we were actually below. you know the guys who got us involved in the whole crisis to begin with? of -- weguys who kind have a value proposition problem. we need to position ourselves as said if you want to solve some the big issues, we are the profession that can do it. we have to look at it in a different way. it would've to look in the value of collective change. yes, we are all individual firms. at collectively, if it is not natural, it is billed by an architect. we can make these changes together. value ofok at the tangible benefits. do not talk to communities about design strategies or ideas. talk to them about impact. how we have made a difference

area changed the conversation for what would the deliver to what we are going to build. look at sustained growth. this 20 years of houston. we'll look collectively, yes, we are building a building. we are transforming the natural environment through our work. we need to look at a broader scale of the impact we are making area -- making. we have to look at the value of honoring our own. when you have made an impact to communities and when we look back and we honor that impact, we do with equity, honor, and we are proud of some of the greatest architects have achieved. [applause] finally, the value of how we respond. not why. i want to see a show of hands of

people who care about others. i do not have explained that architects care. what i have to explain is architects have the solutions. the valueking about we bring. the solutions we make. end without cannot a pitch. you can support our value. less than two percent of our funding comes from the architecture or fashion. 80% goes into implementing architecture. i would really love it if i they hit that 3% ratio. , who isnder, kate stohr an incredible person is on design.well we are announcing a challenge to the conventions. i think the architects can raise more funds to get architects to

make a difference then l.a. designers and home furnishing people. go up to our booth. go online. $100 of a licensed professional work for a day. you can ask donors. you can follow the footsteps of other great architects. there is a calendar there. by the end of the conference, i want to see every single day b ought. your birthday. you're spouses birthday. i'm not sure that will go down too well. if you really collect investing in our future, become a community builder. thank you so much for your support. i am looking for to designing damn.ou gveive a

>> new york times michael kamber discusses lessons he learned. as follow -- and that is followed by first ladies. looking at the life of dolley m adison. and remarks from wendy davis. ofare following members congress as they hold town hall meetings in their home districts. oleorrow morning on tom c speaking. he is followed by senator whitehouse. here's a preview. >> this is a challenging time to be in washington. the economic recovery is still very slow. it is particularly slow in rhode island.

toare trying to do things get the economy moving more quickly. we are trying to do so in a time where there is enormous complex. and dissension in washington. the one thing i want to tell you about that is it is my job to report back to you on what i see and what is going on around me. it is that what i see is not actually a lot of conflict between republicans and democrats. what i see if it meant conflict, bitter conflict within the republican party. contingenttea party that has one set of views. you have more moderate republicans that have a different set of views. they are almost at each other's throats right now. you have flat out told looked on the floor of the senate between republicans area you fight

between -- within the caucus. you have one group raising money against the other group. it is really contentions. we are kind of bystanders to that fight. we experience the effects of it. when one party is that divided and there is that much anger and conflict, it is very hard for them to help with getting legislation passed. >> you go watch the townhall was senator whitehouse in its entirety as well as congressman cole here on c-span. mayor -- >> meir -- fenty investing great based off.

raised only 1.2 may you dollars. -- $1.2 million. after great took office, brown aid he was paid and promised a job. federal investigators soon discover that much of the story was true. they also uncovered a bigger secret. the shadow campaign. campaignlly, you had a , the regular campaign you see. then, you had another set of folks who were in an office right next to the great campaign. during the campaign, there is so much going on. you have several workers come complaining about the other workers because they felt they were getting paid more. there was a lot of confusion about who was paying them. and it was not until a year

later that folks started doing things together. they realized wait a minute, the folks who were next door, we cannot find any record of them in the financial records. how did they get paid? and who is in charge of them? stewart on q&a. >> i am not a person who thinks everybody needs to live in new york city. as condocystic dwelling elitist. that is not why i did that book. i understand. i get fed up with a lot of daily life in new york city. the trend was so undeniable. that's a shift in the way

suburban america is perceived as too big a story to ignore. >> leigh gallagher. part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. >> michael kamber released a new book, photojournalist on war. 10 years after the invasion of iraq, he and a group of journalists sat down to discuss what they learned. from the newon america foundation in new york ity is >> so thanks for coming out tonight on an unreasonably wet une evening. it is great to see such a wonderful turn-out up here. a few words before i introduce

three incredibly esteemed colleagues up here. since the committee to protect journalists began tracking attacks on journalists some 32 ears ago, no conflict has been as dangerous or deadly no journalists as the war in iraq. since 2003, 150 journalists and more than 50 media support workers have been killed there. the vast majority of them were targeted murderers. they weren't killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, because they were karate in a crossfire or hit with the shrapnel of a car bomb. they are killed because of who they were or more specifically, what they did. they were killed because they dared to write, report, photograph, valparaiso. 93 murders. how many people were convicted for those crimes? none so far. that gives iraq the shameful distinction of being number one

on the global impunity index for the fifth consecutive year. most of those killed were working for iraqi news organizations. iraq has been dangerous for news organizations. but it has been a particularly dangerous place for iraqis working for iraqi outlets. they have been picked off by militias, insurgents, beginnings and thugs affiliated with powerful individuals seeking to silence critics. 57 iraqi journalists have fled into exile over the past decade. fear the real number is far greater. i personally know about two dozen who have sought refuge here in the united states. last year for the first time since 2003, c.p.j. did not document any work-related killings of journalists in iraq. but before you assume this is

good news, we need to consider what is happening to the media landscape in iraq. a year ago this month the iraqi government's media regulator ordered 44 local and international media outlets to be shut down. although authorities did not ultimately enforce that directive, local journalists say that that order was intended to be a warning shot to news outlets, that they should toe the government line. later in the year, the iraqi government debated a proposed cybercrime bill that would carry a sentence of life in imprisonment for using the internet to broadcast something that was suspended to damage the economy. just a couple of months ago, the shiah-led government there suspended the licenses of pro sunni chance. they included some of the largest and most popular media outlets in iraq, including al

jazeera. then there is the reduction or near elimination of western coverage. precious few american news organizations still maintain a presence in baghdad. syria, the fall-out of the arab spring are sucking up whatever dollars are left for foreign coverage. but iraq remains a vitally important country, teetering on the brink of yet another civil war. this evening i don't want this discussion to be one of those back patting, navel gazing discussions. we could sit here until the we hours of the morning and tell war stories of the we are not going to do that. we are going to look back a

little bit, but look forward and talk about the important lessons from the coverage of this war. i think i can speak for this group. we all hope we never have to cover another war as awful as his one as been. i am privileged to be up here with three colleagues whose work has been preeminent and whose work i deeply respected and whose work i am sure all of you have seen over the years. dateline from iraq and some cases from points beyond. to my immediate left is ahmed. he calls himself an accidental journalist and has one of the most interesting resume's. before the car he was a sculptor and professor of art at baghdad university. after the war, as the university was closed for a period of time, as many other organizations in the country were, he chose though try to make his living as a

journalist, and he has done quite well at that, working for the "new york times," the times of london among others. most recently as a field roducer for al jazeera english. he is serving as a scholar in residence in north carolina where he is teaching. to his left is hana. she is a national correspondent for mcclachey newspapers. she spent two years covering the war in iraq. was a fellow resident of the hamra homeland in baghdad when we were there and has authored a number of fantastic dispatches from there and was one of the preeminent voices covering the arab spring, particularly the fall of the

mubarak regime a couple of years ago. and to the far right is michael, a simply amazing photo journalist who has been shooting professionally for a quarter century. he has had his pictures appear in publications all over the world. but you probably hear in new york have seen him most frequently in the pages and on the website of the "new york times", both his photography as well as his writing. he is the author of a simply remarkable new book entitled "photo journalists in war, which is on sale to the right of the bottles of wine. when you are done, get another glass of wine and pick up a opy of the book and get mike to sign it for you.

in going through these bios, there is a bunch of v matter at the end of them. he has one of the greatest lines, in addition to all these awards he has won, which i will not bore you with right now. satisfies for say he has won every significance award that a photographer of his stature should win. he in 2001 worked on a three-part series on mexican immigration included in a book that i questions i have never heard before but must now pick up called the best american non-required reading. i would like to start out by asking, you were there as recently as 2012. >> i just left 10 months ago. >> sorry. we journalists are bad at

ath. my apologies. let's talk a little bit about the current state of affairs there. while targeted killings of journalists seem to have at least for the last 12 months, not been a feature of the threats facing reporters there, let's talk about what that environment is like? we shouldn't be lulled into thinking that all is somehow now a magically permissive environment for journalists there? >> it is not. it is still as dangerous as it used to be. we thank god there is less killing going on now, but that doesn't mean it is not a hostile environment for journalists. you know that c.p.j. has reported a lot of aggressiveness against journalists in the past years, especially by the army and police, in a country where there is supposedly democracy and freedom of speech after 35 years of oppression at the

hands of sadaam hussein. they are trying to prevent people from speaking again. before 2011 and the american departure, we used to have lots of journalists, especially iraqi journalists, who were targeted by armed groups because they were working as journalists. as journalists, we were considered as spice. at the beginning people used to ask us who do you work for, and e would say we were working -- and if we said we were working or an american organization, we were in danger because the iraqi occupation were led by american forces.

when i say i worked for the french, they would say it is fine because the french don't ave any army here in iraq. after a while, every journalist who worked for a western organization was considered working for an american organization. we were asked -- considered as spice, who traded with people's lives and blood. people used at us as if we were happy to have explosions and eople dying because of stories. this is how they looked at us. they didn't know we were trying to bring the truth out, to talk about what was really happening. so most of the threats were coming from the armed groups

from the insurgency. sometimes from american forces, not a lot with iraqi forces, they would let us work. but after that it changed, and not the americans, not the iraqi army or the armed groups. now that the americans are gone, we saw that the iraqi army and police are becoming ore and more hostile against journalists. it became very usual to have journalists being beat up by he police, by the army, having the cameras broken, taken into custody for a couple of hours, threatened, maybe tortured. also we started seeing journalists being targeted not because they are journalists, but because they work for this

specific newspaper or this specific radio station or tv channel. and now we are having journalists being targeted because they are either sunnis or shiahs. >> if you look at the statements about news organizations and their accusations of them being subversive or acting against the national interest, and you change just a few of the words, it could have been statements issued by the coalition press authority back a decade ago. talk a little bit about the restrictions that you guys faced as journalists in your time there imposed by the u.s. military and the degree to which you see a legacy in those restrictions as now being implemented by the iraqi

government? did they learn some of the -- and copy -- some of the worst tendencies of the u.s. military? >> yes. i started seeing it. in 2003 when we worked, it was pretty much wide open. we would just rome the streets and link up with whoever, and we worked pretty freely. and then, you know, late 2003, going into 2004, it started to tighten up. the americans started tightening it up. in the beginning i don't even remember signing estrictions. then i would go back, and we had to sign a page, and then two pages, and it got longer and longer. toward the end we were signing 15-page documents that said we could not photographer wounded

soldiers without their permission. and in every instance that i was able to document photographers taking pictures of soldiering -- of soldiers killed in action, they weren't able to get future access to combat zones, et cetera. and you saw the iraqis pick it up quickly. in 2004 they started. first hospitals were off limits. then car bomb scenes were off limits. then they wouldn't let us photograph iraqi soldiers, and it just grew and grew. i remember in -- in 2007 i remember, was it maliki? ic remember. going on tv and saying anybody who is going on tv and photographing car bombings scenes were enemies of iraq. hen we were became instant targets.

i left iraq in january of 2012 nd i remember obama going on tv and saying we are leaving an iraq with a free country. the last car bombing i covered. it was a huge car bombing when they hit the intelligence he quarters in downtown baghdad. i got there right away and there were several iraqi friends there. they had their cameras literally in their pockets. they had these point and shoot cameras. they didn't carry the bigger ones because it made you a target and get them beaten by iraqi security forces. they wouldn't take their cameras out of their pockets. i said you are not even going o try to sneak photos?

they said we are not going to try to sneak photos anymore because we get beaten so badly. i went back that night, and they still hadn't taken pictures all day. >> i lived there for two years and i went back and covered raq for seven or eight years. it was really a mixed bag. like sometimes the military would have someone with you, and vetting people you could talk to, and hand-picking soldiers and steering you away. god forbid you would hear a bit of news. you would go to do a happy thanksgiving story, and someone says did you get to talk to your parents? no, because we are on black-out because someone committed suicide. and they were like no, you can't report that. t was a mixed bag. then you would go to, for example -- southern iraq was

known to have a really good ilitary public relations apparatus. it was much freer to work down there. there was a commander down there at the time, pete newell, who really got it and allowed much more unfettered access. they also reached out to the iraqi press and gave them equal access. that was a rare example where it worked, and you could work.

it did get a disproportionate amount of coverage pause -- because you could get the coverage. >> was it individuals and personalities? >> yes. the individuals in that role it at the time got it. they tried as best they could to do workshops with some of the iraqi commanders saying p.r. is your friend, and you can't just totally clamp done. that being said, i was just there a year ago. the arab summit was -- the arab summit was held in baghdad. this was going to be the riumphant arab homecoming to iraq. here is all these important people from around the region coming back to baghdad. i don't think any of them spent the night. there was this big extravaganza, and they were determined it show how open, free and democratic. e got visas. there was a lot of security, but they would say come this way, interview this person, we are here to help you. day three wrapped up and all the dignitaries went home. you have to leave now.

y visa is no a week. we have no place to put you. off you go. there was nothing beyond the facade of we can pull it together when we want to, but only for three days, and then everything goes back to normal. the iraqi journalists don't get used to this. this is how it is. >> when i was there in 2002 covering a referendum, you would get to stay the whole week. >> that is all i wanted to stay. >> when you look at the challenges that journalists have faced over the past decade to date from restrictions imposed by the americans and the iraqi foster, and you look at the challenges that

journalists continue to face with just the very precarious ecurity environment. yes, we have a golden era in the first few months after the start of the invasion, the summer of 2003, but it slid downhill quickly there after. if you look at the security challenges, and you overlay on that the financial challenges, the fact that news organizations just don't have the sort of money they need, and international news organizations feeling this also. how do you rank these sorts of challenges? what was the real principle impediment to being able to really do the sort of work you wanted to do? i should note as a caveat to all of this, that in spite of those three real hurdles, and others, all of you did phenomenal work. when you look at the pictures you published and the

dispatches you guys filed, you managed to triumph against a lot of that. but help us understand how each of these factors, or those other two factors, sort of played in with official government restrictions? >> well, it was an extraordinarily expensive under taking. ne route cost absolutely nothing, and the other route was $1,000 or there are 1,500 a day. >> the free route being embedding. >> i remember guys telling me they flew to kuwait, picked them up, set them up with a cot. they would photograph a give away of soccer balls or paining ale school. unless you developed relationships, you weren't going to get to the real stuff. you could stay on an embed for onths, and it literally didn't

cost you anything. the other option was to be out in the world. if you were not going to get kidnapped or killed right away, you had to have a smart sophisticated iraqi security force. i'm not talking about like a whole convoy of humvees. that was the most dangerous hing you can't do? >> right. you didn't want to attract attention. >> but you had precious few free-lancers who did that sort of -- i hate to use the term unilateral reporting because it as real, original, on-the-ground reporting, the likes of which foreign correspondents should do, but not embedded reporting, you couldn't do it beyond the first few months? >> you had to do it smartly. you couldn't just get off the

plane, jump out and hail a cab on the streets of baghdad and off you go. you may not even make it from the airport road in those days. but you could do it if you had a trusted team. if you had enough humility to accept the advice of your local staff, friends and colleagues, and to know the limitations, knowing i cannot go there and do that right now. you had to walk away from some f them, unfortunately. >> yes. there was this matter of trust sometimes between the iraqi staff and the foreign correspondents. we know the country. we know what is happening in the country. we are mixing with the people all the time because the foreign correspondents in the bureau spent most of their time working.

unlike us, we can go back home and community with neighbors and friends and know what is happening. when they asked us, for example, to go to fallujah, and we know it is deadly there, and we would say that is not a good idea. they would keep saying no, we have to go to fallujah. i'm telling you it is not a good idea because it is going to be really deadly. no, you are afraid to go. his is what it is. i heard this a lot of times, and i would say ok, you want to challenge me, let's go. but if something happens, then don't blame me. this was the thing. then with time, this trust started to building. after that when we started telling them ok, it is off-limits, we can't go there, and they would say ok. at some point, especially when

the kidnappings started of the fortunate correspondents, we became the eyes and ears for the foreign staff until things started to cool off a little bit and they managed to get out to safety, except for photographers. >> i didn't see the same going on in libya most recently and now syria. we didn't like it, those who were living there full time dealing with the security risks every day, we didn't like it when a freelancer or someone comes in and does the cab and go out. it puts us all at risk. they got kidnapped, and there is a ran some, and it feeds that industry. here was such a backlash against that, one of my colleagues decided, and they were army of this or army of hat, he said i propose we make

an army of the journalists. we are going to go kidnap them, throw them in a trunk and teach hem a lesson so they don't put all of us at risk. [laughter] it was serious. we didn't want them coming in and getting us all killed. >> sometimes the new arrivals who just came to iraq for the first time, they don't know anything about what is happening on the ground. they have no experience in dealing with the people. they think that it is an easy task, they can do whatever they want, they can take to whoever they want and they can go wherever they want. ometimes they don't have

anyone to help them do what they do. so they just pick up a taxi and say take me to fallujah, i want to talk to people there. then they are surprised by the people being so hostile to foreigners, and sometimes the unthinkable can happen. >> the key to staying safe -- people got killed that way. >> i know. >> the key to staying safe was listening to the iraqis. when they said it was time to go, it was time to go, and you didn't argue about it. >> this highlights what a vital role our iraqi colleagues played in the process. the most valuable colleagues of mean in the post baghdad era, and i am sure with the times and others, were all the iraqis who worked with us. many of them come from desperate -- different backgrounds. one of mine was a flight engineer for iraqi airways who just had a good sense of reading people, reading the treet. you ignored him at your own

peril. i could go on about the newspaper of lives saved because of their incredible quick thinking. >> i also want to say all those big stories, year after year -- i don't want to speak for the new york times. but i was in the bureau, and all those stories you saw year after year, the guys who were doing the work on the street were iraqis. certainly dexter went out, and said that, and they did great work. but people who would go out, they would check the neighborhood beforehand, do preliminary interviews or sometimes they would do all the interviews. it was the iraqis who were going out day after day when we cooperate go out at all. they did the hard work. >> and it was stepping out at great personal peril. these are individuals who by day would be traveling out with you or me and then have to return home to their neighborhoods, to their families, where in many cases they were lying to their neighbors, not wanting them to know they were working for a western news organization. but in some cases then found

out, and people were threatened, beaten up, in some ases killed. it was only after some years that the u.s. government finally got around to issue special visas to iraqis working for them. to my mind, far too slowly on a number of them. >> congress has approved since 2008, 25,000 especially immigrant visas for iraqis who worked with the military and others. how many have they issued to date? 4,600. that is something that expires in november unless congress extends it. hat is something to take forward. you still have people -- we were just talking about a museum friend of ours in baghdad. he sat out that first round because he believed things could improve. i am shiah, this is my

government, this is my community. my secretary is in power. what is there to fear? here we go again. i just got the news last week that he, too, has applied for this resettlement option. that is the greatest tragedy. we think our bureaus were shutter, and the public attention will shift elsewhere, but at least we will have the legacy of a free press, a probing press, an independent press. and all but maybe, one, two, maybe three of our 18-person staff, the ones that are still live, have fled. they are in sweden, in the kraine, in atlanta and massachusetts.

d.c. so we haven't left that. and we were a bureau that really took pains. on slow days we would talk about journalism. they had their own blog inside iraq. they would report, shoot, do all their own stories, and we really promoted that. to what end? none of it exists anymore. >> now, let's talk about your book for a second. what prompted you to pull this book together? going through these incredibly compelling, arresting images over the week, i was struck with wondering the degree to which people react differently to some of these images with the passage of time. help us understand the feedback ou've received and whether

some of these very, very difficult to look at images, but nonetheless vital to see because they depict the truth of war, how does the erspective change? are we now able to look at imagery of the iraq war, the sorts of which was very ifficult to get published in the early years of the conflict? >> that is a kwli indicate -- complicated question. starting off with the book, the answer is simple. i wasn't coming home and seeing my history of the war reflected. i didn't see what i new reflected -- what i knew reflected out there. the american people didn't seem to know what i knew. i was learning more from my colleagues.

i was thinking the american people don't know this at a certain point. it became a thing where i couldn't live with myself if i didn't colorado eight and put this in one place. all these things are floating around out there, and they just needed to be pulled together. i think as photo journalists, it is our history of the war. there was some great journalism done. there were some great newspaper and magazine articles, but i just didn't see it all together in one place. i talk todd a lot of photographers and said why were you taking these picks? you knew you couldn't get them published. i saw stanley green today, and he had a picture from fallujah. it was like the burned charred bodies of the american contractors killed at the ridge in 2004.

there was a crowd of people stepping on them and mutilating them. there was no way we were going to get these pictures published. i asked a lot of photographers why they took them, and they said we take them for history. we know we can't get it out there now, but some day people will be ready to look at this, and these pictures will be there. i am not trying to glorify iolence. just the opposite. these photos, hopefully they will stand as a warning. hopefully, it will be something people will look at in the future the next time we think about rushing off on a military venture. i want to say publicly i had never been to iraq. i had never worked in the middle east. i was covering wars in africa. i thought this is a great idea, we will go over there and get right of this guy, install democracy. what could be complicated about that? it didn't go so well. we need to have warning signs

out there that people can look back on in the future. >> so if you take to u.s. government efficiency who were in power back in 2003, 2004 and 2005, they would argue that a lot of the imagery that came out of iraq, still and video, was too defeatist, was too focused on the negative, on the gory. now let's look at this differently. do you think that the imagery that actually got published was too sanitized? >> completely. most americans have never -- we probably lost 5,000 americans over there including the contractors. most americans have never seen a picture of a dead american soldier. >> it took years before we could even see a casket at dover. >> yes. even at arlington, when the families invited photographers to the cemetery to photograph

funerals, they were not allowed. you were not allowed to have a photographer come and photograph the funeral. if you saw this as a tribute, and you wanted to have this memorialized, the pentagon said this was off-limits. you could not photograph a funeral. they were smart about it. i felt they basically couched in this thing this was a privacy issue for the soldiers, that the soldiers have a right to privacy. that is what i was told repeatedly. it was smart because they made themselves the defenders of the soldiers and they put us in the position of the people who wanted to disrespect the soldiers. that wasn't it at all. first of all, if you are going to enlist in the military and go half way around the world and invade somebody's country, that is not a private event. this is a war, one of the most mportant undertakings in the

last 25 years in america. you don't have a right to privacy in that. what about the iraqi citizens? so we were constantly fighting back against that. >> quite frankly, the men and women who wear the uniform want the war to be depicted for what it is. >> we get that all the time. hey said this is bull. the military is not monolithic at all. a lot of them are smart and progressive. some of these captains had been poets. one guy had a rock band in berlin before he enlisted. one guy had been a professional surfer. they were totally hip and smart, and they got it. they said we want the american people to see what is going

on. andrew bruce tells a story about going from unit to unit, and some units are saying i don't want to see a hang nail on one of my soldiers, nothing. they would immediately leave and go to another unit. she finally got to another unit that said we are in humvees that are not armored, and we don't have the things we need. we need you to show the people in washington what it is we are up against. it really depended on the unit that you were with. >> i have been monopolizing a lot of the time here. i know a number of you who have actually spent time out there, friends of the people up here, others engaged in this set of issues. we would love to hear your questions so we can continue this discussion. over here, can you wait for the microphone to come to you? if you can keep your questions brief, that would be great.

>> my name is malcolm arnold. can you talk about where the break don occurs as far as why the pictures, et cetera are not being published. you have the stapleton -- the state department, the d.o.d. oing that. where are the breakdown? if we can identify where the exact breakdown is, then maybe we can address it. >> do you want me to take that? >> yes. >> that is a tough one. myself and a lot of photographers, we fought constantly with our editors to get more powerful photos in. frequently editors, they just didn't want to publish these photos. they would tell us people don't want to see this. they don't want to see this over their morning corn flakes. i heard this constantly from different editors around the world.

in one instance i sent a picture, maybe the most graphic photos i have ever taken. i stepped over a land mine, and the guy behind me, and he was literally cut in half at the waist. it was a horrible image. not only was the image not published, but editors called me and told me it had been put under lock and key so nobody could even access this photo. it wasn't just the military. it was much broader than that. but i have to say there was no clamor from the american people. i know people have to go on with their lives, and they are busy. the war is going on seven, eight or nine years, and that is just iraq, not even talking about afghanistan. but there was no clam yr from the american people that we want to see these images. we have 5,000 dead americans, and we haven't seen a picture of a dead american.

there has to be some type of ublic push for this. >> what was the excuse of the editors back then about nothing using the pictures? i have been in this situation before. although i am not a photographer, but i use to carry a video camera. at sometimes we had to stay longer than photographers because it is video, and we have to take our time in taking pictures. i have been trapped several times into gunfire between either american soldiers and armed groups or american contractors and snipers and stuff, and got out with great pictures, took them back to the office, edited them, sent them back to france, and they don't use them. i ask why, and they say because there are a lot of dead bodies in the picture, and it is

really hard for the eye to see. i didn't understand in the beginning. >> right. where is the line? we don't need burning bodies in the paper every day. i don't know how often we do need them, but we do need them occasionally. >> and it is the truth to some extent. it is sort of becoming a moot debate pause of expanded satellite television, websites. if you really want to see what it looks like, you can now and with the growth of the al jazeera brand, which doesn't shy away from what regard looks like on receiving end. i think that is another option as it expands into western markets. >> but there is a difference between going out and actively searching for the stuff and confronting people with the true horrors of these torts of conflicts. >> back there.

>> hi. i actually work with a group to protect journalists and the journalist assistance program. in hindsight, can you guys talk about what we learned from iraq that we can apply as the u.s. is pulling out of afghanistan, on the ground, and with visas. >> i will take a stab at that one and kick it over to my fellow are other panelists. the visa program doesn't apply for those working for news organizations. a brave translator for the washington post was forced just a few months ago to travel to canada where he sought asylum because there was no legal pathway for him to apply for refugee status in the united

states despite risking his life for eight or nine years for the washington post and facing growing threats and intimidation because of his work for a u.s. news rganization there. even for afghans who work not for news organizations, but for international forces there, because it is a nato mission and not a u.s. mission like it was in iraq, you have a number of afghans who work for u.s. forces who are ineligible for the visa program. there are some legislative fixes on the way on the hill, but it is still at an embryonic state right now. admittedly there are fewer afghan journalists working for western news organizations in kabul and other cities. for the afghan war, the u.s. organizations have committed

far fewer resources to that war, so they don't have the resources. those who applied two or three years ago, they continue to get caught up in this sort of limbo of what is being called a security review, but it really is sort of the placement of a lot of these applications into black boxes. a great example is the 70-year-old mother of one of my former baghdad employees, who has been left in security review for two years. anything you guys would care to add to that? >> what he said, yes. definitely. >> it is true, and it can take a long, long time. and it is a bit complicated. >> you came on? >> i came on a special visa. in 2008 i came here to the states as a visiting scholar to u.n.c. university in chapel

hill, north carolina. while i was here, i was informed a special program was opened for iraqis who worked for an american organization that could grant them a special immigration visa. said great. where can i apply? they said you can't. i said why? they said you have to apply in baghdad or jordan or other places. i am in the states and i can't apply for it here? they said no, towson do it there. so i went back in 2009 with my family, and i applied in july of 2009. i got my visa in august of 2012. i could have been killed like a hundred times in the waiting process until i got my visa. i was supposed to arrive here

in states on july 1st, but i instead arrived on august 17th. the reason why is that on july 1st they called me and said your flight has been canceled. i said why? they said we have no idea. after investigating they said your last medical check was done on july 15th, and since it is only 14 days left, your medical scan is considered expired, and you have to do it again. by that time i had sold my car, my furniture, almost my house and had only my luggage with my family waiting to get boarded on the plane. and they called me and said it has been canceled. these are the kind of difficulties the iraqis are acing in getting them. >> in my experience, people that worked for the "new york times", they didn't get a lot of support from the government once they got here. >> that is true.

>> i had friends that i worked with, one frequent in particular, we were literally covering combat together in ifferent places. she got her visa, and like a month later she was actually got a job at macy's for minimum wage. her job was to find the lost shoes. she was working in the shoe epartment. i think they got $500 a month for six months for rent, and that was basically it, and you are on your own. >> yes. and you have to pay back the tickets for the airplane. >> right. and these are people that are coming here with their entire families. a lot don't speak english. >> as far as lessons learned and what we can impart, urging the news organizations to follow up. they are being resettled. they are being resettled during a recession. a lot of the jobs that they would normally apply for aren't

there. they are being taken by out of work americans. it is really overwhelming. of course they are also coming with the trauma of 10 years of vicious sectarian war and occupation, and it is hard for them to make their way without hat support network. you can't really trust some of the placement. staying in baghdad for the hiite militias, who decided to place him when he comes to the tates. this set, here we go, here is a spot in the apartment. that is not going to work.

he did not have anywhere to turn if he did not have his colleagues checking up on him. >> i consider myself one of the lucky ones. i consider myself lucky. it was something like $3,000 or 5,000 a month. now we are hardly making $1,000. just the others so that we can feed our families. why did we come here? e can make money or probably

die. > maybe my kids will benefit from this. >> they run the iraq refugees assistance project that is affiliated with yale here in new york that has been helpful for a number of organizations. we're helping to navigate this very complicated bureaucracy. i am sure she would be willing to enter them. -- answer them. > i'm anne cooper, and i wanted to ask you to talk more about what the media is like,

the content of the media -- > the iraqi media? >> yes. how does it compare with saddam ussein's time? can you find out more? can you figure out what is really going on? >> we used to have one party, t controlled most of the media outlets. they used to say the same thing and use the same speech. right now, we have 340 registered political parties. ach one of those parties has its own newspaper, radio

station, and its own tv channel. these parties have different positions when it comes to the ccupation of what is happening in iraq. so let's give an example. some of these newspapers call them insurgents. some of them are called esistance. if you are in my place, which one would you believe? it means they have to choose which one is closer to what you think and you are and where you come from.

and then by all the others even if they are telling the truth. his his his this is the situation right now. it is all built over political views and political agendas. >> one of the main channels, even within their own messaging, sometimes it is different. when he is speaking against portia, it will say -- shia, it will say on the crawl, "anti-shia says this." when he is speaking against americans, it says "nationalist cleric says this."

>> maybe taking it a little different direction. i am a medical doctor and also on the faculty of the harvard school of public health. we are interested in the psychological effects of war. i am interested in the effects on journalists. i do a lot of work with walter reed, military troops with significant injuries and incredible visible wounds of war. i am sure this is your sensitivity and your presence, it has an important impact on your view. i am wondering if anyone is asking about the health of journalists, to be able to sustain yourself and do that ork.

the emotional aspect of dealing with conflict. >> we have seen a lot of horrific stuff over the last ecade. >> i feel like my experience mirrors some of my friends that our soldiers -- are soldiers.. some guys don't want to admit the their commander what they're going through because they will not get picked for the next mission. word gets out that you are not dealing with it well, you now. i kept things down. i did not talk about it.

nobody gets away for free. you deal with a lot of shit. i don't want to talk about it oo much. >> they were telling that in recent years, the end of deployment outbriefs where people are given the opportunity to start to talk about some of that stuff. most don't have an infrastructure like that. it's not let's talk about what you saw, it is how has this ffected you? >> up next an encore of our

series first ladies looking at the life of dolley madison. and later architecture for humidity co-founder and executive director talks about his organizations work with humanitarian crisis. tomorrow on "washington journal" a look at the july jobs numbers. also the former assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs. he'll talk about the recent threats from al qaeda that led to the closure of u.s. embassies. and president obama cancelled his meeting with vladimir putin. "washington journal" beginning at 7:00 live here on c-span. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you putting you in

the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider and now you can watch us in hd. >> you can watch the town hall its entirety at 10:35 eastern here on c-span. >> season two of first ladies influence and image begins monday september 9 with a look at the life of edith roosevelt. and tonight dolley madison the wife of the fourth president and first lady of the united .tates from 1809 to 1817

>> dolley was socially adept and politically savvy. >> she was his best friend. she compensated. >> james madison wishes to meet her. >> she carved out a space for women where they can wield a great deal of political power. >> dolley madison would sit at the head of the table and direct the conversation. >> she got these people to the white house and entertained them. got them together and got them talking. >> this was important to her to make everyone feel welcome. and the means or allies. >> she popularized the style of american style. it was considered her classic look. people noticed it. >> it was a perfect setting for james and dolley madison.