this evening. gloria, i have followed you this entire career. we have had some important discussions on inspirational leaders. -- who is at the table is so important because in my curriculum many of the people sitting here, i have frequently been the only woman and now i am head of the table. [applause] i have brought on the -- i have brought a lot of other women to the table. was oneirst started, it of the hardest decisions i ever made. i was a recently divorced mother of a 16-year-old. i was asked to run frost this and -- for office and could not afford to pay, the time away

from my daughter. women faces these challenges. women are considered too emotional to have public office. i don't have a problem having a tear in my eye when something affects me. in a nutshell, women are helped with very different standard than men, even in 2013. us is not ok. this is what i have been fighting against my entire career. i know quite well what it is like to be the only woman at the table and it is difficult. i will admit i was hesitant to run for office until i decided it was time for a change. when i was first sworn into the senate in 1993, i was only the 16th woman ever elected to the 1790.husetts senate since pretty disgusting, isn't it? [laughter] when i was elected resident of

the senate in 2007, i was the first woman ever to be elected to lead a legislative body and at massachusetts. -- in massachusetts. [applause] today only 25% of our legislature is women and in the senate the number has only grown to 13%. this is not just a problem in massachusetts. 18% of the seats in congress are women. there is not enough progress and we need to do everything we can to encourage and support women wet dreams of running for office. those of us who are female legislatures -- we need to do everything we can to encourage and support women who have dreams of running for office. those of us who are female legislatures we need to do

everything we can to encourage and support women who have dreams of running for office. don't close the door behind you. keep it open. [applause] in office.ve to be to many women feel they don't have enough credentials to run and resign themselves to be content in the background, often behind man. several woman web achieved a level of public office have begun their careers later in life. takemore women will not the initiative to run unless they are directly asked too many times. consider this -- my official request to you is to get involved. support a woman candidate, ba woman candidate. run for school committee, run for mayor, act locally, act nationally. senator, your

congressperson. weigh in on issues of concern. the time to get involved is not in a few months or years but now. women make up over 52%. i'm sure your member this, gloria. it said women hold up 52% of the sky. [laughter] the stateturn to lead and nation. it is your turn. well behaved women rarely make history. [applause] so get out there and miss behave. thank you and thank you all for being here. >> good night.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] ♪ 1963,ember 25 approximately one million people lined the road of president

kennedy's funeral procession. millions more watched the television coverage. his date's coverage of funeral. >> on c-span tonight, the the discussion of digital technology and journalism. then an examination of the deal reached with iran and their nuclear program. later, a look at the future of foreign-policy challenges facing the u.s.. up on the next "washington journal," bart jansen talks about the effect of airline mergers on holiday travel. a look at amtrak ridership going into the holiday. wilner.t is frank get an update on the

u.s. auto industry and a repayment of the auto bailout. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> holiday spending survey results are released on wednesday. you can see it live on wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span. 60's were-- the different. [laughter] there were a lot of things happening involving race, the breakdown in the structure of society. i was suddenly out of the seminary and in new england. there were no rules. things were falling apart. structure, it is very,

very different. i was extremely fortunate to still have had a raisedl of the way i was and the structure that the nuns had given me, the seminary had given me. i was also fortunate because i had already been in a predominantly white school. i was the only black kid in my high school in savanna. to a school with -- i had sort of a jumpstart. i was ahead of the game. i had something. it allowed me to continue to do well even though it was very difficult. span,hings giving on c- hear from two supreme court justices, clarence thomas at 9:00 p.m. followed by elena kagan at 9:45 eastern.

on c-span three, the 150th anniversary of the eddie's burger address. -- the gettysburg address. it 4:00 and 10:00 p.m.. of the digital disruption of journalism. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you, alex. i will do my best. i want to thank some people. mostly i want to thank alex jones for making the fellowship the best possible destination

for a journalist seeking sanctuary, perspective, re- inspiration, and great company. of uspeaking for both when we say that. it is a great place. for making it work also smoothly. nancy palmer, janel sims. it feels like a home away from home and all three of us are happy to be home. to explain riptide ever so briefly. three world where he executives watch up on the shores of harvard university, all looking for a nest on the ground and trying to avoid all the work that would be involved in running to walk -- right -- write a 15 page paper. that seemed like too much to us. [laughter]

journalism pioneer, paul sagan, a second-generation journalist with a background in newspapers, television, and journalism. me, an old reporter, editor, and recently an escaped publishing executive. what we did is sat around and argued because we did not agree on a whole lot. we're all interested in the same topic and that is the digital disruption of the journalism business. our question was simple -- what happened? how do we blow it? book we have done different? -- what could we have done differently? we argued for a while and said we would do in the world history.

histpry. -- history. we googled the topic and we found 77,000 articles on it. we decided to target the key institutions and decision-makers going back 35 years. the original idea was 10 key moments, 20 key people, we will be in and out in a heartbeat. we met skepticism but found a godfather in nico miller. we went to and he said, this is a great idea. template fora which, frankly, we stole from "vanity fair." we improved on it. in terms of adding video. wegot some endorsement and ran into a graduate school

student named alex remington. people do still find jobs in the newspaper business from harvard. he led us to josh, who was already been cited, but really the guy who made our fantasy become reality and did a great job. watching over it all was tom patterson. more importantly than his subtle his wife, lori, give us the video camera that we used to interview all the 60 people. as we learn, we thought harvard with a fabulously wealthy institution. $30 million or whatever it is does not go to video cameras. [laughter] we got carried away. we did 63 interviews. we wrote a 44,000 word essay. the whole thing, in its entirety, and i don't want to discourage anyone from reading

our project or looking at it, but the whole thing totals four 000 44,000 words -- 444, words which is more than gone with the wind, but less than "war and peace." it is doable. martin and his very distinguished panel were all really grateful not only for the interviews but for coming here tonight to help us explain it. covertto give you little -- color from the road with some awards. david bradley of the atlantic media, huge, sweeping views of the potomac. it is what mobile dumb -- mobildom is supposed to look like in the movie. it is the first and last thing he shows you. we were going to interview eric

schmidt. great electronic equipment. impossible to find out how to get electricity come out of the wall outlet. [laughter] we had to have a technician come and he said, it happens all the time. [laughter] i think it is one of the largest users of electricity in the world and they cannot lug something into the wall and it to work or it they do not know anything. there is a vegan restaurant down the street where a reclusive guy made us meet him for breakfast. the most disruptive workspace award goes to andrew sullivan's apartment in greenwich village. two ancient dogs suffering from

copd in the interview. if you listen, you can hear -- [ gasps] [laughter] arianne huffington was the only interviewee that refused to be video recorded. he won the got away was rupert more dark -- rupert murdoch who agreed in principle but think -- things keep coming up. he had a very busy year. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague, martin, to get to the meat of the matter. [applause] >> [indiscernible]

the newspaper association of america. of is the ceo and publisher washington post interactive. she placed two very important roles in this history. and of course, arthur sulzberger , jr., publisher of "the new york times." i want to start with a question about the state of journalism. if you are a doctor and the state of american journalism was her patient, how would you assess the diagnosis? >> if you look at the data, you would be concerned. the number of journalists has gone down by about 30% in the last seven or eight years. newspaper resonant -- newspaper down by about 55%.

you see a distance between the agile landscape. if you froze things right now, you would say, the patient needs a lot of work and there is a continued progress on that work. if you look forward there are some very exciting things on the horizon. one of the things i am most excited about journalism is that your lists are essentially networks on their own. if you see some of the work that "the new york times" has done from a digital standpoint, you see what can be done. consumers want high-quality content and i think there is a big role for journalism in the future. if you froze a right now, that i would think you would have to

say there has been a rough. of time and people need to focus on where the future models are going. >> i promise you, i would not have my lobbyist hat on. i would say that we are definitely in transformation. print revenue. the print circulation has -- since 2006. the revenue is diversified. the audiences have never been larger. fully 70% of u.s. adults in any given week read a newspaper online, in print, or on mobile. audiences not a problem. it is the revenue that continues to be a real challenge. but the stuff that i read, estimates say it is leveling out.

about usingnking dentistry instead of doctors. is that ok? i think we are losing our first teeth and growing our new teeth. it is painful. it is tough to lose teeth. we are seeing that happen. we know that what is coming is to the pointigger of reach, bigger to the point of impact. we are now able to reach impact over on the world. when we started this business, that was impossible to imagine. >> following onto to that, one of the folks that we interviewed , we didn'tf this know at the time, although if you actually read between the lines, particularly in the part that excerpt it at the end in just sold "the

washington post" to jeff bezos for $250 million. paid 350rs ago you million dollars for "the huffington post." it goes to show the relative values out there. do you think bezos got a better deal than you? [laughter] >> i think when we bought it, many people western what the value was overall and how much we had paid for it. as we talk to investors, they think that "the huffington post" is worth a tremendous amount more than what we paid. ariannaon is that realized something distinctive about how information gets transferred and how people it.ed her in -- wanted

the fact wek at have gone from zero to 100 million video views, it is a migrationn -- it is a of what we have bought to being one of the best brands in the world. i experience in newspapers and news started right outside this room. i owned one in boston and we bought something all the square deal. it was a free newspaper that we stand out right up the street at cambridge. my viewpoint on where news and news points were going, i went down to m.i.t. and saw mosaic. i saw the information coming up on the screen and getting electricity -- electronically transferred. i walked back down and said to my partner, i don't know what

the internet thing is, but i am doing it. i have never seen information be able to transfer that easily. a was able toarrian do that in a disruptive way. harry -- john henry from "the boston globe" in the front row. i think the future is bright because that dna will be plugged in and transferred. i don't know how many subscribers "the new york times" has now, but i think i got a great deal on "the object and post." i think jeff got a great deal depending on what he does with it. on "thet to stay washington post" for a minute. you ran the digital division at the "post" and that it was

integrated back into the parent. in retrospect, do you think it was a inevitable that the graham family would sell to someone like bezos or was or something that could've been done at some stage that would change that future? >> i don't think it was inevitable. i am probably not answering -- it is too hard to say. i think it is quite wise to sell to him. they have been friends for quite a time and have similar values. think understanding the technology and having to understand an audience, which is something that newspapers didn't have to traditionally do but now really have to do it, is quite wise. os understands the subscription model and putting it into a private place. they will not have the pressure of being part of a public company. i don't know that it was

inevitable. i admire the grams for doing it. ms.graha it took a lot of courage, in my view. >> arthur, the idea of a paper has changed dramatically over the last century. creators and the dominant distribution channels are company like google, facebook, and twitter. we have sometimes chatted about the nature of an authoritative source in a highly fragmented world. if there is any one news organization in the united states that still probably has that as part of its dna, it is "the new york times." what is the nature of authority in a world where there are literally tens of thousands of highly vertical eyes --

verticalized publications on every topic? >> i think the nature of authority have not changed. i think authority is about eadth.cy, brett -- br it is about calling at euro mistakes when you make them and having experienced people on the .round they don't perish you to the ground but, knowing the landscape of the story. i don't think that is less important -- i think it is grown in importance. how many news organizations bureaus around the country or the world where people actually work and live, in egypt or other places? i think that has not changed.

era is of the digital the speed of information, the joy is the reach and the ability to take in points of view very quickly and bring that into some story slot. it is a remarkable opportunity for us all. of downside is clear -- all everyone is looking at the photo of the boston bomber. everyone knows it's the boston bomber. he has been clearly identified -- except it is not him. theuse it is swept through digital world so fast and is picked up. that kind of accuracy is critical. especially at a time when decisions are being made so fast. >> let's go back to riptide for a moment. during your interview, tim, you spoke quite enthusiastically about a well's local journalism

local journalism effort. since the interview, several things have been announced but you have decided to downsize the operation. do you talk about why? what is the nature of local journalism and why is it so hard? those of you who do not know, is a product that we rolled out in 900 communities across the u.s.. the theory on it is what arthur just talked about it. it is the authoritative nature of local journalism. from a platform -- platform perspective, you had the receding nature of publications and news not getting invested at the same level. aggressivevery stance on our standpoint that

local people living in local communities will want to local information and it is important to them. patch has basically gone from zero earnings to about 18 million unique visitors. its expansion was very rapid. we took a risk of the company to do it. patch has been looked at from the investment community as something you should do privately. was aeory was that there massive disruption going on in news and information locally. there would be lots of consumer interest, lots of business interest, and from a bold standpoint we should not do a land grab, essentially, after that audience. what we announced over the summer was basically taking the models. have business there are 400 that have traffic where we don't have the business model where the sales there fast

enough. we are going to partner with other companies. since we announced that, we have 10 or 15 companies, large companies, that have off-line newspapers, television stations around those areas where we have patches. the patches are in 900 of the best gdp communities of the united states. traffice equal or more from the large media properties in those regions. there is a lot of interest on patch. i would say from a standpoint of an investment that matters, not a feature, but an investment, patch is probably the best -- single biggest investment in journalism and the united states and local communities. -- i think fatter the fact is that patch will continue to go on. need forh an acute information locally. looking forward on patch, you'll

probably see a few partnerships. aol will probably own some of the patches -- the partnerships. audience and and energyrs what a lot of into patch which i think was very good for the country. i have had more newspaper people stop me saying, the patch is in our city. they were afraid that you are going to get more aggressive. i'm not talking about some of the bigger companies that did that. localk patch helped fuel communities. they should be investing in it. to --oline, when we talk i don't know if you read his interview, he had commissioned a study and what he found is that the toughest problems economically are on the local

side. many of your members are on the local side. can you talk about that now? you have heard him talk about patch from a newspaper's perspective. study?s bad as julius' >> the top 200 metro areas have the toughest time. when you go smaller than that, it is actually stronger. that top 200 is a big number. coververy difficult to what companies covered in the past to my giving pressures on newsroom budgets and a dramatic cut in advertising revenue. oftentimes, the newspaper, and i'm not disregarding patch, but it shows that 85% of all media tv, radio, start from

the newspaper. >> can you point to areas of invasion? what are the bright spots? timtalked about innovate -- talked about innovation. arthur talked about losing your baby teeth. you see evidence of that when you look at the landscape? >> absolutely. >> are people losing their baby teething growing something new? >> hindsight is 2020. walled garden. if you want to advertise in washington, you had to advertise in "the washington post." the internet changes everything. on the digital side, you approach it as, well, you've just got to sell a bunch of banner ads and maybe that will make up for the major ones.

that does not work. we sort of figured that out. we are looking at a lot of revenue streams. a huge change, even in the last five years. some agencies that have been started by companies, niche .rint publications there is no silver bullet. theaw circulation go up for first time in many years last year with 23% print and digital alike. i'm seeing -- again, there is not a one-size-fits-all. what works for "the new york times" does not work for another newspaper. -- a smaller has paper has to know its market. fitted -- it is like owing to the dentist -- sadly, it is

not true. >> we have not gotten to cavities yet. [laughter] i am seeing innovation and it is heartening. it is exciting. thehompson has talked about internationalization of the brand. i don't think there is ever been a newspaper that has been truly international. obviously, the iht was small -- >> we are talking about something much larger with "the new york times." website went immediately when you turn it on, but turning is hard. revenue the "international herald

tribune" is owned by "the new york times." rebranding it "the international new york times." we are bringing back a brand that did exist in the 50's and 60's if i'm not mistaken. this is a digital play. ih te web, if you went to om you ended up at the new york times website. we are trying to reach the international community that we believe is out there for an international newspaper. journal," have been doing this. they are not general interest. it will be an exciting opportunity for us. our first language was in china. we wrote a story that upset the chinese government. they shut us down for about a year now.

the story did win a pulitzer prize, so there is a trade-off there. that really speak to our core values there. we know this story was going to cause heartache for us in a business we had just invested in and opened. but our core values are two critical to who we are and -- r. -- who we are. say, when ick and travel, it is clear that there is a lot more for us to do to -- to reach our international potential. "the international new york times" is just a step. if you want to subscribe, we to dogive you the ability

that. we are fixing that. that is an easy example. there is much more we could be doing, but there is no doubt that the desire is there. heard the short -- a story, but i will share it. when i was china just prior to us launching the chinese language website, i met with a couple of chinese generals. , a woman,m interestingly, began our conversation by really talking in an angry way. she was very upset. we had just begin to charge for the web not too long ago and the problem was that every morning she would wake up and the first thing she would go to nytime s.com to see what was happening in the world and it would not accept her credit card. did not accept those credit cards.

we fixed her problem. the point is that a chinese general, first thing in the morning, would go to "the new york times." if that does not speak to the changing nature of the world and the opportunities we have, i cannot think of what else does. >> i want to follow-up with the other end of it. we had our interview, we talked about the media model. i want to go down the road on that for just the second with you, arthur. we talked in the interview about young people. the notion that young people don't seem to be as willing to pay for content on the web. music is a good example of that. do you think that, as young people mature, they will be willing to pay for a digital subscription to the new york

times? more, young people and all people are showing a willingness to pay for experiences they value on the web or in -- web. thank you, steve jobs. it is now simple to buy games, by something you find of value at a number of ages. that is changing. let's not thing is, attend a 14-year-old spot newspapers. they did not. they never did. people come to newspapers when they find the need for the value equation. that is often when they get a first job, or they have a family and they start to think about what the community is offering and what public schools -- and they start to engage with the community in a different way. absolutely i think those things are coming together.

i want to go to your content strategy. it is really interesting. i think you create some content and then you sell access or you do deals with people like everyday health, provide access to your audience. how you makelaine the decision of what you cover and what other people will cover? at how you do that? toour strategy is essentially -- we have a theory that most people care about a limited set of things. 70% of web users use less than 15 sites a month. older,le tend to get their time becomes more valuable as well. people start to spend more times on things they focus on.

we have started this 80/80/80 strategy. 80% based onwomen, influence events, and 80% on mobile. consumption that happens is about the economy and what people care about. we put a filter on the categories we have from a content perspective and try to figure out where we will have huge influence where we invest in. crunchrunning tech disrupt in san francisco. i'm headed out there tomorrow. there are 3000 of the most influential engineers in the country, in the world, their right now. almost every major ceo from the industry will be there on the stage. at byunch gets looked

anyone around the world was interested in the technology space. there is an example of a space where we have a major share of and we can be successful from a journalism and monetary standpoint. that was the first generation of our strategy, get in a giant space and be influential. the second generation of the strategy has been to build out massive partnership networks around those areas. brands, a number of techcrunch, movie phone. b2bave also built a huge infrastructure. we service about 140,000 other publishers with content sharing. believe thatly technology will not change humans, that humans will change technology. the first couple of generations on the web has been people

trying things. they will start regulating back to things they most care about. last year, i had our interns do the dinner at the end of the summer to get feedback on the company. last summer, i asked them about the changing patterns they were having as a college student. there were three. one is they were following things on twitter. second thing was they were following more influential brands, "the new york times" was one they talked about. they were following the highly level influence of people. the third thing is they were changing their personal profiles on the web. they don't want their personal profiles to be dictated by a giant social network that has all kinds of information on them. a lot of them had started to migrate information towards linkedin where they want to have solid profiles. not to look for jobs, just to have that level of area. strategy is let's

invest in the most important areas of journalism, information, and content, build giant be to be information to around them. it pretty much dictates everything we do. how does "the covington post" get into that? huffington post" get into that? >> it is a triple play for us. we started this thing called serenity saturdays. we launched the hawaii addition. first blogger we had talked about opera. with "the huffington post" you have a global platform now. i think it is going to be aggressively be mobile

information source. >> arthur, are you doing it in language? >> at the moment, it is halted. we are still producing it, getting lots of traffic, but not from within china. "huffington post" is a trusted brand. people want news everyday on a global basis. it,ou look at why we bought it we saw something that looked like it could be indicted by more globalization. with a new pope was elected, we had "the huffington post italy" putting real-time content on the u.s. and i think we have some of the most unique coverage about the pope been chosen. there are other examples of that. it fits squarely into the content strategy i described. >> i think we are going to turn to the audience now. there are three ground rules.

asked to assess them for you. one, all questioners must identify themselves accurately. [laughter] two is that there is one brief question per person. please, no speeches. third is, questions and with a question mark. that is what it says. mics.e for mike's -- four i will try to get to questioners on each microphone over the next 20 minutes. >> i am formerly a "new york times" reporter for 13 years. i am struggling with the issue of how you find news. one of the things i worry most about is the content that the

reporters are putting out there. the amount of time, the amount of interviews that each reporter is able to do produce a story. i am worried that a shrinking. coming up inevitable into shorter, put your stories and not get quite as many .nterviews >> i do not believe it is inevitable. there is no question that on a breaking news story speed now -- bombing,, the boston we did a better job of covering view bombing better than television network. people are coming to us for

video content for immediately delivered -- immediate delivery. that being said, are we still engaged in the wool from journalism? absolutely i will use snowfall as how you can create eight wool for a journalism. a journalist will spend a year working on a story. you can interview -- integrate video and graphics and turn it into an experience unlike anything we could do in the old days. i think it really does depend on the story. this is why we need to invest in the journalist. you are looking for a different set of experiences. i was on a train coming up from new york and david brooks was in the same car with me. he doesn't teaching at yale. -- he does some teaching at yale. he was talking about the washington bureau he was that

years ago and the one he was and now. it is younger, more vibrant heard let's say there is a lot more diversity. you have videographers, you have the technical team that is there to support. it is still a very, very powerful operation. >> i want to ask you one question with respect to "the huffington post." on much of your stuff is red smart phones, mobile devices, and how does that change the form factor? >> a lot. itending on what you're on, iscould be that 30% to 40% mobile now. you consume more news at mobile. if you take something like "the .ew york times" on the mobile once you switch, they don't switch right away.

i think on the formfactor side, i think that one thing is a little cloudy on the web right now is that there is a model of audience development with people writing fast stories with not a whole lot of facts to get an audience and then there is journalism. if you read the first book, he talks about how he invested in the -- sisters. they would write stories so horrific that would make people cry. right next to it, he would have the hard news. >> that is what is happening on the web today. here's the bad news. you don't have arthur's rand. you have to do things to gain traffic. they will be more aggressive about mixing low quality, high quality together. >> the other thing i would say is that there has been a huge shift in content.

--rt from smaller newsrooms 10 years ago, a metro paper would send 15 people to the olympics. a bunch of them. is that really necessary? as you are seeing a lot more information about audiences, another of newspapers -- a number of newspapers are collapsing into radio and a newspaper newsroom. but really investing on the investigative side and being much more specific about the areas they will invest in from an investigative side. i think that whole area is changing. it is interesting. >> my name is jason gray. i am a graduate student. i want to thank all four of you for doing this in one incredible opportunity. i am appreciative of. i want to follow the

conversation on local journalism. my question is around what makes it work when it does and make it -- and what makes it not work when it doesn't. there is reference that some cities or areas it is profitable, and others not so much. mean for us in the future of local journals? >> i think a lot of it is trust and authenticity. i put my newspaper had on. people still trust newspapers. you read something by someone in the community who knows the community. that is a lot different from a feed of someone who doesn't. i think that is one of the baselines for living and understanding a community. >> thank you. >> i am sam feingold. i am a junior at the college studying statistics.

the view has started from when al gore was in the print publication until now. the culture has changed. much of a long -- you have a much larger publishing board. i wonder what is been like culture wise and what you look as far asrnalists skills in the organization. there are so many things on the sites. working at "the new york times" now as opposed to 20 years ago? >> i love that question. when michael is a just retired that did a lot of hiring at the one of the newsroom -- my colleagues just retired that did a lot of hiring at the time in the newsroom.

engineers. that is what we did not focus on fast enough. the need to have engineers building the systems that we are now using, building the tools that would here now using. that was the most challenging skill for us at the time. it was getting the engineers at the time. we are thinking about the product that we are creating. we do not talk much about new product development, but we were in the middle of looking -- why should we be offering "the new york times?" that is the working title. into the younger audience with a point made earlier in the conversation, giving a different experience. we have two people from traditional sales. because itengineered is going to have to be a different experience and it is going to have to be a effort experience across dividers.

that is where i think we probably missed the beat. journalists -- it is not training. it is hiring and training. the journalists on the web are the ones who are now able to ingrained -- to have video. to become part of that experience. some have been doing it well for a long time. that.d more of we have doubled the video amount , the amount of video in the last six months time. we are all doing it. we are all experimenting. to youize that video, point earlier, is different on mobile that it is going to be on your large screen in your office. so, there is a lot out there. >> tim, do you want to take a whack? who are those interns you are talking about? >> we have a big intern program.

i have to do this myself. i give two pieces of advice. you have to actually use the platforms themselves. athink that journalism is in new-teeth growing stage. you cannot be a journalist if you do not understand the platform and where things are going. the second thing that i think is not a bad idea is that instead of funnel -- pulling up a chair next to a journalist every time you sit down, pull up a chair next to an engineer. saw was thatings i the journalist and engineers sat together. in many places around aol, that was not the case. he engineers sat with the engineers, the journalist who -- journalists with journalists. 20silicon valley, i spent

years going back and forth between silicon valley and new york. silicon valley is a more collaborative type environment. what are the five fastest growing platforms, technology platforms for journalists and you have an account on them? -- i need totially know what, you need to know it. it is very important. >> over here, then. >> i am a harvard alum. commissioned a high- profile series called "house of cards." episodesased all the at one time. they have an plane with the idea of using time effectively. nbc and other affiliates have been giving limited interviews in a broadcasting longer interviews in shows like "the today show. how are you experimenting with more investigative reporting and

ongoing and releasing as the content as one entire package or are slid out? -- parcel it out? >> i think we are all experimenting. there was a huge section. it was a story about a terrible tragedy that took place skiing. a mountain in washington state, i think. we printed it, it was a full section. the sports section was totaled. the experience on the web was so immensely powerful.

next thing you know she is under the snow fighting for her life. by the way, there is the video of her talking to you about. it brings to life. a lot of it is experimenting. webut stories up on the before they are in the paper. we put magazine pieces up starting wednesday for the sunday magazine. right.absolutely on the tablet, people come to .tories at 9:00 at night there is unbelievable tablet because they want to see what's on tomorrow's paper. powerat is part of the and that is part of the answer.

>> in a very astute way, i think netflix took the normal the settion windows and up, you know what? human beings would behave different if you gave them content all at once. way, we looked at how you actually disrupt the behavior. at one point, we have the saying internally -- we don't do a lot in sports. i worked at espn for a while. you cannot beat espn sportscenter by being 5 or send better. better, 100%e 75% better. when we look at doing disruptive things around journalism, it is a disruption point as much as the content themselves. the others distribution partnerships. one thing we're working on also,

the googles and the face books, another way to be disruptive is how we actually use those partners to do it as well. have multi tiered strategies. i applaud netflix recognizing the difference between human behavior and how distribution systems were set up. amazing job. >> we have come full circle now. >> i'm sorry. >> i apologize. >> go ahead. >> i'm a junior at the college interested in broadcast journalism. given the fact there are so many online,tions that offer where do you see the future of tv? >> i have a different viewpoint on this. if you look at the consumption pattern and how people use phones and tablets, the fact of

the matter is when you look at the average tv show, if you took 22 minutes of content and date minutes of commercials, when you watch how people basically use , i think in a disruptive way there is a faster way in 22 minutes to get people tones of information. i think you will exceed the faster,nd scale of higher quality content overall. from a maturation standpoint, trusted brand.nt as much as the world seems it is user-generated content. they are not randomly going out to poke around downside information. they want someone to tell them. i met with someone who was really well-known on friday.

think you are successful? she says because i tell people what they want. of televisionture and web video together will be a --ruptive way about how many how much content you get in. there is a major potential for disruption. >> i'm a sophomore at the college and a staff writer for the harvard political review. about yourted anecdote about the chinese woman who read "the new york times" every day." you able to convince more of the worldwide readers to read your publication? how have you managed to maintain your national reader set? why should i read the nsa news

as opposed to going to the guardian, their spiegel -- der spiegel, or somewhere else? nogood question and there is simple answer. as i mentioned, we will be rebranding the international herald tribune. we want to further tighten the .ournalistic ties we will have a newsroom in hong kong, new york, and really what we're looking at is a 24-hour news cycle. people are asleep in new york and waking up in china, , we want the ability for them to come together to the side and see something may be this point ofto view. that does not mean that the stories will be different.

we will put different stories in .ifferent places all of this as being german by the fact that more and more people can create the content experience they value. , theyy care about sports can put that higher. adaptationthe human as well. be an ongoing issue as we learn more and more how to do this. no question. >> our strategy has been to partner with local news providers. most of our international editions have a local large media partner. we believe we are getting the best at the huffington post plus the best of what is actually local in france together, the

example i used with the pope. i think it's really competitive. we plan on competing. >> is it also political? is there a point of view issue? political scientist as well as a journalistic side. i don't know. i'm asking. .> there is no question one of the challenges is how do we get the same and make sure the experience is not just -- we're getting the new york point of view in spain. we have to make sure that we are getting a broader breath than that. is one of thet beautiful things about the internet. you can go to the new york times and you can get a lot. the guardian may cover a story

and that's an advantage that we all have. >> i'm asking this question on behalf of the jonathan kennedy committee.m with regards to social media, how do you view it because many complex ideas cannot be reduced to 100 or the characters. is that a hindrance or has it brought an impetus to cliques and the sharing capacity overruling negative effect of social media? any thoughts. >> a general question. does anyone have a quote about social, twitter? cliques twitter is a caption to a photograph. find out moreo about what that person has to say. saytimes they use it to whatever they think to get in trouble later so it depends on who is tweeting.

it's a caption. >> isn't it just a giant distribution for journalists? >> it is. >> it's a powerful tool for getting information in as well as out. journalists isor to be able to sift through the information you are getting to make the story, generally .omplex, understandable >> the next generation would debate this right now. twitter is launching other things so what started as a feeder for information quickly, they are now building and more infrastructure in twitter. starting to build a more inclusive pieces of content so you not only get the links but the longer experience. a lot of newspapers are doing it. todays where twitter is

and my guess is they will try to build on distribution capabilities overall. >> a lot of journalists use twitter for storage material. did anyone see such and such happen? something that newspapers and journalists have had to deal with for decades. we don't remember what it was ake when you could deal with telephone and you are not dealing with your source one-on- one but it had a big impact. you cannot trust what people will say over a wire. go back even further. the telegraph. late 1850 costs he wrote that he had just witnessed the death of newspapers.

he said that they will survive but newspapers must stay away. he had just meant the telegraph. this is going to feed information in. it's a tool that we are all getting better and better at using. .ocial media is an extension >> i will be presenting the official twitter question for tonight's forum. addresseson primarily what someone asked a few questions ago. you are talking about choosing or political angle based on what you like online. this addresses because of the combination of huffington post and aol you can expose to people who may not even be using the internet to obtain news and you

can feed them political information. how do you go about not butssarily choosing basically choosing the political angle in which you show the information. >> there are a lot of stories from huffington post on aol and there will continue to be. there is a news chooser to customize the news that you want. i think the huffington post started with more of a political angle overall. one thing that happens a lot as if you look through the huffington post, over time there has been a lot of forearms set up for people with political .iews to share if you go there on an almost daily basis, there is a pretty wide range of views.

you have different brands with different users on them and by , weg the huffington post think it is one of the best resources but we also offer a lot of choices as well. from the standpoint of opportunity, this is different from where a lot of their competitive set is going. everything is a feed and there is no voice at all and we said we are going to have an opinion and we want to curate in the safe people time. we try to give people multiple views and voices but we really like the huffington post. maybe just look at facebook starts or twitter stats. we offer that to aol users but we do give a source on what our users want.

sophomore ina winter fell and they work with sam and paul on the harvard political review. have seen an amazing increase in the ways you can pick news. andractive, video diagrams even with the boston marathon, the most sure thing was an interactive interaction rather than describing. what do you see as the place of the written news article in the future of journalism? >> who wants to take that? >> i will preface arthur's that it provides a lot of contacts that an image or video cannot provide.

as i was reading today, the report having to do with the , there's a lot of contacts there that nothing other than the written word can really convey. i think it is context more than anything else. >> if you think about the technology changes over the last 100 years, the internet is the first one to bring us back to the written word. radio took us away. television took us further away from the written word. the web gave us the ability to integrate the written word act in. a huge fan for a number of reasons because the technology does give you the to engage in all different methods and what we are learning over and over again

. it's the multiplicity method integrated with each other that is breeding real success. >> great. i think we are. are again -- i think we full circle again. >> i'm a freshman. mr. armstrong, i believe, earlier if i did interpret, not just anyone could be a journalist is what you said? bloggers and how they have disrupted professional media? how are journalists working to go around these people whom i just sit around and steal news from different websites, i guess? >> anyone can be a journalistic they want to be. at the end of the day, consumers are smart.

they actually know who is feeding real information to them. i will not make it public but there are hundreds of thousands subscribers and i guess if you started doing content that was things people do not want to pay for or see as real, you would not have that ability. disruptive standpoint, let me take one step back. what you see happening in the blogging community and across the internet is people almost like a netflix example of taking being disruptive to gain an audience and i would not undercut the ability of people building blog specific topics to interrupt the information flow of what's happening in larger publications. reality as we go back to

something that i think is about newspapers in new york city and if you read the book, this is the same thing happening there. people are using different forms of content, bloggers, twitter feed, they disrupt people's flow to gain audience. there's a difference between audience development and journalism. there's a lot of tactics and it's about audience development. they turn it into journalism. there are very well-known as arties that started disruptive, disruptive, disruptive. then they decided they could move it into a business and then it turns into journalism. i think loggers can be very bloggers can think be powerful. if you look at the people on youtube that have categories that are disruptive. bloggersle resemble

overall. i think this is a big opportunity for people to do disrupt his things. -- disruptive things. >> for journalist to become very successful bloggers and expand their foot rent not only for the institution they may represent but individually. the journalist brand is something that all of us need to be spending more time with. for onely have time more question. in deference to my mistake for, i will turn to this microphone. >> i'm a freshman in harvard college. there is a lot of talk about a lunch -- a bunch of new people in the coming decades. some of them from conflict zones and other areas. i'm wondering how that might change the target audience for

.nline journalism >> great question. >> right now, we have roughly little over one billion people online mostly from developed countries. in the book, they talked about 5 billion people becoming online and how it changed all of your to journalism. >> it's a great question and a great opportunity. ago, what wasalf the largest country outside of the united states for people coming to "the new york times?"

anyone want to take a guess? after the u.s., canada, the uk .as next, australia you get the thought -- english language. u.s.bile, outside of the -- china. they were number one. this is before we did a chinese language website. this was in english. i think that speaks very much to your thought. the possibilities of our growth, the possibilities of the value things they maybe cannot get in other places and it really speaks to the opportunity, i think. >> you look at the world today

and there's a lot of people working on various low-flying satellites, things to increase it broadband capabilities will probably come online at a better bandwidth than we think also. >> it just accelerates the integration that arthur talked about. had time to take all of the questions. now i want to introduce the third member to wrap it all up. , everybody. it's great for the three of us to be here. we feel so grateful from when we .ame this project would not have and if we have intrigued you, if you cannot nieman this url go to

labs and find the link. i don't think they scared you too much with the word count you don't have to read it all. you can watch some of the video. if you let these people speak for themselves, you will be engaged and you will learn. the truth is in the 60-something interviews if you're having insomnia trouble, there are some that will put you to sleep. i will not trail you -- i will not tell you which ones those are. group three here are not of that. >> they are exempted. pessimistic discussion and we are not pessimistic about the future of news. we certainly look back and we true, wetruism most

agreed on a few things. don't be nostalgic. truth is that there are 70,000 other articles in that journalism was not always great. flaws, manyany incorrect stories. many stories that were just not covered at all and not enough diversity. it is one thing we encountered when we want to interview people and did not find the diversity in every aspect of our life. it was not in journalism before and did total disruption had exacerbated it in some ways and improved it. we were not nostalgic about the across the board, great

journalism that was even more illuminating online to get more voices there. a couple things about the past that were not touched on tonight original the idea of sin. mostly they had a martin and arthur not going away the news for free, this would have worked out ok over the long term. that was not the case. had notone had news given it away for free online, the digital disrupt her's, if a different model gave it away, if you need to string someone up, he gave it away for free with a different business model and that is where the genie got out of the bottle. people had to react. the other thing that is so important. you would not have heard this in a panel years ago and this is about the importance of engineers. journalists and engineers sitting