-based measures. many of them do not want them. >> i would make a distinction between the ets and market-based measures. you don't want to confuse the

united states government as about to be implemented in this case of aviation. we have always been open-minded about the role of market-based measures and open to the idea that market-based measures should be one of the tools in the tool box in a basket of measures. in what congress sort of loud and clear made its concerns about the european union butets known, it called upon the u.s. government to engage in negotiations with a view to finding the right way ford and-- foprward and engaging in the right forum to figure out what is the right way .ord?-- forward

i don't think there's a distinction between the european ion badets and an-- ets and an appropriately designed marketplace measure. >> we could talk about this all day and i did not leave time for questions for you all. you are going to have to catch these guys later. i always listen to my former ceo. i want to thank the panel for a good discussion. we could have ball on a lot-- gone on for a lot longer. longer. thank you for your thoughtful remarks. let's have a big round of applause. >> this week north dakota signed a new abortion laws. this week on "washington journal" the challenges they may face. then a guest from the log cabin

republicans on the same-sex marriage before the supreme court. then a guest from the bureau of economic analysis and from "the economist." "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> president obama is in florida today to talk about the economy and job creation. he is speaking live at port 1:55 p.m.ting at eastern on c-span. that is the scuffle on the floor. >> november 24, 1963. jack ruby shot and killed lee harvey oswald. the man arrested for the assassination of president john f. kennedy. hear first-hand about the trial

from a juror who kept a diary of the proceedings. forlorn.ked .e just looked pitiful he never said anything, never smiled. i made eye contact with them -- him. his eyes were sort of fixed and had a vacant stare, i guess you would say. it looked like he was feeling his way through the world. i really felt sorry for him. >> this saturday, part american history tv this weekend on c- span three. 5-4he supreme court ruled that using a drug sniffing dog immediately outside a suspect home is an unconstitutional search outside the fourth amendment and requires a war and. -- weren't -- warrant.

>> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 11-564, florida v. jardines. mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- in the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique, both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. as to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband, and that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that. >> i mean, that just can't be a proposition that we can accept across the board. nobody under that view has an interest in contraband in their home. the question is, can you find out the contraband? it's just a circular argument. and if -- and in the -- was it the caballes case that talked about that, if i have the right name? that was where the contraband

was visible, it was almost like the smoking gun falls out. well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. so i just don't think that works. >> well, justice kennedy, in the caballes case, the contraband wasn't visible before the dog alerted. in the home case, we're not saying that you don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home. of course, you do. the question is whether you have a legitimate expectation >> so doesn't that mean that what's in your home that's not visible to the public has an expectation of privacy as well? >> not when it comes to contraband, your honor. and we think that the kyllo case helps >> but that -- that is circular. then why do you need a search warrant? if you have no expectation of privacy in the contraband, why bother even with a search warrant? >> because, your honor, when you have a search warrant and you go into a home, there's going to be a lot of private information that you're going to come across, even if your expectation is finding evidence of a crime. >> mr. garre, does your argument mean -- you say minimally intrusive, and that

the dog will detect only contraband, that the police then neighborhoodo a that's known to be a drug dealing neighborhood, go into -- just go down the street, have the dog sniff in front of every door, or go into an apartment building? is that -- i gather that that is your position. >> your honor, they could do that, just like the police could go door to door and then knock on the doors and hope that they will find out evidence of wrongdoing that way. but the two responses this court has always pointed to is the restraint on resources and the check of community hostility. here, the police were combatting a serious epidemic of grow houses, hundreds of houses each year that were a scourge to the community, not only in terms just of the drugs that they were growing >> suppose -- suppose the house had on the lawn, no dogs allowed?