i really do think that those who are deeply concerned about war, those concerned about the growing inequality in this country, those concerned about climate change, the fate of the planet, are not a fringe minority. not even a silent majority. the silenced majority, silenced by the corporate media. we have to take it back. the democracy now team and my colleagues are here filming and interviewing people. it is wonderful to be part of a team of people, and my colleagues in the broader pacifica family. we came into denver a few days ago. we came in to the airport. there were some soldiers there from buckley kicking up a general.-- picking up a general. were waving and the general behind me. i came back and they were in uniform and said to them, you know democracy now? yes, ma'am, they said. they watch every day.

i said why. they said, it is objective. you are talking about war. it is not whether you are for or against the war. it is that we cover war. it is on the front pages of democracy now, even though it is youadio and tv broadcast. can read it as well. there is no more serious decision a country can make them go to war. whether you agree with it or not, we must cover this everyday. everyday. insterday, a great heroine was our midst here. carlotta, the youngest of the little rock nine. september 25, 19 57 it was that she and eight other young students, she was 14 years old, stood out to an angry mob of

1000 people she walked into central high in little rock to get an education, surrounded by national guard. when she was here speaking yesterday, she said she was inspired then. what were the lessons she learned. she was inspired by the story of emmett till. a young boy who had died two years before she did this. the summer of 1955, his mother had sent him to get out of the city for the summer. he went to mississippi and was living in his aunt and uncle's house. he was ripped out of bed by a white mob in state tortured and beat him and he ended up at the bottom of the river.

his mother was not an activist at that time. but she understood something very deep. she said she wanted the casket of emmett open for the wake in the funeral. she wanted the world to see the ravages of racism. thousands went by his casket and saw. black publications, the kind that carlotta, the same publications that she said were covering her issues, she described a group of black journalists dared to cover the little rock nine. being beaten, one of them almost to death. he was a former marine. how brave theyer. were. she was not a reporter reporter, but she understood how important it was the world to see the images. "jet" magazine published the

images and the overseer did the and they were seared into the history and the consciousness. she had something very important to teach all of us today, to teach the press today. show the pictures. show the images. could you imagine if for just one week we saw the images of war? everyday, the top of every report we did, the corporate media did, the independent media, every top of every radio and television newscasts, everyone's facebook wall, every story was about a soldier dead or dying, a woman with her legs blown off. by a bomb or a drone attack, the top story above the fold of every surviving newspaper in this country. it showed a baby dead on the ground with an actual story

naming her home and telling us the story of her family. for just one week, if every e- --il told when the stories, one of these stories, americans are a compassionate people. they would say no. war is not the answer to conflict in the 21st century. democracy now. [applause] >> thank you so much, amy. our final panelist is norman solomon, the co-author of a dozen books, including a memoir. the landmark book "war made easy."

is the founder and director of the institute for public accuracy, he led three peace seeking trips to iraq before the u.s. invasion and a couple of fact-finding missions to iran and afghanistan.and for 17 years, he wrote a nationally syndicated column of media criticism. he now writes a weekly column focused on politics for websites such as common dreams and truth out. we co-founded the online activism group rootsaction.org. we are urging they give this year's peace prize to the military whistleblower bradley manning. [applause] >> we are gathering here in a political context that includes

one major political party has given faith a bad name and the other major political party has given hope a bad name. the reality is that we can't get very far or move very far forward if we don't have faith, a secular faith at least, in democracy. we can't get very far without hope that the human capacity to care for each other and work together is going to create a better world. i think faith in democracy and hope and the possibilities of creating a better world need to incubate and grow in journalism and journalists and their institutions. war thrives on abstraction and propaganda. i.f. stone said that sometimes

it is so exciting to work on a story you can forget that the house is burning. jackson brown reminded us that there are lives in the balance, there are people, not only under fire but are suffering and living and dying and the consequences of the failures of journalism to serve the interest of the public rather than serving the interest of the state and corporate power. when we look at the context we're living in today, it has got to be be acknowledged and confronted that we live in a new war that contrary to the assertions of claims of aspirations -- of our current president in his second inaugural address, that

commitment and belief and agile war is central to what the u.s. government is about and acceptance of that perpetual war is central to what the mainline media of this country are about. the near virtual consensus that crosses the aisle on capitol hill for the so-called war on terror is mirrored by the mass media, the purportedly public media that you will hear on all things considered and morning edition and the pbs news hour. that so-called war on terror has become the wallpaper of the echo chamber for almost one dozen years. we have lived through one war after another for decades in this country, aided and abetted by what passes for journalism.

if we don't look at what war-- waro and look at what thrives on, the basis of this warfare state that recognizes no boundaries or calendars, war as an distraction is based on two tiers of grief -- theirs and ours. an emotional valuation of human beings that grinds the lens through which tinted red white and blue we are encouraged to see the world every day through our mass media. that is a reality that is combined with the propaganda

aspect or what george orwell described as doublethink. what would we think of it was done to us?what would we think if another country exercised impunity to send drones, aerial vehicles, across our borders to theike at will? late senator wayne morris believed in international law, is among the few in congress during the build up to the vietnam war who challenged that kind of impunity. that has been normalized by the warfare state and the state of journalism and mass media of our country. their relationship is central to the plowing of huge quantities of resources. financial, industrial, and human

into warfare. meanwhile, our cities are dying, the bombs in vietnam exploded home. the missiles fired in pakistan. exploding in our own country where we don't provide health care, housing, helping children, helping the elderly. while our lauded president is now slashing against the core of the social contract with social security and medicare. part of the warfare state.the antidote to those poisons is independent journalism. we are here at this conference and people around the country are working every day very hard to sustain the possibilities, to make them more real and more vibrant, so that we can serve

that antidote and create something that is worthy of the term journalism. if you use the metaphor of the body politic, what happens to the human body without circulation? you have blockage of coronaries. we are suffering grievously from the blockages and failure of circulation of ideas and information. here we are with the imperative to challenge the compulsion, the compulsive disorder, the spin cycle for war. now it is hard to keep track of the various phases that we are in. you can't withdraw from afghanistan "too fast." that is one part of the spin

cycle. another is the slow burn of building the agenda for war or attack on iran. another is the doublethink that tries to justify the scenario of a possible attack on north korea. can you imagine if wargames were undertaken along the borders of the united states of america, including simulating a nuclear attack? what our reaction would in this country? yet the paranoia of the north korean regime is being fed and fueled by the double standard that are inherent in u.s. media coverage. whether it is iran or north korea thomas ratified, amplified by the mainline media in this country, do as we say not as we do.

what you probably encountered. that is not very convincing. ormet people in afghanistan are convincing,ry do as we say, not as we do. pay attention not to the rhetoric, but the reality. let me close on this note. the challenge of journalism, of civic engagement, holds a special responsibility to scrutinize the actions of our own government and the consequences. it is not only that we should cover those actions and consequences, but we have a special responsibility to make sure that we cover those actions and consequences. we can build tension to independent journalism that says, as american journalist's

and citizens, we will not accept the double standard. we will watchdog and birddog and scrutinize and challenge our own government. as we contemplate this war world we live in, often as we try to track off an overwhelming news, it can yield or a disoriented.-- feel very disoriented. like maybe we are losing our bearings. losing our sense of core. quite often, we might feel, what is the through line? what keeps us going? i believe that human rights has to be a single standard. that helps us not to get lost, not have the abstractions of

coverage blow us off course. there is an expression among some musicians. you may feel like you're getting lost, but you won't if you know the blues. we may feel we are getting lost. single won't if we have a standard of human rights. if we remember that when martin luther king jr. denounced the madness of militarism, what hie spoke of was not just about what is occurring in 1967, but what is occurring right now. right now, the u.s. government continues with impunity to assert its prerogative with its military might to wage war across boundaries as it wishes.

what is ups for grabs is whether we insist on living in a democracy, not as people who tune into the news but people who create it for the better. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, norman. i want to ask a quick question. a bunch of us have touched on it already and that's journalist putting partisanship over principle. that's if you have a president you prefer over the other guy and that president is in power you mute your voice. any final comment on that? >> i remember when michael moore

wrote an open letter to president obama about the escalation of the afghan war. it was a surprise. and i'm greatly respect michael's work and everything he does. but i think many on the left were caught off guard by obama's escalation of the afghan war which he campaigned on it. that was the central aspect of his foreign policy platform when he ran for office was escalating the afghan war while drawing down the iraq war which we shouldn't have been in any way surprised, saddened, disappointed when he did exactly that. he broke many promises but he kept the one promise that he made. i also want to mention when i was talking about the folks who did do very good coverage of the afghanistan war when it was first unfolding and still unfolding, amy interviewed members and myself and my co-

author and independent journalist who did the coverage and have continued to do it under obama. >> anyone else want to make a final comment? >> i know jeremy as soon as obama was elected at the bottom of his articles he would write jeremy pledges to be the same journalist he was under president clinton and bush's presidency. he talks about how he got the most vicious hate mail than during all the years he was axposing bush's torture. question from the audience. i think everyone here has been critical of the democrats but the question from the floor as active citizens, what do we

encourage people here to do to build independent media, what are specific things we call on our active people here to do? >> to do your job. to dig deep. it is not about who is president, whether the president is a republican, democrat, maybe some day in the future an independent or a green, who knows. it's about going beyond the words and so much of politics today is debating what is meant by particular words. it is our job to evaluate the actions and also most importantly not just to give voice to those in power, but to be there at the target end especially here in the united states as american journalist of u.s. foreign policy.

the week of the 10th anniversary of the iraq war we did special programming all week. i didn't think that would be that revolutionary to have an iraqi woman feminist activist deeply concerned about what is happening in her country. for iraqis the war isn't over right now. i didn't think that was a big deal. but when you look at the rest of the media in this country, to hear an iraqi voice was highly unusual. but that is our job to go to where the silence is. what is their assessment of their country right now ten years later? we just have to get back to basic principles of good journalism.

let people speak for themselves. provide a forum for and the failures if you look at what we -- until they can tell their own. >> those principles have to include independents from the state, from those in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. and the failures have involved failure to do that. if you look at what we have suffered in our life times we have seen difference to those in indeference t those power.this segues

back to the previous question, it's very difficult sometimes to watch fox news. it's also difficult sometimes to watch msnbc for the same reasons. because in both cases those networks are dominated by journalists and commentators who generally favor toward the leaders of one major political party and villainize the leaders of the other. that's not journalism or any sense of debate. the other answer to that question is we need to build and sustain our independent media outlets, tv, radio , online web sites, independent producers of documentaries. that requires support from individuals, foundations, all sorts of configurations so that we have the capacity to build our own independent media while we confront and challenge the

main line media. >> i just want to add one example sort of to broaden out what you are saying, the example of the keystone pipeline. if you think that doesn't relate to war, it does. because what is the keystone pipeline about? it's bringing this very dirty oil from canada down to the gulf. why? well, it's about the tremendous hunger for fossil fuels and think about why we wage wars. the joke of the little kid talking about iraq turning to his dad and saying what is our oil doing under their sand. but if you look just go back a few weeks ago there was the largest environmental protest in history in washington, d.c. i tuned in to msnbc that night to look at the coverage.

they cover what is happening in the world and especially on that day each day digesting the news. i did not see -- i didn't watch it nonstop all night, but i watched a lot of it, to see if there was coverage of this environmental protest because it was protesting the obama administration. right now president obama is in the midst of deciding whether to xlow the keystone excel-- pipeline to be built. and there is this exxon mobile oil spill in arkansas. i tuned in to msnbc to see how they were covering it. they talked about the oil spill outside of little rock that has drowned a subdivision in but did they talk

about this is happening in the midst of president obama making this decision about the larger keystone pipeline. if you tune to fox they would cover the environmental protest, they would just slam it. but at least you know it happened. you can read between the lines. >> i just want to pick up on what amy was talking about, two things during her talk and also in the q & a about the impact of showing images of people for example in iraq being killed and telling the stories, showing the targets of these policies and also letting them tell their stories and telling their stories. during the civil rights movement david writes about the power of television when people, when black people were being hosed down by fire hoses and that image and the images of these very, very peaceful children integrating the high school.

and how that really turned public opinion in favor of the civil rights movement. during vietnam one of the things in addition to the draft and the g.i. movement which was central to that movement, what really affected people were seeing the body bags coming back. of course we haven't seen body bags coming back from the afghan and iraq wars. when i was a freshman i was a cheerleader and all of that, the beginning of my freshman year i went to the student union and saw this grainy black and white film and it was that image of that young girl naked running from the napalm after it had been dropped by an american bomb. the decision i made to get

involved in the anti-war ualement was not an intellec one. it was a visceral one. it just struck me oh my god is this what we're doing. it's important to tell those stories and show those images but not shun away from stories that might not be popular to everyone on the left such as what israel is doing to the palestinians. [applause] >> that was indeed a couple of comments on these cards is coverage of israel and palestinians. while we're on the subject of images let's remember what pushed martin luther king over the edge where he had to speak out against the vietnam war and he was the most single powerful individual voice against the vietnam war, he saw the images of young kids victims in vietnam

and he saw those images in a radical magazine. he talked about it at length about he couldn't stay silent anymore. when it comes to what people can do out here -- >> for the exact quote responding to that speech he gave time magazine called the speech slander king i diminished -- slander. dimished his unfulness to his cause, his country, his people. >> one of the action that is people can take out here that are interested in an organized challenge of main stream media bias whether it's afghanistan palestinian is to join the activist list at fair.org. they go after the media outlets that can be moved. how many of you are on the list of fair.org?

>> if you are interested in activism you should be on that list. >> we send daily headlines. check it out. and that's for everyone here. it's very important as you talk about building media, jeff, is it shouldn't be the alternative. as i said, the corporate media is the extreme media. i do think independent media represents the main stream in this country today. we must protect independent media because that is the really the hope of the future. >> how do we get more balanced coverage of israel palestinian issues? for your information it is strongly tilted in favor of

israel. any comment? >> it's all about a single standard of human rights. if you insist on a single standard, the reflexive devaluation of palestinian lives that has for so long dominated u.s. mass media will be challenged directly. it's one thing for a president to talk about seeing things through somebody else's eyes. another thing to on a day in day out basis, not through platitudes but through coverage and public discourse to say we have a single standard of human rights and of grief that the suffering of a palestinian is just as important as the suffering of an israeli. >> i think the tide is turning. public opinion has probably

shifted pretty significantly in terms of how palestinians are viewed. there have been some incredible successes recently on college campuses recently. even if the main stream media is not covering it, the public is getting it through social media. the challenge is getting our politicians to change the way they vote and convincing them that there is not necessarily a political price for standing up to israel. but i think public opinion on that one issue is seeing some slow change that hasn't really happened in a long time. especially after israel's recent incursions and various invasions in the past few years of lebanon and palestinian territories. >> a few of us have talked about it, it led to a question, do we think the main stream network news contributed to ending the

vietnam war?if so, what has changed in these intervening decades? >> one of the myths of the united states led the way to ending the vietnam war. the reality is that the mass media of the united states had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the anti-war movement to do coverage of the vietnam war just as has been the case in the last decade for these proliferated wars. mythology is something that we need to challenge because it can get into a frame of mind if we can get the mass media to operate properly our job is done. we must insist they do their job but that has to be in

tandem with tilting a strong antiwar movement. >> i think amy is reading the quotes of how the main stream reacted when martin luther king came out against the vietnam war. there was no anti-war voices until 1968 or later that were allowed into the serious main stream. >> i think of danny glover who joked but i think it's serious, he wonders if dr. martin luther king would be invited to any of the celebrations of his life on the federal holiday that people fought so hard for so many years. >> think about how they reacted to the military whistle blower who brings forward these documents. if you've seen the movie, the documentary, it almost amounted to civil disobedience. when one main stream media was

stopped another picked it up. when they were stopped another picked it up. now look how they've reacted to the whistle blower named bradley manning. this 25-year-old who is facing life in prison. the iraq war logs, the afghan war logs, the u.s. state department and the role they play in atrocities or covering up prosecutions in europe against c.i.a. officers who have engaged in torture or kidnapping. it's like night and day. >> i think it's very important to talk about bradley manning. think about this -- this is a young man who was in the army in iraq who has said he did download these documents.

he has been held for three years without trial, three years. when it was last time you heard his voice? if you tune into democracy now you to struggle to hear it but that's because we got a secret recording of him speaking in the courtroom. why is he forbidden of speaking? why can't you hear what it is he has to say? why is it so radical to bring you his voice. someone bravely in the courtroom secretly recording his statement to the judge about why he did what he did. bradley manning and julian who is holed up right now in the ecuador embassy in sweden. he's not as concerned about going to sweden than the possibility of being extradited to the united states.

why would he be concerned? does the words bradley manning ring a bell? this is a serious situation when you think of these documents in a country we are seeing a crack down on information like we haven't seen before. the number of whistle blowers who are being prosecuted under the obama administration, more being prosecuted today than in all past administrations combined. the story of bradley manning is more than the story of this one young man. it is a message to all whistle blowers understand particularly young people in the military who have went and come back and seen atrocities terrified to speak out because they are afraid could they face the same fate. it is our job at journalist to bring you this information.

and so for all the bloggers and journalist who are listening and watching and will see this on c- span and other global and national outlets. we have a responsibility. it is extremely serious. [applause] >> you know the efforts to silence bradley manning for the good of quote national security, are metaphorically both not allowing as much as possible as the government would have it his voice to be heard, but also of course his crime quote unquote was to inform the american public and the world about information that is supposed to be available to the consent of the governed. we're supposed to know what our government is doing in our names with our tax dollars. when it comes to media coverage it is very dismissive in main

line media towards bradley manning. i want to mention about ten days ago there was a petition asking the norwegian nobel committee to award the nobel peace prize to bradley manning. and we got coverage on that on pacifica radio in this country. national public radio wouldn't touch it. overseas media contacted us and we have 40,000 people who have gone to rootsaction.org to sign that petition to the nobel committee. bradley manning epitomizes the meaning of the nobel peace prize just as martin luther king did. [applause] >> i want to touch on what you

were saying in terms of what has changed with media landscape between then and now. certainly as our main stream media has gotten more consolidated, the views have become narrower. 40 years ago we couldn't communicate with one another in the same way that we can now. believe it or not, journalists like myself will scroll our facebook pages to see what is trending and what fellow activists are seeing as important or reporting. and the nature of journalism has changed. everyone of you is capable of spreading a story, sparking a light to get that story heard. i have on my facebook page not just my fellow activists but moms and dads from my kid's schools. and often times things i post people who don't consider themselves activists pick them up and pass it on.

all of us have an ability to do that. rootsaction.org is a website. these are web based strategies that are blurring the lines between advocacy and journalism if there was a line to begin with. that is something we should not forget. despite how dismal the landscape of media seems, what is considered journalism today is >>re exciting than ever. which is why we have to keep the internet open and free and not let the cable companies and the telecoms write the legislation that would privatize this global resource that allows us to communicate with each other all over the world. and i want to point out why it's helpful to be here in denve, colorado.

it's not a figure of our optimistic imagination that thise is independent media. is a hot bed of independent media. you have the wonderful radio kgnu.n kngu.-- you have colorado public television and denver open media which is pioneering ways of putting together internet and you've gotess. community stations. today i'll be going to a fundraiser for a new radio station that is just about to be established kffr. juan andgo to kffr.org. i will be there during the dinner break. new ones being established, free speech tv is right here in

denver. and link tv is in los angeles. working now with kcet. but all of this community tv. you had rocky mountain media, 150-year-old media that dies. it becomes a one paper town. then the colorado independent pops up. i think this isn't unique. all over the country we have to open our eyes and work together and join these independent media spaces. >> while we're talking about colorado independent media let's not forget alternative radio. [applause] >> i want to make announcement that the freedom of press foundation is having an event on bradley manning and press freedom at 1:00 in this building.

and i think amy said something so important, it's one of the centerpieces of this whole conference had is the need to fight for net neutrality so these four companies which bring us our internet which is a, the -- at&t, verizn, comcast and time warner need to have legislation passed so they cannot have a two tiered system so the web sites they own are in the fast lane and democracy now is pushed off into say slow lane. when he was campaigning for president candidate president obama said i take a backseat to no one on the issue of net neutrality. we've had five years and his f.c.c. commission chair has basically punted on the issue. it's one of the most important issues we have if we care about

building up independent media. [applause] >> let's do a round of a few quick questions. one was what the is latest reports regarding the guantanamo hunger strike which is a central place in the war on terror. the u.s. denying press access to the prison for at least a month. anyone want to comment on that? corexit i am on the legal team. >> you need a microphone. >> david reams is one of our co- attorneys. he's assisting us with the trial of the century. hedges et al. versus obama et al.?how many are familiar with that? that is frightening folks.

that has not been in our mass media. it has been covered on the front page in the u.k. and guardian and our papers have not covered this vital trial. some of the best journalists are plusntiffs in this suit. a member of parliament from iceland who protected julian and we have had a judge ruling in our favor and guess what last may happened, the judge was removed from the courtroom by navy seals protecting her and from the courthouse. our plaintiffs have had all kind of threats and we are holding firm. and what must we do as journalists and people who are activist we must support as

david does in gauntanamo very effectively and he is saying that it is increasing and that the starvation protest is increasing and he feels that perhaps some coverage is increasing also. hang in there. hang tough. the majorityly, of them have been cleared for release. a number of them held for more than a decade. we have reports that perhaps more than 100 or on -- are on hunger strike and have been for many weeks now. this is our responsibility to cover. what message does it send to countries, repressive regimes around the world, that the united states is holding scores whoprisoners without charge to

have been cleared by the u.s. for release and you are being held indefinitely? check out democracynow.org for the latest.we covered this extensively. i had the remarkable experience of interviewing and person when we went over to. al jazeera. he was the only journalists held there. he was never charged. he was interrogated more than 100 times, most of those times as he was held. he was a cameraman going from pakistan to afghanistan. most of the time, he was questioned about the leadership of al jazeera. anyone who works for any news organization, the big ones, how much do you know about your leaders?

but the fact that this is happened over and over again, it's our job to cover it. the hunger strikers at guantanamo are being forced fed. they take a tube, stick it in their nose. no anesthesia. you could see the blood in the bile from the prior prisoner going into your own nose.the united nations has said force-feeding a person who understood the consequences of refusing food amounts to torture. this is going on right now under the obama administration. >> norman is going to get the floor and we will take final statements all the way up the panel. thank you so much for coming out to this session.>> what we've just heard about the last few minutes is part of a hugely important yet relatively small part of what has been called now for almost a dozen

years the war on terror. whether it is civil liberties and human rights, or counterinsurgency or whether it is called national security, this has to do with profound decisions that are being made through omission or commission. they have to do with the world that will be existing for the i want toration. announce plans for a tribunal on the war on terror, 2011-2013, under the sponsorship of an organization i am part of, the institute for public accuracy. i want to ask everybody in this room and everybody not in this room who is hearing this for him -- this forum to consider helping us launch this tribunal on the war on terror. you can go to accuracy.org to see what we do at the institute and contact us that way. also we have some flyers.

we want to do a huge tribunalin washington, dc, with documentary testimony on every aspect of the war on terror and let us use our own capacity to research, organize, and publicize and challenge these policies. >> thank you norman solomon. amy goodman. >> i'm going to be on c-span tomorrow from noon eastern to 3:00. it will include a lot of e-mail and you can call in. i hope you do. it's a great forum around the country for different voices. during the time of the iraqi war, you had general colin powell helping to lead that were -- that war, and his son, michael powell, head of the fcc leading a war on diversity of voices here at home, pushing for deregulation of the media.

the response then was unbelievable. millions writing in. suddenly people became aware. when people learn about what is happening, they respond. they understand that having newspaper, radio, tv and one town owned by the same media mogul is a threat to our democracy. right now, the current head of the fcc has announced he's going to be leaving. another of the five commissioners has announced he leaving leaving. there are only five commissioners. who heads this agency in what direction president obama gives them to makes an enormous difference for the media landscape in this country. i see the media as a huge kitchen table that stretches --ross the globe doubly also that we all sit around and debate and discuss the most important issues of the day. anything less than that is a disservice to the servicemen and

women of this country. they can't have the debate on military bases. they rely on us to have the discussions that lead to the decisions about whether they lived or died. whether they are sent to kill or be killed. anything less than that is a disservice to a democratic society. >> thank you, amy goodman. now marjorie collins. >> bradley manning was tortured for nine months when he was in the military break at quantico, virginia, held in solitary confinement. experts have called that torture which can lead to hallucinations and suicide. it was after it was a great public outcry and a letter to the obama administration from many people from civil society that he was moved out of quantico and into fort leavenworth where he is in the general population now. he revealed classified information but not top-secret information.

dan ellsberg revealed top-secret information and dan has said that bradley manning had access to top-secret information but refrained from divulging it. now they're going after wikileaks. they are not going after the new york times in the guardian who also picked up the story. only wikileaks. as amy said, the secrecy and the obama administration is unprecedented. james madison said that sunshine is the best antidote to tyranny, and it's up to us to shed light on what the government is doing in our name. [applause] >> thank you, marjorie cohn. and now sonali. >> i want to call attention to the fact that because today we do have the ability to hear stories directly by those people who are affected through their own words on websites, you can

go and see what those people who are affected by the afghanistan war are saying, thinking, and feeling. go to these websites, see the statements they put out. see a photograph that they used to document the war. do it yourself. when the war was at its peak about five or six years ago, there was such a clear correlation in my book. my co-author and i did a brief study of how media coverage of the afghanistan war correlated so strongly with attention paid to groups, even if those stories weren't covering both people directly. people found the website of these organizations and these women and thereby supported them, heard their stories. when the media does not cover

them, the attention that these groups and activist get really falls. as we begin our withdrawal of troops, it does not mean the war is ending her that we should forget about people whose lives our tax dollars have directly affected. in addition to supporting independent media, support the people on the ground themselves who are making change. find out what they are doing and going through. share their documents and interviews on your social networks and keep the word out about how they are dealing with the very real effects of our drone attacks and is very destructive policies that have affected ordinary men, women, and children. we may never get to know their faces and their names and their families but those who do represent them, some of them are out there and they are reaching out to us via the internet. as long as the internet is free,

you and i do have access to that the please explore that. >> thank you. [applause] that is sonali. i'm jeff cohen with the park center at ithaca college. i would like to thank the free press for organizing this conference on media reform. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> as americans returned from the memorial day holiday, we will look at recommendations from the national transportation safety board that should reduce deaths from alcohol impaired driving. they want states to adopt

lowering the legal blood alcohol limit 2.05. at 8:00rts tonight eastern on c-span and we will also take your calls and comments about the proposed drunk driving rules. and although this week, book tv and prime time, three books on american foreign-policy. first, david rohde on "beyond haass,nd then richard nasr on his vali book "the dispensable nation." be aere tends to denigration by the u.s. military by some historians that whenever one german battalion fought in american italian -- tended to the germans

be tactically superior. the betterere military. i think this is nonsense. it is pointless. global war is a clash of systems. it is which system can produce the wherewithal to project .ower the atlantic, the pacific, the indian ocean, southeast asia, which system can reduce -- systems, the civilian system. >> on tuesday, rick atkinson will take your calls, e-mail's, facebook comments and tweets. that's three hours of live on "book tv" on c-span2. >> now, a live discussion on u.s. relations with russia.

we're expecting to hear from john brown at cnn foreign affairs correspondent, jill dougherty. the associated press rights with the u.s. decision to arm and three rebels and russia's decision to supply the assad regime with missiles, possible that it has overshadowed attempts to bring representatives of the regime and the opposition to peace talks at an international conference in geneva possibly happening next month. we are expecting this discussion to get started momentarily. bu

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we are expecting this discussion to get started in a moment or two. guests are preparing and getting their microphones on. the associated press writes that a spacecraft carrying an american, russian and italian left earth today heading for the international space station, where they will spend six months

conducting a variety of experiments.

>> good evening, everyone. welcome to tonight's panel. it's great to see we have a full room, which is a good indicator for a robust discussion tonight for the role on soft power and u.s.-russia relations. it's a topic that comes at a u.s. andment in the russia's dynamic relationship. i am jason jarrell and this is

our first big event as a newly incorporated on profit in washington d.c. the association was created and route -- creed around the alumni program for mid career professionals that provides americans and britons the chance to live, study and work in russia, usually in russian organizationsian and companies. the company has an interesting background up rooted in the private sector, started by the largest private bank in russia about a decade ago. next year will be our 10th anniversary. it was founded with the idea to help a better understanding of post cold war russia a month a new generation of professionals to create more relationships between russia and the united states and united kingdom. i would be remiss if i didn't mention there are materials on a fellowship and association in

the hall and we will also have some materials during the reception. a lot of alumni are here for any of the questions you might have. i also want to mention that while we are an alumni-related association, we don't just support the alumni but provide a forum for young professionals such as yourself with an interest in russia. is hopefully meaningful platform on dialogues in relationships that may not be getting full attention elsewhere. that brings us to our discussion tonight on bought power in the context of u.s. -- soft power in the context of u.s. and russia relations. it's getting increasing attention. there have been a lot of articles and the russian press about soft power and one of the reasons we chose this topic is because the concept touches on a lot of aspects of u.s.-russian

relationships, not just foreign policy, but trade, business, culture and education and many others. discussept as we can tonight, can play an important role on both sides and move beyond the cold war mentality. it is an increasingly important factor in both countries' relations with other nations. as russian has adopted it, the concept of this year, at the same time there are varying interpretations and definitions and debate on the topic as we will get into during the panel. the notion of soft power can be complex and a soft topic. tonight, we will explore the idea of soft power further with our distinguished panelists, joining us to look at the background of the concept, its role in the u.s. and russian foreign policy and its impact on relations between the two countries.

we are very delighted to have joining us tonight, some very wonderful speakers who will share with us their experience and insights on the topic. to my left is dr. john brown, a jet prof. of liberal studies at georgetown university and former u.s. diplomat whose career eastern europe and russia. he is widely cited in the media and is also a well-known er. ter -- well-known blogg mrs. jill dougherty is the well- traveled correspondent for cnn where she is currently based in washington d.c. bureau. in her award winning work, she has reported from more than 50 countries, accounting major world events. she began her career on the voice of america before joining

cnn and has been an up close eye witness to several changes in that part of the world from the soviet collapse to the civil war in georgia. she was the moscow bureau chief for sheet covered the yeltsin and putin presidency. is a ph.d.osipova candidate from the school the national service and a leading researcher on soft power with a focus on russia, eurasia, and the least. she has read non-russian foreign-policy and communication and hosts the blog global chaos. for joiningry much us tonight. in terms of format, our panelists will first share their remarks and we will have plenty of time for questions and answers after that. for those watching on line,

we're taking questions viet twitter. i think we already have some questions coming that we will get to later. i will go ahead and turn over the panel to our experts. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i will be brief. i hope to the point. between an association the words public diplomacy ms of power. what i would like to do with my remarks is look at the definition and origins of the is it to terms and then compare them as best as i kingdom. is to find bycy the u.s. state department as an engaging and -- in beijing, and forming key international

audiences. two things stand out about that definition. is first one is that it addressed to foreign audiences, not domestic audiences. government, the u.s. state department, is the sponsor of this activity. this is a rather traditional definition because today, and our new century, the term public diplomacy has expanded to include contacts that are not always a government sponsored ngo communicating to a group doing its ngo diplomacy. but i would like to stick with the traditional definition which emphasizes the government supports of public diplomacy in

its efforts to engage, and form and interest international audiences. public diplomacy, given we are talking of a russian-american relations is an american term. in the it was coined mid-1960s before the state department definition. it was coined in the mid-1960s by a eight been at the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts university. thanks to the wonderful article by the distinguished scholar president today who has written a magnificent history of the united states information agency's and has written excellent articles on the whole history of public diplomacy, we are now labeled to see this definition coined in the mid-

thes that really defined modern meeting of the term public diplomacy. in 1967, he was reminiscing about his colleagues and him having coined this term. let me read to you what he said. in 1967 during the cold war days. the number of programs, informational, educational, cultural that were supported by the u.s. government during the cold war to influence foreign audiences had grown to a large extent and also private organizations were involved in these programs of foreign outreach. he says he is trying to find a way to describe these activities. he said even beyond the organ of

the government set up to handle information about the united states and explain our policies, what's important is the interaction of groups, peoples and concerns beyond international borders, influencing the way groups of people think of foreign affairs, react to our policies, and affect the policies of their respective governments. to come of this activity, we at the fletcher school tried to find a name. i would like to call it -- guess what? >> propaganda? [laughter] gave away. it seemed like the nearest thing in the pure interpretation of the word to what we're doing. always had aa has pejorative connotation in this country and i would be happy to discuss that with you later, why propaganda is such an improper

word in the united states. propaganda always had a pejorative connotation in this country. to describe the whole range of communications, we hit upon public diplomacy. the term is used today by the state department to describe its out reached overseas and it was coined in the mid-1960s by the fletcher school of diplomacy. coined,ore the term was public diplomacy has an activity as an effort to influence foreign public decisions and can be traced back to the declaration of independence. walter isaacson, who wrote an excellent biography of benjamin franklin and is known as our first public diplomat argues in an article from 2004 that the

declaration of independence and that efforts to persuade mankind to support american independence was in fact a public diplomacy document, even though the term was not being used at that time by the founding fathers. let's turn to soft power. soft power was claimed by the harvard scholar, joseph nye, in the early '90s. during the clinton administration, he was a state department official. an cold war was coming to end by that time. think he was aware a new time in history was coming along with other thinkers and he was trying to find what would be the nature of power in his new post cold war time.

he came up with the idea that during thewer, and cold war, it was not the sole determinant of foreign affairs and influence of foreign affairs. he underscored the other factors that were at play both in the defeat of the soviet union and as a way for entities, countries, nations and non-governmental organizations to have an influence on people. he came up with the word soft power. in a nice power article that appeared in 1996. he says "power is the ability to get what you want. there are basically three ways to do that -- color of

domestics, payments, carrots, and attraction, soft power. so soft power is the power of attraction. he says they countries soft power can come from three culture, itsits political values, when it lives up to them at home and abroad, and it formed policies, when they are seen as legitimate and have a moral authority. , he includes public diplomacy as a form of soft . wer as a way to influence let me close my remarks by comparing these two terms, public diplomacy and soft power, that are so frequently used today. both terms have become global even though they were coined by

americans. you read more about south power in the chinese press then you do in the american. the main difference is soft always clear's not what he is saying, it's not necessarily a government sponsored activity. it's the power of attraction a country as because of its values, policies and culture. a government-directed activity. the or to think of concentric circles, you'd have a big circle of soft power and one of the small circles would be public diplomacy. i think that is the main difference. the main similarity is both public diplomacy and soft power are used to persuade others by means that are not coercive.

you don't hit people over the head to have the underside. this is their main that similarity. activities are rather forish because they happen the benefit of the sponsor of these activities, be it the kind thatontaneous attraction soft power depends on, but ultimately, the beneficiary of these powers are those who have the power and are trying to , so it's notrs necessarily humanitarian or altruistic. >> i have a mental than diagram of soft power and propaganda. >> let's talk about propaganda, especially propaganda. >> thank you very much.

that provides a great segue to go to the global scope of soft power. let's go to jill. >> am very grateful to john because when i left him there with that word propaganda, it was in response to a course i took at georgetown from john in which she talked the specifically about propaganda, so i was primed for that. have a pejorative connotation, but it has less pejorative meetings, such as russian propaganda and is a technical term. a very quick profits -- the reason i was invited here is because i am in the throes of writing a master's thesis on vladimir putin's soft power. a friend of mine who is an academic that will remain nameless says if you don't have

a thesis, because there is no soft power. think itgree, but i has to be defined in a different way. that one of the problems of soft power. it is squishy and soft. it is not a very well defined concept. right now, there is a revisionist theory about soft power. there are two people, one of to thinkens to be john it creates a false comfort. -- says >> i'm not worth the of being quoted. see here, it's not very soft at all. he makes quite a case for attracting and convincing countries, but that's another

way of talking about diplomacy. i think that's a good point. person -- wes a were looking at this person today. hard and soft false boxes that actually she would talk about a symbolic effect. as i write my paper, i'm getting more into the symbolism of the culture, the residents of may be ine, and that a master's thesis is of a little too broad or undefined. but i think there is something to it. americans --about

i don't want to say america's youth, but america's soft power, john mentioned the declaration of independence, you can bring it up to ronald reagan talking about human rights around world, the united states has an almost cinematic, you can look at hollywood and say america has an image of itself as the land of freedom, opportunity and democracy. i'm not going to evaluate that or give my judgment on how true or false it is, but it is an image the united states projects and is organically projected from the culture itself. countries use different types of soft power. for instance, france, i saw a little pop up on the internet, don't ask me how i found it, it

just popped up there. it was about investing in france. it had a person with a french accent, which immediately pegs that as something that is soft power. language is definitely soft power. it said i know you want to invest in france. each day in france, we have 2500 companies that invest. it was a charming and i kept watching. then it said and of course in france, there are 2500 ways of making love. then it goes out. was playing with the image of france as the nation of lovers and it was talking about investment and you could almost hear the wind being poured.

was very effective. i was charmed and my eyes were opened to another form of soft power. the government doing this. it was more of a business group. business groups and individuals can do soft power. non-governmental organizations can do it. there are other countries that use it. south korea uses it with its culture. south korean culture is very up around the world. in asia, it is very influential. the webvery literate on and on the internet, so they have a different kind of soft power projection. japan has its own with culture and the hit nature of communication and technology. chinad say russia and very briefly are definitely using it. they are getting more and more

serious. i came back from moscow about one month ago where i did a number of interviews on soft power in russia. they are investing more in it, they're doing more with the structure of public diplomacy and what they believe is soft power. they know that their images-. they have done polling. doesn't take a genius to know that the problem. they want to correct it. there is one problem with soft power. the advantage is a very organic. form, it a primal arises from the culture itself. they cantries believe use or exploit or utilize soft power. in fact, one person i spoke to

at the state department said, they used the term in positional soft power, which at the list interesting. all lot of this is a contradiction. was not recommending the use of in positional soft power, she was talking more feeling about russia, they can use structured soft what as a tool to change they believe is a false impression of what going on in their country. biglly, the chinese, very and too soft power. spoke toe russians i was very concerned, saying that 59 centers, now has

cultural centers russia has around world. china has 900. i will bet there are more than 900 by now because they're opening them. why do countries use soft power? they use it sometimes to change the narrative about themselves. ae russians believe there's false narrative out there being created by its enemies, countries that don't want russia to do well. or let's say they are economic enemies. could be using it. there are many people who say they are using it to soften the impact of their exorable economic move from a world to

capture resources and sell them to the world. that could be another reason. i want to go into one thing we're talking about as we were talking about how we would break up this enormous subject, which is branding. is a is a rushing -- there russian word now, branding. as i talk to one official, i cut to the classics sound bite and that is he said you know you have done? i said it for the purposes of this discussion, not an american. he said you have carried out the biggest free branding in the history of the world. i said what is that? he said in the old days, when it was communism and capitalism, you sold capitalism and we competed. now, you are selling freedom and democracy around world. that is your brand.

that is what you sell. you can this idea that somehow reach brand a country, an idea, concept, a deeply held belief, and sell it. capitalist very post- to me. to me it is very hip and it is saying we can manipulate people into taking this brand. i started thinking maybe the united states does some of the same things in a slightly different way. i will close on this -- what we have right now is the waning power of government to spread messages, although it is still very potent. he have the internet, socially it, twitter, facebook, and web sites. al qaeda has a website.

other groups and individuals have impressive web sites. , this is also a very good "from a person talking --ut it, the social media this is the head of the undersecretary of facebook diplomacy and public affairs. it used to be about government managing public perceptions, but now it's people talking to each other and cutting out the government. has costomething that things into the air, not only for developing countries are country's new piece of power, but countries that have been doing it for a long time. engage and you cannot tell people what to think. you may manipulate them and there are ways of doing this, a bigere is no longer

finger by governments to tell people what to think about what they do. sometimes their policies tell the world what they're doing. stop on that. think you for your insights. and going to try to build on them. i will be brief, but a look forward to more questions and more detailed discussions. quicky, i will provide a background on public diplomacy and what russia has done. we could see a major watershed in 2003 and 2004. in terms of russian attempts to improve its image abroad and the better public diplomacy. why was that? is during thehat

first term in office, his foreign-policy became much more assertive. he also realized when trying to engage with the international public it was proving to be very difficult because of the-damage the world had of russia, so they decided they had to do something about it. we should remember the international context was getting a little more hostile. because of the expansion of nato and the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and most importantly because of the color revelations sweeping across the post soviet space. a lot of russians saw that as being the western mastermind project. they realize they had to do

something or start activities in terms of improving their image abroad. so what did they do? i will provide some examples. focus on what the government has been trying to do, specifically other actors coming to the fore. in 2005, the media establish russia today which has grown to include several languages and several channels, each one with a different focus. i believe they have about 20 bureaus around the world, which is impressive pit but they also -- it is a websites government sponsored, at yet realized. they provide free content and multiple languages and have

multimedia projects which are very impressive. there is also russia behind the headlines, so it's not just washington post here, it's the independent and the guardian and are several other major publications from world. revitalized the voice of russia radio. it was reprinted as the new voice of russia. they also had some other project that brought together analyst and they met with vladimir putin and wrote good pieces about russia. think tanks and the international affairs journal, which is the official

journal of the minister of foreign affairs. activities,cultural they have been very active. mentioned a few that focused on promoting russian culture abroad and at promoting cultural activities and russian- language teaching. more recently, they started emphasizing online efforts as well. beyond what the media is already giving, the minister of foreign ffairs established very -- various twitter accounts. they have a facebook page that is only in russian for some areon and some ambassadors and they started improving some

of their embassy web sites, making them much more user- friendly and informative. all of this is a commendable and exciting to see, but despite it all, the russian image doesn't seem to have improved much. ofy would say it's a failure russian power, but why is this the case? that is what i will try to address. first of all, the stereotypes continue from the cold war era. cases and proxy wars don't help that much. a lot of the social media effort i referred to is taking place in russia. who is the target public? are they trying to talk to the foreign public or are they trying to reach out to the public of the country or the domestic country or his

superiors? more importantly, there is the fundamental problem of what i the his -- what i'm told is pre conceptualization of soft power. it's not that russians don't understand what it means, but russia has realized soft power is in its essence cannot be applicable for russia and they hear soft power is to american. that's my problem with the concept. american clinical system and culture. as the there is to find success of freedom abroad or how aggressive the u.s. is promoting itself abroad or the activities of a vibrant civil society which other countries may not have.

russia cannot afford going down that route. unreasonables an expectation of any country. they also realize they cannot afford not doing anything in terms of south power -- but soft power. is the west or others that are not necessarily friendly to the rational cause, they realize they have to be doing something. rock and atween a hard place, russia came up with its own brand of soft power that reflects their own values and political systems and own foreign policy objectives. that is a very different. that is where the misunderstanding comes from.

what is this a russian version of the soft power? it's suggested that russia cannot out compete the u.s. when it comes to soft soft power. he suggests focusing on the hard soft power which requires the promotion of the russian perspective and influence abroad and what jill mentioned in terms of pr and branding would fall into this example. similarly, we can see the rise of anti-american conceptualization of soft power which was paralleled by the concept of sovereignty in the russian discourse. this lies aof perception of an all-out war against all those other countries that will not give than to western influence,

whether it is iran, venezuela, china or russia itself. u.s. has been the global hegemon and they are not comfortable with that. there was an issue that occurred during the 2008 war with georgia and they keep referring to it as a major watershed of their own because they realize georgia and the u.s. managed to control the media narrative much better than wretched it. they have to do something about. beyond that, the best example of soft power can be seen in the ministries and foreign policy concept adopted this february. it is conceptualized as independent from the influence of russia and the traditional spheres of influence. usa ids would include

where the development agency was kicked out of the country for supposedly supporting regime change in russia, or the increasing government pressure against international or foreign-funded non-governmental organizations. thes interesting to note foreign-policy project emphasizes that russia has to learn how to do soft power better and it's important for russia to learn how to do soft power. to observeis funny their trying to learn western techniques basically to use them against the west itself because they see the west as posing this threat to their sovereignty. this is just to give you an idea of what russia sees as the soft power imperative. of bilateral relationships, soft power is more of a source of tension than

a force that brings them together. to improve this situation, both sides have to work on the perceptions of each other. they have to try to prove these stereotypes and images of each other both on the general public level as well as the political leadership. best softtantly, the power is achieved through action and the public diplomacy of deed. you can only hope both sides will be able to achieve some compromise in the future. >> thank you very much. this will provide an excellent framework for our discussion and your questions. i have a van diagram of the rational concept of soft power and the u.s. concept of soft power. i thought you were going to get style for a moment.

for all of you on the panel, i think it is a historical trend to conceptualize a foreign concept going back to peter the great. there is also a contradiction here in recent years where russia has embraced soft power as a tool, but it also sees the to of soft power as a threat its sovereignty. i'm trying to reconcile that. is that why it is distinct or is it a contradiction? >> i would say it's a contradiction. i don't think they are emphasizing the difference as much. the article i referred to earlier, the differentiation between soft soft power and hard soft power was the first time i actually saw that.

i had not come across that before, but it's an interesting bit radiation. beyond that, they're not emphasizing it much. this is our version of soft power and a soft power is a universal concept everyone can use. a force for good -- >> that's where the misunderstanding comes from. they don't understand the baggage the concept comes with. in because ijump would be interested in what you think about this. there is also timing here. russia is 20 years old. a couple of decades. of that time was spent consolidating and making sure the country did not implode.

that was the danger after the end of the soviet union, the whole place would fall apart. there were legitimate concerns. putin had their hands full simply keeping the country together. moscow,r when i was in people continue to be bring that up. caucuses, ao the lack of a coherent idea about what makes russia take. the centripetal forces that can pull a country apart. let's say you take 10 years of trying to keep the country together. the 1990's, this phrase it picks up steam. it percolating in the old west.

it's a time they're not interested in attracting people to their ancient history and how receptive they are. soft power focus for projection was economic. they wanted to do was to get people to invest in russia and bring their economy back. utilitarianoltec -- approach. people think we are corrupt, and we'd better set that narrative straight. that was their approach to soft power. is second one i would argue let's get the russians who fled back here where they belong and let them build the country. what are they doing in california? what are they giving in silicon valley when they could be working in moscow? that is where you find lot of

this russian-language where you say who are they talking to? i think a lot of people they are talking to are russians who are here in washington and in other countries. brain drain has diminished to a certain extent, but it isn't over. >> if i may speak from the american perspective, with the cultural affairs officer in moscow from 1998 to 2001. speaking about american public diplomacy toward russia and the russian reaction to it, i don't want to get into the individual programs, but one of the things that struck me as an american diplomat having the pleasure of practicing public diplomacy in call myselfke to [speaking russian] -- the

question of a national identity , americans define themselves in political terms. the declaration of independence, the constitution are political that underscore the rights of the individuals. on the other hand, russians have a problem in defining themselves or don't feel comfortable defining themselves politically. rather, they define themselves culturally. therussian language, achievements in the culture, tolstoy, dostoevsky, russian architecture and music. one of the problems that exists in creating a russian-american dialogue on the public diplomacy level with

implications for the soft power of both countries influencing the other is americans tend to think politically. russians think culturally. one of the things i had as a cultural affairs officer is that the united states doesn't take culture very seriously. all my russian contacts would say why don't you have a cultural program? we don't have a minister of culture and the united states. bad excuse. >> we have hollywood. >> the real issue in the russian-american dialogue regarding public diplomacy is changing, as you both point out so well. are trying to reach

imagine themselves in presenting themselves to the west with western pr firms. the people to people level, there is an issue of national self definition which poses obstacles and challenges on a public diplomacy level. welet's turn to questions might have in the audience and perhaps on twitter as well. give us your name and organizations. we have a? out here in the third row. i'm a recent graduate student from the columbia school of economics. question is for jill. you use of power as an organic process. there was an article on cnn regarding this notion that china is trying really hard in a

contrived process to serve as a conduit or delivering a soft power initiative. do you think government can serve in that capacity or is it a subconscious process that takes place and is routed over years of work? it could be nike, fast food chains are hollywood, some driven by government, but a self-conscious process in a larger debate about soft power. >> this would be my theory. i'm not an expert in this at all. the chinese use their ancient culture which existed way before soft power was ever invented. that's one very strong force. did just spring from the earth? part of chinese culture is what

the government is. i think there verging on the area, the difference between public diplomacy and soft power. as the of soft power soil and let's call public diplomacy the plow or what loam to to use that continue this crazy analogy. and is kind of what it is, in the united states, which is a highly sophisticated in terms of the mia and how we propagandize ourselves, you could argue democracy, etc., having grown up in the '50s, all lot of this was

used by the government through times and our allies like world war one and world war two. the fertilizer that went back into the soil. >> propagate -- propaganda. >> exactly. i'm not sure how to answer your question. it's not either or, but right now, the russians are beginning to try to grapple with how can we utilize whenever we've got, whether it is language or culture or cuisine or the order tof a society in get people to like us on some level and do what we want them whyo, which is ultimately this is interesting to governments. >> we have another question down

here in the second row. >> i'm a law student at american university. soft power is about not being that influential because of the fact russia has not changed their foreign- policy. for instance, in syria, right now russia has a huge influence over the syrian government and in they're not responding even a humanitarian way to end the conflict. why aren't they using their soft power to end the conflict in -- therehelp the world are so many people dying and they can actually stop it. why are they doing so? you for the question. i was thinking about a lot.

the arabs spring can be other example beyond the georgia war that i mentioned in terms of of theg to prominence russian government to the forefront. does is itrious case presents another excuse for they have to fight over soft power with the west. that's why they have been -- i'm looking for the word here, not to betray their old friends, but to stick with the line they have been treading since the cold war. afraid if they see a change in government, the government will be too friendly for russia and will on the contrary be overtaken by pro- western forces. that is something they cannot have. it is connected to economic and

military concerns. in libya, they lost a lot of economic interests there and they are afraid of a similar thing happening again. it is a military concern, if that answers your question. >> i think there is another factor, which is russia talks about a principled approach to foreign policy. in syria, that's sovereignty. diplomaticred, principle of the russians that sovereignty is paramount. nobody should be able to tell any other country what to do and nobody should change other countries against their will. libya was a mistake and syria would be a mistake as well and you talk about human rights and if you look at libya and the post-arabs bring world, people's

rights have been massively abused by this process that on the surface looks white democracy breaking out and actually what do you have? do you have people dying? i have heard this argument and i say i-- i'm not going to believe to it or subscribe to it, but you mentioned sovereignty and it's like up there, number one for russian fn foreign relations internationally. >> which is an ironic situation. public diplomacy in a way is in interference of a country's internal affairs. soviets, we are always ready to use propaganda. public diplomacy is a kind of -- a soft power invasion. it's a violation of sovereignty

that i think a lot of resentment regarding american culture in russia, especially after the cold war -- during the cold war, american culture was a forbidden fruit. and therefore very attractive. when the soviet union collapsed in the russian population, especially the intelligentsia, invaded by american popular culture, they got indigestion. almost like eating too much popcorn. by the time i was there, there was a reaction against american culture. in fact, it was remarkable that i never saw so many american movies in my life than i did in

moscow in the late 1990s's and this century --american b movies, often with korean subtitles and voiceover and russian. i tell you, it was a cultural experience. it was oh so 21st century. >> on arab spring, i think it is a useful context for the discussion of soft power. can we call the arab spring a success of u.s. foreign policy and u.s. soft power? was there an alignment of the two? >> it's too early to tell. it's not over. i mean -- >> from the russian perspective, they are afraid of a domino effect of some sorts. what we saw with the protest two early 2012, they

arabafraid it was an spring effect coming to russia. they had this flashback of the revolution. to them, it's an issue of interference. but interference to what end? if it is a regime change, which they see it as being, then they have problems with it. from the americas perspective, yes, i think it's too early. >> perhaps in the west -- presence and use of social media has a major contribution to the over spring -- to the arab spring were over- hyped. i think the russian government was not as say thavvy about socl media like the fiber utopians in the united states saying

we're going to change the world if we twitter enough. vgeny -- who saw how authoritarian governments can use the media for their own purposes, at the time everybody in the west is going gaga about social media and the arab spring it. , the end ofit history. he was saying wait a minute, it's not that it will. from my experience as a things i one of the noticed is that western journalists werho often don't kw much about local conditions, and it's getting worse and worse

with notable exceptions, they are sent into a country and theteather than look at history of the social condition or the colts are, look at what is familiar to them -- or the culture, they look at what is familiar to them such as facebook or twitter. and they tend to overhyped that as a factor in changes. i noticed this when i was in belgrade in the mid-1990's. dissidents tod by criticize the milosevic government. would comementators to belgrade for a couple of days and say this is the first e-mail revolution. in you didn't have to live belgrade for 1000 years to realize it was far more complicated than that, the kind of changes occurring.

expert,g a middle east that certainly could be said about the middle east. social media is a sufficient condition but not a necessary. >> do we have any questions on our twitter feed? two questions. it touches on something be brushed upon which is hollywood. the question is --is hollywood a good or bad use of soft power for the u.s.? i think it's both. it's very powerful, the way , thecan films are made sophistication, technical sophistication.

, you can do whatever you want, this is the land of freedom, easy rider, that type of thing. then it is complete depravity. let's face it, you can get anything american films. so it cuts both ways. it is interesting that it's a controlled medium. you need money. ande's an industry everything but the image of presents of the united states is really desperate. there are some very smart homes and there are some really horrible things -- very smart some and there are really horrible things. sometimes the world gets the worst ones if they cannot afford the good ones. i think it cuts both ways. >> i am fascinated by this question. mentalisma triumph

like that at the end of the cold war. regarding american popular i culture in the 21st century. i'm not convinced it will be as dominant as some people believe. let me suggest some reasons. areican culture, as presented by hollywood, is no longer as new as it was in the 20th century. people have seen american films. they've heard american jazz. if it can be considered a form of popular culture. that's one. themselvesl contries are developing a kind of popular asture that is often attractive, if not more attractive, then hollywood l. india produces more films than hollywood. third as an

instrument of americanization, hollywood has lost a lot of its soft power in that american films are increasingly directed to global audiences and are becoming in fact less recognizably american. whatever that means. american films today -- it's not like looking at "casablanca." if you look at the blockbusters hollywood produces these days and next ports overseas, it doesn't have the american quality. finally, in terms of american popular culture, soft power has takeremaining dominant, the english language. in the 20th century, it was a vehicle for americanization. i don't want to do with a

british accent, i want to speak with an american accent. what's happening now is that english has become an international language. it's no longer if the physically american language -- a specifically american language. the impact of american popular weture i think musn't be -- musn't take it for granted that this soft power will remain dominant in the 21st century. i think you suggested this when he talked about other countries and their soft power. >> moscow could be a future center. i think a lot of russian influences from hollywood -- russian directors now of hollywood homes -- hollywood films.

let's take another question from the audience. >> i'm a graduate student at georgetown university. i am also the cofounder of an organization called the center for american russian engagement of emerging leaders, which started after i was a student body president, university. we were invited by [indiscernible] and we have taken 100 or more student leaders from america to russia, allfunded -- all funded by the russian government. --i haveon is experienced interest in the russian government in bringing their soft power public diplomacy and targeting young americans, future leaders,

through these initiatives. i'm interested in -- then also, when i first went there, you said he's more concerned about u.s. public opinion towards russians. the's a harder thing than russian public opinion of americans. but suggested you have in how americans can engage more and be more interested in the public diplomacy and perception of russians? what can be done? go to russia. [laughter] as you did. in daysan irony that of the cold war, russia was an exotic place that attracted and theericans

government provided a lot of money to study russia. now that this periodi is over, the friendship is by no means automatic. it's a real challenge to make americans interested in russia. russians are far more interested in the united states and americans are interested in russia. part of it is our lack of knowledge of geography. i think many people knew where the soviet union was because we all know the phrase "was is go'd d's way of teaching americans geography." that's the problem. tempest if you saw the in a teapot after the tragic event in boston were somebody tweeted we have a new czechoslovakia because they

thought it was the czech republic. the ambassador wrote a letter saying the czech republic is not chechnya. sawink if young americans business opportunities in russia, i think that would be -- but it's not, it's difficult now. if you come it worse >> i was an exchange student when i was just in congress. -- in college. a change my life. that's why i'm sitting here today. because i studied in a petersburg, leningrad, at the time. exchanges, student exchanges, tourism, there are more and more towards you can take -- more tours you can take. interesting things that russians are offering. i did interview [indiscernible] and they are looking at doing

more exchanges. so i would watch that page. if they can get the funding, and they seem to be getting him of the funding, i think they will be trying to do something. that is something russians are more comfortable with. public diplomacy. i think they're pretty comfortable with that. they did it under the soviet union but they did not do it the way maybe they can do it today which is much more open. that are a lot of websites would be a good contact when you can just engage with russians. young russians. and i that what's going on. -- and find uioout what's going on. their music -- their classical culture, the high culture, is very good and very effective but i have get see some type of

[indiscernible] from russia.ro maybe i just don't go to the right places. >> somebody laughing. >> ok. that's about what i could just. -- i couduld suggest. >> culture is an important entrance but you also have to contextualize it. whenever you read that they us the pushkin -- whenever you pushkintoyevsky or and he tried to get the reference and you don't have it betterink russia can do to provide this historical, cultural context as to why certain characters acted the way they did.

or what does it say about the political culture or situation in the late 19th century? that is something. if youes can't help but don't have the financial means of doing so, there is the internet. i think it can help. there are a bunch of different sources you can look up a different way to connect with other side on the of the atlantic. i don't think that's difficult at all this day and age. >> can i bring up one anecdote regarding russian-american cultural connections. , bornn of yule brenner in siberia, moved to the united egg -- united states and his son was born in the u.s. he is a college professor wrote an excellent book about his

family history. they originally came from switzerland, went to japan. there several years ago to attend a movie festival in honor of his father, yule. my understanding is that not wereilms of yule welcome and the 1970's. at that film festival, "the magnificent seven" was screened. i never knew yule was of russian origin when i first saw the film. after it was shown, this is what he told me --one of the russians in attendance went up to rock and said it takes a russian to make a western. [laughter]

these are the connections that could be made. but whole history -- the whole .istory of hollywood >> if it were easier for russians to come to the united states and americans to go to russia, i think that would be a huge improvement across the board. there are a few other hands. >> this is a fascinating conversation. i recently came back from russia after serving their two years of the public diplomacy officer.

thented to ask about prospects for cooperation and public diplomacy. that's something for us to improve the image of russia and the united states although that was not specifically our job but we wanted to help our russian colleagues with that and we sent a hesitation on the part to do joint public plumbs the project in the united egg. sense a hesitation on jointpart to do unite diplomacy in the d states. do you seeent success in public diplomacy without i lateral corporation asked mark what are the prospects for for increased cooperation between the u.s. and russia as to mark -- and russia? >> i think i will call john

kerry and ask him. i understand that the man who was once the minister of culture produced a make -- a musical consisting of 1930 american songs. it's a very difficult question. i have the privilege of introducing to the open world program and in its own way, it's a very successful program. it brings up-and-coming young russians from outside the capitals to the united states for two weeks. grassroot america. i think that's one way to do it. is also for the russian government and the new russian wealthy to start

organizing these things. when i read in the new york times that happen -- manhattan real estate is being bought a -- beingthy russians bought by wealthy russians, i keep asking why don't they do it exchange program? i think and be received by americans -- i think it would be well received by americans. [indiscernible] than is go up front thought question in the third row. saw a question in

the third row. my question is to all. is there a disconnection between the big ideas behind american soft power and the reality? if american politics is gridlocked, if congress is paralyzed, there is no option to , when we seeng that state spending in the united states is more than china, it is difficult to say the great american ideas -- capitalism, democracy, division of powers -- that this idea is not working in the curernt

world. ofthis reminds me conversations i've had with russians about american style diplomacy -- a moccasin. and it really does not mean any and in the country does not work you're going down the tubes and all this. this expression in english, the proof is in the pudding. hown't think you can say whatever is happening in the united states on the soft power world and the united egg will affect people abroad. will affectates people abroad. quote at the the dc.rials in washington,

.heir finding inspiration nobody was jumping off the wall. nobody was screaming. they were all reading this things. it's almost like hollywood. it goes both ways. we all know congress is dysfunctional. will they eventually get the act together? i have no idea. there are some in a message is that the united states exudes. the highest culture, the lowest the sincere belief in democracy and the perversion of democracy, if everything. i don't think you can really , that onelashpoint

point in time will be perceived internationally and in what countries. >> on the shorter-term, it is a public diplomacy problem. now we are talking about the short-term. it might be an issue in terms of the perception of the night -- of the united states around the -- but i don't think it will have a big impact unless it's a protracted period of crisis. the components of soft our culture, political values, for policy. for policy depends on the perspective. on to looking at them in terms -- in terms of who is looking at them in terms of their appeal.

whether it is working to medically or not is a different question. in terms of culture, it's still very appealing. -- he corresponded and i hadnder first read some. jefferson had a bust of alexander the first in monticello. iswas lost but today there a replica of their. what you are saying about the , the factoft power that something is rotten in denmark and the u.s., and and therefore u.s. soft power public diplomacy cannot be affected

because of what's happening here -- and reminds me of an article that appeared in for coal -- in foreign affairs regarding chinese and russian soft power. it will be successful until the two countries get their act together at home. it's kind of an agreement here. if you can no longer attract the , you havehat you are a problem with soft power. the's part of the problem united states has. it is perceived in many parts of .he world as hypocritical we say one thing and do another three b criticize other countries human rights and what weut our situations here -- say one thing and do another,.

. we criticize other countries human rights and what about our situations here? put lipstick on a pig. a question in the third row. .hen one more question >> i promised you a difficult question. i have a number of thoughts i will try to conglomerate. we look at the issue of soft how -- how are and how the russians are defining it as something more tangible, something they could export to other countries. at the old soviet policy revolution and looking at the

arab spring, we see the soviet policy used to be we can give you a revolution that we can export to you so people can revolutionize the way they do government. they can take over from basic population. looking at how that turned into what we see today with the arab spring, people who have the same weapons exported during the cold war canal continued that perhaps anlution, typical to what the russian government is now trying to promote. some of the other forms of stock power export that russia does -- we look at the primary causes of that and it comes down to food prices, affected by .lobal warming .ow does that all relate

does the past policy mix with the current policy? are the way to transport it to stop the revolution? >> let's tackle that them we will get to yours. >> i am not an expert on that part of the world. , they have atand concept and they were these to describe foreign aid in the as humanitarian assistance. i guess that would fall under what you are describing. so, yes, they have been trying to show assistance to those governments but what i see is side ofy are on the

the government. they are not on the side of the people, if you may. i think the times have changed and they do recognize that. they do want to promote their interest. so they will rebrand it as such. they still do provide weapons to this area. just today, we got the news. i think that is important to remember. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. but you do have to realize each country is after its own foreign policy interests. that is often forgotten when doing an analysis of russian foreign policy because they

looking at it from the american perspective. >> professor of geography at george washington. you mentioned founding fathers. they were trying to get a revolution. the use power effectively before. i guess what i'm curious about is not stock power and diplomacy being used between countries but soft power and diplomacy being used within countries. i'm thinking about the situation currently in russia were any kind of foreign intervention is being cut off. if you talk the party line you

are in, if not, you're out. i think we coudl see that -- could see that happening in the u.s. as well a certain groups of people got control of the press our government. so what about this internal use of soft power as a way to control people? that may be part of what we are seeing in syria as well. comment?ke a quick i'm sure you are familiar with the act passed in 1948. thanks to subsequent amendments, it made it clear that the u.s. government sponsored information products of programs such as the voice of america could not be disseminated domestically. the act was recently amended. voa on the look at internet and not fear going to jail. but so, yes.

i think it's a very kind of --you know,on that the distinction between public diplomacy and public affairs communicating with american audiences, that at the state department as part of one office. they are supposed to harmonize thsese two activities. maybe that would make more sense of the 21st-century where audiences -- the extensions are obliterated thanks to matt medication and the internet. i think we have to be careful about domestic public diplomacy outreach. there are many insidious ways of having propaganda that does not

appear as propaganda. those are my thoughts. i think isg that is if you are talking about russians propagandizing themselves, the penetration of television is massive. sowever, the younger generation are turning off tv news, just the united states a lot of young people do not watch television news. they are on the web and are getting information. kind of o way, it's like the macro situation in the world. it will be harder for the russian government to give a coherent message to its own people precisely because -- unless they start cracking down on the web the way the chinese

have. i think it will be hard to really do what used to be possible looking atssians are the same stuff you are looking at. >> we could go on and on. luckily we have a reception to follow so we can continue talking about this topic. this is been a fascinating discussion. thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedules to be with us tonight and sharing your insights. it is a very important topic right now, a very involving topic. there are a lot more discussions be can have. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> and put the minutes, --im--n

ntsbinutest,he >> today we need to consider the 10 -- the safety report reaching zero, action to eliminate impaired driving. this is critical. impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the united states. 25 years ago today, our nation saw the deadliest alcohol impaired driving crash in u.s. history. a drunk driver drove his pickup the wrong way on interstate 71 near carrollton, kentucky. he hit a school bus and killed

24 children and 3 adul chaperonest, injuring 34 more. today, our thoughts are with carrollton,es in kentucky, recognizing the 25th anniversary of that crash. that same year, impaired drivers would kill thousands more. let's look at how well we are doing as a nation to address the national epidemic of alcohol impaired driving. as i will look like, we have made progress since that deadly night in kentucky. but it is been not nearly enough. of the, the first year tracking system, 21,113 people died in u.s. crashes involving alcohol impaired driving. this represented nearly one half

of all highway deaths. today, the percentage of death due to alcohol impaired driving is about one third of all highway fatalities. moving the percentage from one half to one third of highway fatalities has taken great effort by thousands of dedicated people in many organizations. >> we will show you more of the ntsb's meeting. the chairman's appearance on washington journal. we will also talk with the milwaukee county sheriff. and comments about the proposed on driving rules. it is about 20 minutes from now at 8:00 eastern on c-span. all this begun c-span2, book tv in prime time. also coming up to 8:00 eastern, three books on american foreign- policy. rohde, then

nasr.d haass and vali president obama joined governor chris christie tuesday to see how new jersey is recovering from the effects of hurricane sandy. this is about 20 minutes. , toadies and gentlemen introduce the president of the united states, please welcome governor of the state of new jersey, chris christie. [applause] >> good afternoon, new jersey. all of you for braving the weather and being out here today. this past weekend has been an incredibly important weekend in new jersey's history. we all came together as a community over the last seven months to a door and begin to

recover from the worst storm this date has ever seen. for all the folks here, the local officials, the county officials and everyday citizens of new jersey, the credit goes to all of you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to lead you and welcome back to the jersey shore for the summer. [applause] this is been a community effort. everybody working together. from the minute the storm hit, we worked with local mayors all up and down the jersey shore. everybody came together. republicans, democrats, independents, we all came together because new jersey is more important in our citizens lives are more important than any kind of politics at all.

i wish the sun was shining like it was on sunday and monday but as barry parker still a great to be whether it is raining -- but asbury park is still a great place to be but it is raining or shining. the enthusiasm, the spirit of the people of this town, you can just feel it. everybody is ready to welcome america back to the jersey shore this summer and so am i. two days after sandy hit us, the president of united states came to visit visit new jersey into the damage for himself. and to pledge his support and support of the federal government. to help us recover and rebuild. seven months later, we know we have made great progress.

but we still have so much more to do. so many more of our families need to get back in their homes. so many more of our businesses who need to get back up and running. whoany of our citizens just want their lives to go back to normal. i am thrilled with the progress we have made in the last seven months. we got a chance to show the president some of the earlier today up in point pleasant. i also made sure he understood there is still a lot more work to do for the people of our state and i am not going to let anything or anyone get in between me and the completion of the mission to restore and recover our great state. [applause] on behalf of the people of new jersey, it is my privilege to introduce the president of the united states of america. [applause]

[cheers] ♪ >> hello, new jersey! [applause] it is good to be back in jersey. i love you back. say thank you to governor christie for the introduction and the great work he has done here. johnson, is here as well and have been working tirelessly on your behalf.

we have three great representatives in congress of new jersey, rush holt, frank .allone, donald payne junior ,ast week, my advisers asked me they said mr. president, do you want to spend next tuesday in washington or would you rather spend it at the jersey shore? [applause] i have to make some tough decisions as president but this was not one of them. i appreciate that. governor christie and i just spent some time on the point pleasant boardwalk. i got a chance to see the world tallest sand castle being built. the plane touched down beaver.

we played touchdown. i played a little frog bog. kidsovernor christie's talk with the right technique for getting the hammer to get thee frogs int e the bucket way i was supposed to. and of course i met with folks still rebuilding after sandy. we all understand there are still a lot of work to be done. there are homes to rebuild, businesses to reopen, landmarks and beaches and boardwalks that are not all the way back yet. thanks to the hard work of an awful lot of people, we have wonderful shops and restaurants opening their doors. i saw what thousands of americans saw over memorial day weekend -- you are stronger than the storm. after all you have dealt with,

after all you have been through, the jersey shore is back at it is open for business and they want americans to know that they are ready to welcome you here. i've got to say, if they ever let me have any fun, i would have some fun here. [applause] i was telling my staff on the ride over, i could see being a little younger and having some fun on the jersey shore. [applause] i can't do that anymore. maybe after i leave office. [cheers] i think a friend of mine from here once put it pretty well -- down the shore, everything's all right.

[applause] he's the only guy the president still have to call the boss. other than the first lady. but for generations, that's what this place has been about. life isn't always easy. we are people who have to work hard, do what it takes to provide for our families. when you come here, everything's all right. whether you spend a lifetime here or at weekends or a summer, the shore hold a special place in your heart and a special place in america's mythology, america's memory. when i was here seven months ago, hurricane sandy had just hammered communities all across the east coast and lives were lost or it and homes and businesses were destroyed. folks were hurting. i remember something chris said.

the resilient all new jersey citizens have. you kept going. these towns have a special character. not just in the summer but all year round. in the moment the hurricane hit, first responders worked around- the-clock to save lives and property. neighbors open their homes and hearts to one another. you came together as citizens to rebuild. -- to and we aren't done yet. for somebody still trying to get the business up and running or the home rebuild, we don't want them to think we somehow checked a box and moved on. that's part of the reason i came back. to let people know we will keep going until he finished. [applause] if anybody wondered whether the shore could ever be all right again, you have your answer this weekend. [applause]

from belmar to seaside heights, folks were hanging out on balconies and beaches. shows were sold out. kids were eating icre cream, going on rides, going to eat more ice cream. guys were trying to win those big stuffed animals to impress a special girl. the jersey shore is back in business. the work is not over, though. some months ago, i promised you that your country would have your back. i told you we would not quit until the job was done and i meant it. i meant it. [applause] greg fugate, the head of fema, he could not be here today but i want to thank him and his team for their ongoing work. imo was here before sandy made landfall. they are still here today. here before sandy

made landfall. they are still here today. since the storm hit, we provided billions of dollars to families and state and local governments across the region and more is on the way. even as my team is helping communities recover from the last hurricane isn't, they are already starting to prepare for the next 13 season -- recover hurricane season, they are already starting to prepare for the next season. i want them to visit a website called ready.gov. make a plan. it is never too early. we also have to remember that the building efforts like these are not measured in weeks and months but in years. this past thursday, we announced billions of new relief aid for new york and new jersey

transit agencies carried that is why the army corps of engineers is working to restore beaches and strengthen the shores national defenses. that's why i joined governor christie and your representatives fighting to get a relief package through congress. we will keep doing what it takes to rebuild all the way and make it better than what it was before. make a stronger than it was before. make it more resilient than it was before. [applause] so jersey, you still have a long road ahead but when you look out on this youthful beach, even in the rain, it looks good. you look out over the horizon, you can count on the fact that you won't be alone. your ella citizens will be there for you, just like -- your felow citizens will be there for you, just like we will be there for folks in breezy point in staten island. and we will be there for the

folks at munro, oklahoma, after the devastation of last week. [applause] part of the reason i wanted to come back here was not just to send a message to new jersey but the folks in oklahoma. when we make a commitment and we've got your back, we mean it. finishnot going to until the work is done. that's who we are. we help each other as americans were the bad times and be sure make the most of the good times. so let's have some good times on the new jersey shore this summer and next summer and the summer after that and all year long. andica, bring your family friends, spend a little money on the jersey shore. you will find some of the friendly folks on earth, some of the best beaches on earth. even after a tough couple of months, this place is as special as ever. everything still all right. thank you everybody, god bless

you. god bless america. [applause] ♪

♪

>> in a few moments here, we will look at the national transportation safety board recommendation that members say should reduce deaths from alcohol driving. now a discussion on how cautionary programs affect transportation, then after that, a chance to see president obama and governor chris christie touring parts of new jersey. next up on c-span and c-span radio, we are going to take you to a meeting of the national transportation board. two weeks ago, they met and released recommendations on the junk driving in the u.s.. among the recommendations was reducing the threshold of drunk driving from the 50 states and district of columbia from .08 2.05 -- to