story a few weeks ago about the effect of the investigation on these whistleblowers. it is really talking about how the mechanism of united states government as one person can do you think the early prosecutions -- tro national information that would damage the united states was really done to make a point and say this is what can happen? >> we do not know about that motivation. ,e do know because they said so the intelligence community was looking for that previously. the beginning of the administration told "the new york times " on the record this was the intention to get the justice department to prosecute these people have a chilling effect on the other people. >> we talked about the insider threat program.

your discussion on that was exceptional. you can imagine how the government would have a program after the disclosure and the scope of documents. get your arms around. >> it seems to become something quite different. yes, the original presidential which they started rolling out late last year. not emphasize the aspects. it was left up to each individual agency to decide how to carry it out. one of the new bureaus in washington did a very good job to see how they were carrying get out. thatber of them made clear any kind of leaking to the press was the same as giving something to china. and also usable to monitoring your fellow employees. monitoring your fellow employees

and if you see any signs of leaking documents are being unstable or anything like that, you are required to report to that. you get in trouble for not reporting it. that is unprecedented. it is now being rolled out. it has to be further chilling. >> it seems have a chilling effect already on day-to-day, routine business. the work that journalist in this town do everyday in many cases has nothing to do with top- secret or even classified at the lower levels or anything to do with national security matters. out an official in the administration in the white house or cabinet agency and wanting to have a discussion about a subject that perhaps a

senior official has spoken about publicly the day before is the sort of thing that now routinely government employees who will refuse to engage. not just off the record but say i cannot even speak to you until it's cleared up by the press office. in many cases, the press office say we will talk to you or in some cases they will not. it is having the chilling effect across the government and it is impeding the work of journalists on accountability functions. -- we are talking about overclassification as one of the problems. that is throughout our government particularly the part i cover, the military. the intelligence community and one way that people at all levels are trying to defeat or impede freedom of information

act requests his routine correspondence. it is slapped with a label. when you are trying to get a document, it may not be classified and even if it is it is probably not all that sensitive, i will say we cannot release it because it is for official use only. i want to bring them and show them my in box with hundreds of e-mails from officers all stamped with official use only. would you like to come to this lunch next week for official use? theirare e-mail system -- e-mail system is to impede the ability of people making legitimate requests of government. to -- it ismes back all about selective enforcement. reported theece

other day, the senate gettingence committee an wake of the administration's rules on reporting the disclosure of information of an authorized legal or unauthorized how many times a any given day do senior officials share material that is classified or otherwise sensitive the serves the wrong purposes for which there is no sanction. many in the presence of officers who were showing classified slides because it was serving the military purposes, they are willing to drop that out. when they do not like it, different rules. >> it is all about government accountability.

government in accountability. the press has a role. these type of distinctions are just that. they do not allow them to be accountable. the demonstration get out their story and you are impeding from reporting other things. tale of almost like a two scenarios. the day-security and to-day business of government. i was struck by you and the quote this was the most difficult administration ever of the seven she has covered. it is saying quite a lot. what if that were -- >> things that were routine in other administrations like a meetings and who are attending are now off-limits. it's impossible to find out unless you go to the white house website. television news director in washington said whenever he calls the white house staff they say go to this

website. that is what you could have. you can have that video and those photos and information. we are not talking. >> an example about the epa. what did they do is classified, right? meaningful information out of that agency. somethingfound that that journalists in john rosen's case is the use conspirator""co- under the as being not act. activities that is really journalism. -- under the espionage act. >> and administration repeatedly says we have department we will notnd prosecute journalist for doing their job. that is their distinction not ours. there are reporters who work the

national security area who are investigate and toward taking extraordinary measures. rooms where they do their work and so on which is quite amazing. i also shall point out in the case, the decision by the appellate court judge that said he still has to testify or go to jail. also said the crime cannot have been committed without him. >> is this something you see in types ofthe newsgathering techniques that are happening? are we going back to the basement of the garage and not using these electronic tools that have been so useful? >> i joke it is taken me to go

back to being a more low-tech. interviews, aace lot more notes taken on paper. i went for completely routine not very sensitive stuff. in that case, i am not doing a lot of typing. i am not keeping more assistive contacts on my iphone or any sort of electronic device. i have colleagues that go even further working on machines that have no internet connection, working in rooms. prevent outsiders from trying to identify. look, there is nothing i am working on and i think for many

of my colleagues, if the government were to learn the substance of the story i am building, that is fine. i am worried about protecting the source. keeping people who are cool operating with me from getting hauled in front of court and to caseand in almost every what is a legitimate well- founded reason for communicate. not people who are seeking to burn it down the government or .ngaging in wholesale theft they are talking about specific issues and a narrow circumscribed way because they either want -- they believe policy is fundamentally flawed or there is an injustice that needs to be addressed. we lose sight of this we focus so much on manning or snowden.

the lion share of these cases do not involve individuals taking the volumes of documents and sharing them. it is more often an individual wanting to share a specific piece of information because they believe there is a compelling reason to do so. not doing this because they want to aid the enemy because -- but because they want to help the united states. >> from an international perspective, if you are a non-us person who has no legal protection from intervention, we know or do not know that it has been reported on the snowden nsa hacked into al jazeera. you may argue that is a special case.

it was within their prerogative to do this. i talked to editors, the editor and she doesrdian" not communicate using e-mail with reporters. it does not feel secure doing so. tos of journalist i talked are taking extraordinary measures to ensure they can communicate securely. there's a real question. certainly elements public accountability and journalism depends on the ability of the journalist to protect the identity of confidential sources. >> a lot of journalists do not feel they can make that promise. a lot care about that. not offer relies how journalist care about the

welfare of source. >> very true. it is been interesting to me to learn that many other countries have stronger protections for journalists in terms of not requiring testifying. then even we have on the stateside. ,> the u.s. is definitely without the first amendment and probably the world's most protected environment for what you can say. you can absolutely say about anything. against of protection being subpoenaed, there are many other countries who have stronger protections for journalists. the u.s. is not a leader in that regard. >> no federal protection will stop it is state-by-state. -- no federal protection. -- it is state-by-state. there is not any shield law.

>> in the district, if you get subpoenaed a you have great protection because of the freedom of information act. if it is issued across the street from the federal courthouse tom a you are looking at testifying are going to jail. it is an arbitrary situation. what even though the justice department guidelines are greatly strengthened and there are technical changes made, you still generally have intent involved. there is leeway there for the attorney general decision-making that they can still buy a large do what they want to do. >> at the end of the day, guidelines can be followed or not followed. it is not enforceable by reporters. you cannot say the subpoena needs to be -- because it did not follow the guidelines. it shows law would be a step forward. there's a shield law would be a stone fort.

law would be a step forward. it is difficult to define. >> i look at this from the international perspective, not the u.s. perspective. i looked at in the context of how radically technology has changed how journalism is conducted. is a pragmatic argument which is journalist cannot do their work and protected resources and a shield law will help them do that. it will probably help most -- to carrywho work out traditional journalism. in this country and globally, not all journalists. not all journalists will be covered.

a lot of people engaged in journalism in this day and age are doing it informally. they are observers to newsworthy events and they are documenting that sometimes in a systematic way. they are disseminating that information to the public where they are blogging about it informally. or they are documenting and using video. for some the journalists, in places like syria or china or vietnam or cuba or places where people are using new techniques to engage in practical journalism, any definition of the shield law contemplated in this country would exclude that. advocating our recommendation recognizing a shield law would help journalists and be as broad as possible. and focus to the extent on the

newsgathering. credentials or professional status or anything like that. we think that will be the best approach. >> if the law had in the breath woulde looking for, cpj be ok with the concept. >> we would be ok with that concept and we are hedging a bit. we arejust saying looking monitor the debate for the broadest. that is our position. >> the definitional one seems to be difficult. literally anybody can be covered who is starting a blog. you can only imagine how congress would ever pass that law. --re's a bit of a fragmented >> a pragmatic point. if philosophical approach to this issue and some people who i greatly admire think we should

have a shield law because the first amendment is a shield law. i am just saying that is a view that is out there. we think it's much more pragmatic. a shield law will protect journalists. we want to be able to do their work and will like to see the broadest possible. thet one point we hoped first amendment would be enough. how much do these sorts of issues play into your decision about whether to grant of additionality to a source -- confidentiality to a source? does it make it less likely that you say yes, i will keep the confidential? or is a more difficult new wants nuance? new wants --

the lawyer shelter a little bit -- shelter a little bit -- der a little bit, i apply it liberally. that is what which interestingly done. -- traditionally done. the pressure against it over the past 10 plus years, maybe even well, let'sthat, traditionally in our newsroom about the threat of prosecution at in terms of transparency with our readers. wanting people to know is much as possible as to is providing the information. in some ways, a response to government officials wanting to speak about routine matters. is -- has created an

environment in washington you cannot get the weather report from somebody with their name. on the background, they will tell you it will be raining. our pushback has been against that. threat -- notnew just threat but reality of investigations particularly in the world i cover. it certainly has come up in discussions with sources. , it isn it does come up something that we talk out. when i'd make an explicit promise of confidentiality, it is just that. i will honor that. it is not a written agreement. it is part of what i see as my professional old. -- oath.

requireso that point jumping through a lot of hoops we do not have. old face to face meetings, not these deals that are struck over phone calls. >> the balcony we need to meet. >> not quite as convoluted as that. certainly adding a lot more complications. a lot more meetings homes or inat their coffee shops or bars opposed to , communicate with people with their personal e-mail dresses and not the government. it is not just an essay to worry but any agency -- nsa to worry but any agency. washpost.com domains

and seeing messages that is not the public affairs shop and let's flag them for scrutiny. that stuff is happening routinely. other elements for the reader. that is accuracy and credibility. if you cannot talk to the people that really knows what is going to find otherable sources who have axes to grind. you will make mistakes and will see that happen increasingly with the national security reports and -- reporting and law enforcement. if one person will not talk somebody else will and that can create problems. a credibility problem. administrations may have an interest in making the media seem less credible by denying them affirmation.

that is serious for the audience. >> you have seen the source of issues and national security reporting across a variety of administrations. you mentioned this was the most secretive administration will stop how do you compare it to some of the ones in between like the bush administration or second bush administration? >> they were not our friends. they were not eager to have some the stories we published to be published. the access to sources which are much greater than it is now. secondly, you could have productive conversations. withctive conversation senior officials sometimes the president of the united states which happened at least on one occasion about whether or not it was a good idea to publish the story and the accuracy of the story and whether or not there's

a sense of information that could harm the security. i do not recall ever in my 25 us ever not publishing a story that administration objected to. i do know i have had productive conversations and we did withhold technical information, countries of origin for things. it would not deprive the reader of knowing what they needed to know about a program or policy. if you cut off those conversations, you are left with wiki leaks. including names of people who could be harmed because their names appear. that is the other side of it. it emboldened people. heard snowden does believe is providing a public service will stop he's arguing -- public service.

arguing would not have the information before he leaked it. at the same time, it makes them feel more he were awake when chey know otherwise -- heroi when they know otherwise there would not be the information. look at the front page of "the of droneut the role strikes. they would hold technical details -- withheld technical details based on discussions with administration officials and intelligence community divulging sources. the substance of the story was able to come out and a national debate about the nsa. >> black prisons, a great example. the issue was reported.

it was kept confidential under request from the government. the secrecy of the government to maintain -- was maintained. the public was informed. >> that's a good example. it was not a leak. it was based on reporting in discovering that certain officials were worried about something. find out a little from you and come back for little more. it was reported, not a leak. she was able to do that kind of reporting. to put the whole picture together including the fact that were a lot of other counterterrorism cooperation going on with eastern european countries. when the demonstration said it do not name the countries, we could reason and we do not want to the other corporation cut

off. we published the story in the only effect was that was shown they brought the prisoners to guantánamo. time, we never named the eastern european countries. there been investigations and so forth. we have kept our promise not to name the. that's important part. aboutw york times talks motive -- trust your can you trust your motive? it makes it possible to bring the information to the american public that is possible. you cut off the avenues and they become very worried. you have a lot of irresponsible affirmation. point is incredibly important. there's a perception that they

sit around offices and wait for the phone to ring and there's a leak. it does not happen like that. snowden is the exception not the rule. blessed -- oh to be blessed by somebody like snowden. you are building on information and learning more. part of this is convincing people it is in the public interest to help provide and explained something to add another piece to the puzzle. it would be wrong to think that all of these individuals are there. of a it is the result thoughtful discussion and sources understanding what a journalist is trying to do and single what they are doing -- seeing what they are doing.

i really believe that the vast majority of those people, demonstration would call loopers , they are acting out of a sense , a belief in our system and a desire to want to make the united states a better country. it is not an artist behavior -- anarchist behavior. you can look at some cases and try to use labels like that. that obscures the reality of what is happening in the lions share of these interactions between journalists and sources. >> do you see a strong thread of patriotism? >> certainly. if they are investigated are it, they wanted

their patriotism was misplaced. >> i was struck about something you reported on that there was an e-mail or a memo sent out from the white house to an intelligence agency saying retain e-mails to david sanger. >> i was in the white house. called and ask a question and was saved, -- and would say david, we love you, but we cannot talk to you. we know we handle the information carefully. >> i am struck by an anecdote about somebody from the government calling to apologize about the subpoena. i wonder if you can we counter that. >> that was quite some time ago when mueller was the fbi director. there was an investigation going

on that had nothing to do with the story we were publishing. it did not have that much to do with it. with people who are being impacted by the fbi. a quick violation of the guidelines, they secretly subpoenaed and seize their phone records. it was discovered by the fbi afterwards through the bush administration. ler called me and the editor of "the new york times." because ited for it was outside of the guidelines. people were disciplined for it. i doubt that was the proper way to handle it. that was the proper way to handle it. >> a lot of talk about phone records which you were talking about there. i was wondering about the

sensitive press issues that the subpoena seemed to cover a lot of phone lines including one in the capital itself. do you have a sense that it was narrow or if a judge was involved it was a different result? without notifying the ap in a fans. my experience is the justice department was contemplating a subpoena. -- in advance. in other ways they wanted to demand something from us. they will call and say we are contemplating and we would have negotiations. usually we were able to satisfy their needs and our protection of our reporting objectives needs and work something out. some type of negotiation. it would work out. in this case, they did not notify the ap. reporters.nt

and thewitchboards phone in the capital. why do you need that? we do not want to cooperate with you at all. let's narrow down what you are doing. all of our government -- reporting is underscore knee from the government. out, do not work something it probably would've went to court. -- all of our reporting is scrutinized by the government. there was no way to negotiate or go to court and have the courts decide. patient.ve been very a good moment to turn to the audience for questions. in the back and up to the front. report, they said it

has gotten worse every administration. it seems to track with the development of media itself that way back when there were so few channels ford administration to put their message out that they needed "the post" and they had it to be cooperative. and to get to get the word out themselves they no longer have the leverage to sort of force that posture on them. are you optimistic there's another way to regain the leverage to change their posture to be more cooperative? less the public debt unless the public is confronted with it -- unless the public is confronted with it. the are going to go through administration with the recommendations. this president has promised to be the most transparent in history. we are essentially appealing to

do -- to say to do what you said you were going to do. i really want a transparent toinistration in the press what is accountable. by proving that has not happened with him, i am hoping he will change. the next administration will say -- much more march sophisticated we can be at keeping the press at bay. >> thank you. thank you for bringing up this information. -- i will follow up on the other gentleman's question on the impact of how the federal whistleblowers is going to flow down to the state and local levels along with the increase in websites. i guess we can thank bill gates

for that. as newspapers become more difficult to hang onto and i do not know what is going to happen to "the post" when amazon.com takes over. i think it is nice if you go talk to somebody and person of the a e-mail. you get a better picture. havingpact our websites on reporting on news and getting out accurate news with so many different websites and cable channels and you name it? >> there is good news and bad news. the bad news is the distraction of journalistic organization. the post is owned by jeff bezos personal. --is not a public const company. we are trying to deal with that particular issue. at the same time, people who

wore it up nonprofit agencies. there's going to be a new one. as from the edward snowden papers. ups are the new start competing in that space. even though they have fewer resources, some of them are doing really good work. spent a lot of time studying and writing about. they are fragile and the support. some are stronger financially. they are public interest organizations if you will like npr or public broadcasting. are in doubt. they are going to be there. that is very helpful. they also collaborate with traditional organizational stop "the new york times " and other have published things provided by nonprofit investigative

reporting site which is very useful. to come back to the first part of your question, some states, one of these nonprofits and the legislator trye to put them out of existence because of their offices are inside of the university. into the stated budget and state funds, university funds are being used to support. it was vetoed by the governor. individual states are trying to get involved in managing the news as well. law --shield what is holding it up? >> the movement of the senate side is moving. we need to get to the floor of the senate.

the senate has a lot going on. it is been a little bit difficult to get their attention. we are optimistic we shipping to get to the floor of the senate. there is a house bill that was introduced by representative ted poe and representative connors. there's a hearing on that one. it may take longer. we have had some success in the past. we passed the house twice in 2007 and 2009. we are optimistic. bipartisan.ly for many years, our christianity and -- our christian abbiati was a-- our greatest champion was republican representative. >> the constitutional institution. >> if i could go back to the

past to questions. question. a defense to be made about a group that part of the political spectrum loves to hate is the mainstream media. yes, there is a proliferation of state and national level. news editors here and there, citizen journalists. all of that should be applauded. if you look at these cases, "new post,"mes," "washington fox news, they are part of the mainstream media. they are mainstream and large. it is because these are organizations that have at least for the moment deep enough pockets that they can sustain investigative journalism.

this is often the result of a lot of hard work. it takes time. it takes money. while yes, these issues ,o pose a threat to journalists what was seen thus far in my opinion as a personal threat largestrward is the news organizations out of their -- there to cover national security matters and such. the flipside for the administration, any administration should have a track record of the large organizations and i would like to think, i have friends in the military that to laugh when i say this. who put you guys in charge of what the public should know? when presented with sensitive

material, the mainstream news organizations have almost always undertaken a doubtful thoughtful -- examination of what and when to publish. these are the issues lynn agonized over as editor of "washington post." even with wiki leaks, we do not put it all online. we go out and ask people. "washington post" receipt of material from edward snowden. the wrong documents are not just been pasted up, they are being and to engage in journalism portions of it are being put up there. thatporting based on it

only somebody with expertise can handle it that way. >> just on overclassification. i cannot let this event go without noting "the guardian" was last week or the week before had the stories trying to crack this system. among the slides that were wasnsad in the report --nsa slides was material nsa stole. they put in the frame of a powerpoint and slept it top secret. -- slapped it with top secret. people talk about overclassification.

pagesng the thousands of that manning gave to wiki leaks, thousands of stories was classified as secret when it was sent to washington. it was crazy. >> where is our microphone? ok. why don't we go here and then here. thank you. law youy kind to shield will probably get exceptions, in that particular field is it really going to help you? maybe you get prior notice, how much is he going to contribute in the national security issue? changingot see it is the game for national security reporting. it is an issue of discretion. issue of how an administration at the seniormost whether itses and

wants to create a chilling effect across the defense department and intelligence community or whether it believes in our system and for to be healthy, every now and again you might get something on the front page of "the post" that you will really -- that you will not really like. but our country is strong enough to move from it. and though some of those disclosures help to stimulate the national debate. the reality is while the demonstration likes to talk about congress playing a great oversight role, among the key takeaways from affairs so far is congress was not a a lot of oversight.

>> thank you. a very good job of sean we're closer to 1984 and 2013. wealth president obama -- we have president obama you alluded to this, a very secretive person. he is head of an administration which is very secret. how much of that is him leading and how much is him following? post-9/11 and it does not matter. the end result is, the only reason it is wrong and we need to change it and we need to focus on where the changes. ofit more the general belief directors and that type of thing , directly from the white house? where would you assign it? >> it appears to be a combination of those factors. a post-9/11 world and pressure

from the intelligence community. and the republicans which read every leak -- would treat every response was to conduct investigations whether they should be conducted or not. the second point of your question if he has the power to do it. he has the power. they have not been yet. he can do it. >> thank you. i am jim byrne. i am the editor of a magazine. a crooked lawyer fears -- of his faked a gift. they he broke was a leaker -- the hero was a leaker. official who noticed tax

return. he ended up getting caught. i asked a historical background of leaking. where do things stand on laws andon on shield the definition of who is a journalist? i am in favor of the most broader definition possible. >> i am in terms of view of a broad definition. if it is so broad that it includes every body, you are given privilege to everybody in the u.s. it is essentially a three-tiered definition. it started out as one paragraph and it became longer and longer. the idea was to catch more people who are really committing journalist. one, dot test is the you work for or have a contract

an entity that publishes a news newspaper,bile app, tv station? it is quite broad. most bloggers 11 entity -- that have an entity would be covered under that. there's a second definition. if you do not fall into that bucket, you can be covered if you engage in journalism in the past. journalist for a one year in the past 20 years are contributed significantly to a product as a freelancer in the past five years you would be covered. a third bucket if you are not covered under one or two if the judge decides in the interest of justice you will be covered, you should. the senate bill has that structure. the house bill is much more straightforward that says if you

are engaging in journalistic activity for financial livelihood, you are covered. enough something -- people for doing it for and we have to find a way to cover them. the three bucket structure is in the senate bill. we think that is the one that will end up on the floor. i should've said this before. with great teaching. i used to be a columnist a small newspaper. now that this report has been rolled out and is a very important report. how far have we come from the pentagon? what are your plans to roll this out and connecting directly with the public? it seems to me the true test of

whether this will reverberate into the white house in fact it's how the public is going to react because there is a national security issue as is said since 2001 and i think you may get some pushback against it. how will we know how this went to with the public? we have beenll, very pleased that it has resonated. it has gotten a tremendous amount of attention, more than we expected in the media itself. that is natural. we are seeing a lot of interest will stop a lot of engagement -- a lot of interest, a lot of engagement. that's what we were hoping for. we have recommendations. the cpje developed by staff. we sent the report and recommendations to the president and in that letter, we also

asked for a meeting. we are going to be following up on that request. we actually hope to have face- to-face dialogue on these issues with key figures in the it ministration. the only one that is working on these issues. build looking to coalitions and awareness. one of the things i said when we had the press conference is i think the challenge is the administration does not see this as a problem or they have not seen it. outcry aftererable and a setne records would address it with the new guidelines. what does report is saying is saying it you are wrong. it is a problem. a very significant problem. it has to deal with your legacy.

the kind of government this country has and it serves. -- and it deserves. we are seeing a response from the public as a whole. overlyingght that the challenge is the national security environment. engageare willing to with the government on that issue and the administration. security inonal this country or any other country can never be used as a governmentgive the authority to prevent people from getting the information they need. that is what we are looking pushback with. >> [indiscernible] it has been well covered in the news media. this is an administration that once the american people -- want

the american people. has said the tide of war has received. he said we are entering a different experience that we have been in. the aftermath of 9/11. not thatcept are perhaps the standards are different in a time of outright war or the immediate aftermath of the country getting attacked, this a president who said we are entering a different period. should not the way demonstration address -- the administer should address -- >> he'd talk about the reaction -- can you talk about the administration's reaction? committed towe are

transparency. they are defensive. we do not agree they are the most transparent. we want to talk about. there has been some reaction. know, look for direct engagement and we can actually sit down and discuss positions. i am hopeful that the report outreach andgoing media around the report will make the case for them is a critical issue that is not going away. six down and engage. -- sit down and engage. i am from radio france internationale. as a foreign journalist, i find your report very disheartening. the way you describe the way the administration reminds me the way of how the african government do with their own press.

can you tell us -- give us a little bit of hope? with going to be better the next administration -- or ted cruz? who said they cannot get any worse. an optimist will say of course they can. [laughter] demonstration -- administration's technique is whether obama reacts and if he will put more transparency and send a different kind of example for the next administration whether democratic or republican. why i amhe main reason not hopeless is the media will push back. we will continue to push back.

everybody goes on the wreck. these reporters deal with the white house every day. the most control freak administration i have experience. they are pushing back. the media is pushing back. that will help to balance out in the long run. even if the next administration tries to be more controlling, the media will be more aggressive. we'll see how the balance works out. it promised to be different. so far he has not been different in a good way. he still has time to do it. >> thank you very much. please join me in thanking our speakers today. [applause] thank you to all of you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> every weekend since 1998, c- span2 has shown over wording thousand hours of programming the top nonfiction authors. the answer. if there are more women and politics and across public life and more women in power, things could change. i called my editor. she basically said ok. >> all of us and the working class are subjected to punitive taxes, being a nordic by the

elite media as in not getting any kind of special interest held in washington like the fact cats. we are all in the same boat no matter what color. >> we are the only national tv network committed to nonfiction books. we are marking 50 years of book tv. -- 15 years of book tv. but c-span, we bring events directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings on the white house events and briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the house as a public service of private industry. industryy the cable tv 34 years ago and funded by your local provider. you can watch us in hd. >> coming up next. q and a. he talks about his latest book

on pop culture and the presidency. after that, question time with david cameron. i'm not to see the new american oundation -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] this week, author tevi troy discusses his new book, 200 years of popular culture in the white house. >> tevi troy, where did you get the idea for your book? >> well, i've worked in the white house, i'm also a presidential historian. i'm curious about what shapes presidents. how do ideas get to the white house? so i thought i would look at how intellectuals worked first and i found they di't