event. oklahoma city, when there are tornadoes in that market, as the demographic patterns change the people do gravitate towards watching local news with local it is a challenge to remain relevant, you know. do i worry about the next four to five years? it is about maintaining that. we have to stay invested in business, recruiting the best and brightest from institutions like this. find a place for them, putting resources to this business in a proactive way, to remain relevant and create reasons for people to watch our stations and rearm publications. >> i think the actual title of this conversation tonight could be slightly modified. i think that we both share the belief that the word television news is one of crushed -- of

questionable relevance. in fact what his stations create, it is that it give journalism. video storytelling that can exist on a television station, and ipad, iphone, or any smartphone. the question to me is, what is the future of the journal is a mage? all the all of the students here, telling stories with pictures projected into all kinds of screens. all of the content creators and all of the students who are here tonight who are gg into television journalism, you will really go into a progression that -- into a profession that is video journalism, telling stories and pictures that will be projected into all kinds of screens. some of them will be television screens.

many of them will be little devices, the little television devices in your laps that one can watch on a watch application, on an or tablet or iphone. so i think the future is very bright and very robust. there is clear evidence that more and more people are consuming more and more video journalism, not just on television, but on all kinds of devices. how are you adapting your story telling your production for different devices? it is one thing to do gma, to do diane's show at 6:00, 6:30 in the evening. how do you view the need to adapt productive and -- adapt production techniques? >> once upon a time, when the web was bolted onto the side of news organizations and digital was literally strapped on to these broadcast organizations, the theory was to simply take the creations of dollars in shows and put them out on the web and maybe make them a little bit shorter. and i think that it is not profound or a result to know that the web requires and these devices require their own

content give we simply can't take what works on television and put it on a mobile phone or a tablet. we have to customize it. one recent example, our team took the abc news ipad app, which was one of the first in this space -- you made recall the spinning blue globe -- and they decided to look at how people use and consume the information on the ipad, which is different from the way they consume it on a television set. they realize that, in the morning, a watch short bursts of information. so we created day parting on the news app. so they get one expense of the morning which is short. at lunchtime, when people like to snack more, we created a different format for the lunchtime period. and then that, people like to curl up with their laps -- with their apps and we created three different expenses that are

customized for this particular kind of device. one size does not fit all. we cannot take television and put it on the web. we are creating content for each of the different experiences. >> social media is a spectacularly interesting tool. news organizations are trying to figure out how to use it in a responsible way. it is fraught with opportunities and also enormous challenges and risks. how do you manage your newsroom? what kind of conversations do you have about using social media and sources and the like? >> in 1984, in order to get that paragraph of whether copy into the news and observer with a circulation of a couple hundred thousand readers, it had to go through to editors.

that was running the goblet of two editors who seemed to believe the fierce and ferocious and would rewrite all 75 words because they were not up to snuff. today, some of our young people right out of school who are social media editors have access with the flick of a twitter switch. they can communicate with literally millions of people without any editorial -- direct editorial oversight or editing because they are the social media interaction with the audience. a million people at world news. a million plus at abc world america. these are the things we think about a lot. there are so few filters and editing writers over that social media interaction. but because it is branded abc news, it has the same stamp.

it has the same importance as abc news so we think about that a lot. >> how about at the stations? what is the relative importance of social media and getting your anchors and correspondents and your television stations engaged in the audience? >> it is an important tool, but it requires real responsibility and how we use that tool. we are very mindful of outsourcing and using facebook, for instance, as a source. it carries a real risk with it. i ask you to raise your hand if you believe that your two closest friends' facebook pages 100% accurate on what everything on everything that is portrayed on the page and nobody raises her hand. and people are in the country, people go to that faced the page and use it as a source. it is a conversation that has to happen in every newsroom. the job of the news director has always been critically

important, but it carries with it a lot more responsibility than it ever has before. i was alarmed as can be during the marathon bombing and the aftermath, the hours that followed with the random reckless nature of social media posting accusations and implicating individuals who had nothing to do with what occurred in boston. there was a posting on the web of an eight-year-old girl wearing a number as though she had run in the boston marathon, which of course he hadn't, and it more and her death. and this -- and it more and -- and it mourned her death. and a lot news organizations ran with it. the apprehension of the bombers, they implicated a fellow at brown university who was convicted in no way with the same.

"the new york daily news" ready picture on the front page, if you have seen these people, and they were the people involved in the bombing -- directly this this -- the recklessness of it was frightening. >> we have committed to an entire program that we call abc, which is for accuracy and balance and credibility. for the social media editors, as i mentioned earlier, will have to go through strict and rigid rules about what they can send out and what they can't throw the different reporting, the priority is to get it right. in our business, it is always to try to be first-in to be right. but in this age, the value of being first has declined rapidly and the importance of being right has never been more significant. one of the things that we noticed during the attacks in

kenya in the shopping mall was that, very quickly, parity twitter feeds began to -- parody twitter feeds began that al- shabaab had claimed responsibility. there's all kinds of valuable information that we can gather and can collect from social media about what is happening. everyone can send in pictures and see what is happening. at the same time, there are all kinds of prices under the type to -- types who jump in there and try to have fun and cause mischief. the receiving end of trying to filter all that information and trying to figure out what is real and what is not real and to have checks and balances in being able to check out all of these different accounts, we have a whole social media team the mobilizes in these instances to begin to try to digest that information and check out what is verifiable and what is not verifiable.

>> there is an obsession with being first. you said it is better to be right than first. i certainly agree with that. talk about election night in 2012 when ohio was up for grabs. everyone was clamoring to be the first one to declare president obama reelected. your team in new york at the election center was monitoring the results coming in from ohio. >> we had to challenges. right around 7:00 p.m., we suffered a massive power outage at our studio. our entire team was literally sitting in the dark for 20 minutes. there were no lights. it was because we had plugged in some heaters from the outside to keep some of our team warm in times square and they had been stuck into a wall. some had plugged in some heaters and blew out the entire system.

the electrical team ran from the basement in times where up to the cable to plug us back in to keep us on the air. this is our network. [laughter] >> david knows the story. the second thing that happened that night was that we know what happened in a previous presidential election when major news organizations did not call the election correctly. we have said to our election team and our projection specialists do we have to be right. we just have to be right. so there was a gap between abc news coverage and projection of ohio and some of the other networks somewhere between eight to 15 minutes. that is an agonizing time because one sees other networks proclaiming that president obama

has been reelected president and abc news is not there. in fact, on some of the scree's some of the screens behind our people at the various election headquarters, the crowds are going crazy because others have reported and abc news is not there. our job is to get it right. and if we get it wrong, we lose credibility and trust. so sometimes it will take us a little bit longer. in other elections, in other situations, we have been ahead of other people. so we have great trust in our team and we cannot push the team. we have to let them come to that in their own way. >> was abc news damaged in any way because it was not first that night? >> i don't know the answer to that.

i think it would have been much more damaged if we had gotten something wrong. i don't think abc news was. today i bring it up. i remember it. but i don't think people remember who was first or second or third on the air. but the consequences of being wrong are much more embarrassing and much more damaging. >> can i just interrupt? you've talked about in the past about the importance of winning. can you define winning? most people think that winning in television or some people might think that adding in television is defined by ratings. how do you define winning on election night and on all other nights? >> winning for hearst television is about conducting yourselves with integrity, about ruby tatian. it's about -- with integrity. it's about ruby tatian. -- it's about reputation. it's about top profitability that allows us to reinvest in the business to provide the kind

of service that needs to be provided and employ the people that we employ and fulfill our mission as broadcasters. so it is a lot more than just ratings. i think there are some people with a narrow point of view that says, if you win at whatever cost, it is worth of the wind. we will put our name -- we don't want to put our name on a win that came with the loss of integrity. we don't want to damage our reputation. ratings are critically important and revenue generation is important and profitability is important. these are very competitive businesses. we have been in business in the television space since the very first days in 1948 and we have been in business, as i said, since 1887. one's ability to stay in any business that long depends upon successful operation of the commercial enterprise.

you have to do in the right way. and we're pretty greedy. jim hefner and hank price will attest to this that we have pretty high standards in terms of wanting it all, but wanting it all with the right responsible way to conduct ourselves as a business enterprise. >> in that context for the the students center here, what are you looking for when you're hiring someone for hearst? what are the qualities among the young people who you are bringing into your organization? >> not necessarily in this order passion is really important. love what you do. i don't think you can be successful in any endeavor unless you've got passion for what that is. i think the people that we hire are smart, curious people. curiosity is something that i like to see when we checked with people and interview people. there are skills that can be developed if there is a lot of skill development at this institution. but passion and curiosity and a sense of urgency are really important.

i think sense of humor is really important. i think that eisenhower said that sense of humor is one of the most important qualities a leader can have. i look for that in people that we talked to. i think the people who are most successful in any endeavor have a passion for what they are doing and they bring with it a whole package of skills that are required. writing is important. a good eye, if people are photographers. wade has taught me how important and how elusive judgment is for people. it is a quality that is hard to tell or to show people, educate people about how to have good judgment. but it is terribly important. we are in the newsroom. you have someone you has to make

a decision about whether they go to air with a story. judgment is really, really important. so those are the kinds of qualities that we are looking for. >> i would add one quality, which is sort of that inner go, which is the story that lewis mumford described it, the fire from inside, lit up from inside, self-starter. >> absolutely. >> just driven, that inner go in that inner drive to get things done, to make a difference. how does a newsroom learn from and respond to mistakes? >> i think of the navy yard shooting in d.c. last mother a few weeks back and two of your competitors misidentified who the shooter was. quickly or not so quickly, and had to go on and retracted the name that they had put out over the airways. how do you do with mistakes? how much is management involved

in the control room or the breaking news and permit? -- news environment? >> first of all, we take the trust that you described. that is paramount. we know that the trust of the audience and our integrity is primary. we also know that mistakes happen. so we have elaborate systems in place to protect against making mistakes. we train and drill for every kind of scenario so that we make very few mistakes. we also know that they do happen and, when they do happen, we try to correct them as quickly as we possibly can, as clearly as we can, and then set out to learn from them and not make them again.

i think that one of the things that we know from our friends in newspapers and magazines is that there is that little spot in the newspaper where the corrections appear and mistakes happen in journalism. it is just part of the process that we want to reduce as much as we possibly can -- there are many good systems and many good people in training and we try every civil day to make sure that we are, as we talked about, being right among not just first. >> when we make mistakes, we try to correct those. first, you have technology made the mistake. that means there can't be a sense of this additional arrogance in any station. but we try to address the mistakes as quickly as we can and in the same spot that we made the mistake. get out in front of that and that is the advice of good lawyers, but it is also just a matter of common sense. that is the right way to go. i think that helps us preserve the trust the people have for the station. you can't make excuses about the mistakes you made.

i had one experience that is ugly to tell, but one of our stations some years ago -- the station was doing a story about pedophile priests. there was a priest arrested. it went to the seminary yearbook and did a story on this fellow and they selected the photograph of father o'flaherty. and next to father o'flaherty was father o'flynn and it was father o'flynn had a problem, not father o'flaherty. and a viewer called the television station and said you got the wrong guy. and our station at the time said we know what we are doing. we don't make those kinds of mistakes. and we went with the story at 6:00 and we want the story at 11:00 and it was a dastardly mistake. when we had to correct and made it contributed to that archdiocese -- one we had to

correct and made a contribution to that archdiocese. [laughter] i think people come to a station in these kinds of circumstances. you can't be -- you can't have such a high sense of certitude that i can't be wrong because this is what i do for a living. i fear certitude wherever i see it to -- see it. it is never created. it is never thoughtful. and people have that sense of certitude, beware. it is a mistake that, thank goodness, we haven't repeated in our universe. but it is an ostrative problem. >> with strained or limited resources, it is affecting journalism. >> i think it is important as

newspapers diminish investigative reporting and pullback resources. i don't think we do enough of it. alaska bluebeard's, we have had workshops for our reporters about how to do -- the last couple of years, we have had workshops for our reporters about had to do investigative reporting. there is so much competition out there and so much cost competition. that you cannot starve good news organizations and good news television stations. in five years come in many markets, there won't as many stations doing the kind of news that we do and we have a responsibility to our viewers and a responsibility to our shareholders to do everything we can to make these businesses competitive and grow and do things that the audience wants from us.

the country, the society benefits from investigative journalism. god help us if we are not allocating resources to do that. we are a company that believes in it. we did an investigative piece for wba otb a few years back that resulted -- four w ball -- we did an investigative piece for wbal tv. i worry about newspapers not staying the course and doing the job they do. a friend of mine from detroit had a cover station where he would observe that the correctness, the corruption in the mayor's office, which was somewhat legendary, wouldn't have been uncovered without the enterprising work of the newspaper there.

i'm not sure that the tv stations would have devoted the resources over a long time to identify the kind of corruption. and i think we, as a society, need to be sure that that is happening. >> go back to your mention of baltimore because i think that, especially for an audience of a lot of students in people thinking about careers in media, you have not arrived where you are without taking some risks and had some wins and not wins. do you care to tell us any stories about your moments of taking big risks, taking big swings and how those turned out? and what you learn from them? >> i imagine you're referring to this is 1985 or 1986. i arrived at wbal radio as a manager. through the 1950s, they had the orioles games. then we lost the orioles games to a high bid gave one of my objectives when i got there was to try to repatriate the

orioles. then and now, the rights fees on these things are really staggering. it is hard to run things things run these things and a profit. we hope to create a halo effect and the overall effect of having the games that illuminates the whole station. i had in my mind. so i went up to new york and sold my pants off to my boss to the ceo of the hearst corporation. they liked my enthusiasm and my passion and they put me through the hoops, every business model thing. i had an answer for everything. i went back home and we made a deal with the orioles and i thought now we will really get

it going. that was the year that the orioles started to 0-22. [laughter] and i was dying. i was dying. we couldn't sell advertising to anybody. there was this morbid curiosity about the team that all they did was lose. jim hefner was in the company at that time. the young radio guy down there thought he was hot stuff. he signed up the orioles. there was a lesson there. john conaway and frank bennett teasing me but never be me up. they supported the decision. therefore the grace of god go i. but it was a formative kind of decision. i lived to tell about it in the hearst corporation. it is funny 28 years later. [laughter] >> so we have about another half hour and i am wondering whether you think it is time to open it

up. >> yeah, let's take some questions. >> because we are recording this, we need to get the questions on mic. >> once you get the first question rolling, then it goes really well in my experience. >> first of all, thank you both so much for being here. i am a journalism major here. he mentioned your fear of what will happen to long-term investigative journalism with the decline of newspapers. i wanted to know what you see as television's changing role. >> i think good televisions will develop more resources for

investigative journalism. we will train our people to do that kind of work. we are a company that is demonstrably doing that. we have some very talented investigative reporters. we will have to learn to be more patient and the newspaper people can remind us that the time required for really great investigative journalism pieces is longer than it is typically the case for the television reporting that we do. so we will have to be more patient. we will have to train people. and we will have to put resources to it. that think you will see the best tv stations in the country do that. every year, i go to the peabody awards and we have been lucky to win a number of those awards almost every year. i'm impressed by the investigative pieces that renowned tv stations around the country are doing.

we need to fill that void. i don't think the newspapers will go entirely away. i don't mean to be so negative about the newspaper industry. we own "the houston conical, "the houston," and all those newspapers are profitable this year. they are reshaping their business. they are creating more digital products and they are working hard at the work before them. their ad bases contracting. but they are finding efficiencies. i think we need to treat -- we need newspapers to survive at some form or another going forward. and treat -- our company is continuing to invest in newspaper resources so they can continue to do that kind of work. >> i would add that i think it is a very exciting time to be an investigative journalist. i started in 1989 on an investigative team.

today, there are some in a different ways to pursue investigative journalism. there is television, print, all kinds of digital ventures that are doing invest it at work in all kinds of new partnerships between nonprofit organizations, online, and broadcasters. so there's all kinds of cross- fertilization in the investigative space. just this past week, abc news teamed up with the center for public integrity in washington to do an investigative piece about the diagnosis of black lung disease at johns hopkins university. and we partner with all kinds of different outfits to make areas versus go further and to dig deeper into the very thing that david was describing, which is an important part of our mission, which is serious investigative journalism that sheds light where otherwise we can shine the light. >> it matters. that's important stuff. >> and i would say come about north carolina, one of my clearest memories from 1984,

there was a great investigative producer pat was a dog in -- was a dogged investigative reporter who made all kinds of change through good old-fashioned reporting. he also taught me a thing or two about spitting in his cup next to his desk. there were cups all over his desk with his habit for tobacco. and he taught me a lot about the importance of the time it takes to do one good investigative project. pat took months and months on every single one of those projects. >> thank you so much for your great insightful talk.

can you elaborate on your position regarding [indiscernible] you have been trying to nail them in courts for quite a while. i know that abc ran they watch out which is what area does, which is popular. how good was the model? what is your general sense on the? >> we are a litigation with them in boston. over the past three or four weeks, we applied to the court for an injunction to have them cease service until this thing could be heard by the court. that has been the case in a number of different markets. we view that matter as an infringement of our copyright. we produce content, copyrighted content. and we think that they are not in compliance with the copyright

statutes and we think that is a problem. i think there is a number broadcasters who are happy to license our content to them in the same way that we license content to telco and satellite and two cable. it feels that they have a scheme that allows them to have access to the content. we disagree with that. ultimately, it may be a matter that goes to the supreme court to be resolved. the watch apps are a very different story. it is abc's content and they are making that available. if i take wcvb's content and put it on an app, it is our content. we can do with it what we want. but this is the case of someone who is taking our content in violation of the copyright statute. so there is innovation there, but part of the challenge that we have as an industry is are people going to be willing to pay for the content that is generated by great journalists

in this room and elsewhere? that is a challenge for the industry. there are a lot of people who feel that they can have free access to all of this content. we will be in a world that cannot sustain itself if we don't get paid for the content that we generate. in the tv station, 80% of the revenues we generate come from advertising revenues. now we are generating meaningful fees from cable, the retransmission consent fees from cable and satellite and telco. by newspapers and magazines, everybody has an issue. we all love content, but are you willing to pay for that? last week, i met a woman named carol cousy who was a photographer at "the washington post." she has won four pulitzer prizes. i have seen her photos but i was unfamiliar with her. she did a presentation at another university and showed the most compelling photos,

different themes, a number different sets of themes. it struck me as i watched her brilliance. it is a resource that the newspapers will want to hold onto as best they can. we are going to miss out on brilliant storytelling from still photographers who were geniuses if there are too many cutbacks. we will go back and shoot the stuff that is remarkable? i also have the impression that people would be less inclined to steal her photographs and use it for themselves -- she and i talked about this -- and people would be more inclined to take their video clips off our television coverage and go out and try to market it.

it is a more sacred medium in some respects, still photography. so there is a disconnect for me how there is more respect paid to carol's still photography then there would be for the video that hank price shoots over at winston-salem. people will ultimately have to pay for content. >> that think the david answered that question perfectly. [laughter] >> thanks again for being here. my first question and i would like a follow-up is whether edward snowden has contacted your organization. secondly, how is it that you are talking to your reporter, your news executives about what i think is essentially the year of the whistleblower? how do you think about dealing with whistleblowers in an

environment where government information can be shared so easily, corporate a -- corporate information can be shared so easily? how do you advise your managers and your reporters? >> snowden hasn't contacted us. >> we are trying to contact snowden. [laughter] i would like to take this opportunity through c-span to invite mr. snowden to do an interview with abc news. >> the whistleblower point? >> the year the whistleblower. for as long as journalists have been practicing a particularly the kind of investigative work, it is always the year of the whistleblower. we depend, as news organizations, on whistleblowers of all different kinds. i think that there is a technical term for what a whistleblower is under statute. but we depend on people of conscience standing up and telling us what is really going on.

sometimes anonymously. sometimes on the record. and i will even try this to debate patriotism and violations of different laws. but newspapers in raleigh, north carolina, television stations in the great state of north carolina and journalist's all across the nation always count on whistleblowers. so we got all her teens when it comes to whistleblowers to ask all the questions, check out their bona fides, ascertain whether they have a particular interest in sharing this information, what is their agenda or motive. we go through all of the basics that you teach in journalism school to try to understand why this person wants to say this. as a young investigative producer, came to north carolina to do a story about the tobacco industry with one of the early

whistleblowers who worked at r.j. reynolds and who wanted to talk about what was going on in what was then known as the mouse house, which was the lab that r.j. reynolds tobacco company where they were looking at the effect of tar and nicotine on mice. and he wanted to blow the whistle. when we got into it, we discovered that he had all kinds of conflicting agendas and interests that related to r.j. reynolds and r.j. reynolds came forward with all kinds of evidence that this person had a had mixed motives in coming forward. all of us who practice journalism no that -- journalism know that it is always the year of whistleblowing. and then there is what david discussed, our judgment come over whether we publish -- our judgment, over whether we publish and whether it is in the public interest or it is in the national interest.

>> in the case of the local station, i would add that, where we may have less experienced people, it is him orton for management, news management and rup's to be involved in these kinds of stories. -- it is important for management, news management and our ep's to be involved in these kinds of stories. >> let me be the fourth to thank you for being here. may great conversation. i am a first year phd student here at journalism school. as someone who is interested in sort of teaching the next generation of journalists, i was wondering if there is anything that you think we should be teaching our students that maybe we are not at this point, something to prepare them for the future? >> i admire what is going on here and that a lot of other institutions, the interdisciplinary approach. it is notable to me that, when we interview younger people, they have a very broad set of skills and i think i continue to encourage that to be the case. the intersection between media law and practicing journalism is

very important. that is an initiative that needs to continue to blossom in a significant way. i think nowadays people have to understand technology. they have to understand -- they have to have deep subject matter expertise. i would encourage this university and other universities to be sure that people are trained with depth, not just shallow knowledge that that is pejorative, i shouldn't say that -- limited knowledge of subject matter which sometimes whitewashed tv reporters. we need more subject matter expertise. i think there's room for a lot more of that.

>> i have something simple to offer in response. which is a we can think about technology and its restrictions and we can think about subject matter expertise, but something that is one of the prerequisites and then is quickly gone after an introductory course is storytelling. just the simple art of telling a great story. for all the students here and for all the professors and for all the practitioners, i think that we all know that, as long as a person entering this business knows how to tell a story and knows the structure of story depends on the story itself, that there are different ways to tell story, people will always have work. there will always be a need for storytellers. it doesn't matter how or what screen it is on. it doesn't matter what device.

in may even be the chip implanted in our head. there will always be a need for storytelling and a desire for storytelling. there are books and studies about how we, just as a species, relate to and resonate with good stories. we want stories. it is a gift. it's an art. and it's a craft. so i think i look at some of the artists with storytelling and i read and i think i could never range the words in that way to tell that story that way. but it is also a craft era and that craft can be mastered by most. and that is the part -- and the art we can all reach for it, but for the craft can be taught. it is taught very well here and at other places.

the craft of storytelling. >> i teach medical and science journalism, but i have a question not related to that. i want to thank you both for your insight in sharing with us what you have today. mr. sherwood, you mentioned at the beginning killers -- beginning keller's article this morning. he talked about the dark side as well, which is that freelancers are assuming a lot of the burden of international reporting as major news or in positions cut back end freelancers who are hurt me not have insurance, who are of ducted, as -- who are abducted, as in syria, may not have networks to help them. what is the responsibility of major news organizations in terms of utilizing freelancers rather than hiring people for full-time jobs with all the benefits and the strength of the news or news nation behind them?

>> first of all, let me acknowledge that one of your first students was our health editor at abc news who was a great contributor and great colleague. dan is a reflection of the kind of students that you put out into the world, abc news is fortunate for what you do every single day. i read the piece and i know very well these very public aided issues about freelancing. on the one hand, these freelancers, the news organizations have depended on them for a very long time -- it is not a new thing -- we have depended on freelancers around the world for a very long time. they provide a vital role in helping us do the work all over the place to the farthest reaches of the globe to and there are also some major responsibilities that come with them.

i would say that, when i saw the piece, i shouted to a number of our colleagues. there are all kinds of initiatives and movements of that are afoot to give more protections to our freelancers. we work with a cadre of freelancers and we work with them for a very long time. but i think that the responsibility is great. and we said this earlier today to some of my colleagues, the sleepless nights in our business have to do when we have sent people into harm's way. and there are people, freelancers and full-time employees, around the world tonight who are in danger spots because we are try to fulfill our mission, our important public service mission. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i am a media law professor. we are in the 50th anniversary year of "new york times" versus 11 and yet libel cases against the institutional press have been in decades.

i was wondering if that was also your experience on the broadcast side, both nationally and on the local level. if that is so, why do you think that might be? >> you try that. >> go ahead. i defer to you on that one. >> we are in the subject of 300 plus subpoenas every year, pursuing your stories. we have a lot of legal help. a lot of these deals, these issues are settled in progress, a lot of these libel stories. i think everyone takes a more cautious and measured approach to how we are trying to respond to such matters as they come up.

i guess i am seeing a little bit less of this occurring. i don't know that if -- i don't know that i have an opinion of the top of my head. >> me, to come i am -- me, too, i'm willing to think about it some more. but not off the top of my head. >> are you conceding -- when i is a poll like you and i talk to a lot of people like you -- when you ask them about young people, what will they do to bring young people to broadcast journalism, they talk about mobile apps and streaming and getting to the phones. but what are you doing to bring young people to the actual broadcast? i don't see a lot of innovation, neither a the network level or the local level in just the format of the news. we are using the same format that we used 30 years ago. can you react to that? >> i think the morning format is done in a different way.

the new things we try, the escalations we try occur on the weekends and in the morning news block. i think this is an evolving circumstance. i don't concede in any way that next-generation people won't watch our news. >> would you concede they are not watching it now? >> i think they are watching it in fewer will -- in fewer numbers. i think nielsen has a very hard time capturing viewership of younger demographics. we know that the sample is small. that the ratings samples are very unstable. i don't kid myself, but there are fewer people of younger generations watching our news products. but i don't concede that they don't watch it. we know that when there is big breaking news events, storms or shootings at the navy yard or the boston marathon bombing, those people tune in. i think people grow into the kind of news that we do.

there is a bit of a generational factor and i observed that in a lot of different places. i think that we have to write in a different way. we have to shoot video in a different way. it is often about story selection. it is about taste of shows didn't -- it is about pace of shows. part of it is hooking people in on mobile devices and other devices and fostering the notion of how powerful our brands are in the marketplace, how we can be trusted, and it may be that come instead of the tv station news casting, the first place they go -- and it may be, instead of the tv station newscast being the first place they go, it is the third place they go. i think it is a challenge that the industry has. i don't concede in any way that we need to give up on the next generation viewership.

>> not only do we not give up on it, but last week in miami, abc news in partnership with univision launched a brand-new multiservice platform called fusion with the express purpose of appealing to a younger audience, specifically a latino and hispanic lineal audience, but really a diverse multicultural audience of young people in this country. so the entire philosophy of this new fusion network is aimed at younger people with different filters for the programs, different lenses for the programs. it is aimed to bring them both socially, mobley, digitally and

also to watch on a traditional cable television screen. the entire philosophy of this new multiservice platform is extremely exciting. and what we will do there -- we have deployed several dozen of our very best of abc news and they will come back from these deployments to fusion in miami where they are helping get this network launched. it is a very soft start. it is starting in a smaller number of homes. over the next five years, it will grow in the number of subscribers to about 60 million in its fifth year. we will be doing a lot of experimenting and testing the question that you are asking, which is how do we get young people, younger people to engage in use information and lifestyle programming. and we will bring some of those ideas back abc news and try to infuse some of the abc news programming with some of those lessons. >> lastly, an important leadership characteristic is to value diversity. it is about contrast.

we are putting different people in different stations that reflect the community and reflected the demographic that they are serving. we have a better opportunity to attract your peer groups into viewership at the stations. that is the challenge that the industry has. >> thank you. >> we have been given the signal. maybe one more. yes, sir, go ahead. >> i am a first year law student. i have an open-ended question. i'm wondering if you could talk a little bit of user-generated content and how you are incorporating that into your overall platform, whether it is growing in importance for you and how you pick out the best user-generated content so you keep your credibility.

>> it is important to us. it is growing. we spend a lot of time curating that content. but i think we had seen in all of these breaking new situations that there is great value in getting the video from the users and the people in the field and it adds dimension to the broadcast that we have. but it needs to be curated in a very careful way. >> thank you. >> this has been a remarkable evening. the audience had a chance to hear a candid exchange between one of the a3 in broadcast television news -- one of the big three in broadcast television news. wade, congratulations to you.

congratulations to kathy packer. relative codirectors for the center media law and policy. thank you david barrett. thank you ben sherwood for this animated discussion. i have to make a few closing remarks. i told david already i thought i may simply recite the sign outlines of radio and television news broadcasters over the last 75 years and sit down. [laughter] and in taking my own idea, i began this past week and to review what is really an astonishingly short history of broadcast news or whatever it might yield. the first truly national radio broadcast came on air 75 views ago in 1938 when the legendary bob trout of cbs news created an anchorman's role in radio new york, bringing on the scene live

reports in the aftermath of the ominous union between expanding nazi germany and a relatively helpless austria. at the other end of august routes live broadcast from new york were too young legends -- were two young legends in edward r murrow. soon to join the team were eric separate and gerald collingswood. the national appetite for their live news broadcasts grew steadily during the horrors of world war ii. nothing was really more

memorable to many during the war years from media then edward r moreau's nightly report for cbs radio. with the voice that got -- with a voice that god might have and lead, he ended each broadcast with this, "this is london." he would then close his broadcast with a ocular parting phrase shared among londoners in 1940 wooden door the night of nazi bombardment -- "good night and good luck/" after world war ii, they shared their emerging infant technology to television. they had to turn to douglas edwards of oklahoma to host the first regular television news broadcast from 1948 to 1962. i found no characteristic

closing line from edwards. but his replacement, someone who became the most trusted man in america according to a national poll, developed perhaps the most well-known signoff line during his many years at cbs news. walter cronkite was everyone's dutch uncle. the face and voice that announced the assassination of john f. kennedy, who told america of nasa's expanding space program, chronicled the escalation of the war in vietnam, brought news of the assassinations in one year. or martin luther king and presidential candidate robert kennedy. through it all, walter cronkite ended each broadcast with the memorable son of phrase -- and that's the way it is. americans everywhere trusted that walter had indeed told them the way it is. cronkite was followed at cbs by dan rather who had been a 32- year-old reporter in dallas in 1963 when president kennedy had

been shot. dan rather reported that he was an assistant of cronkite for many years and became the anchor in 1982. he turned to a more modest posing, saying only that is a part of our world tonight. from "this is london" to "that's the way it is" to "that is a part of our world tonight," from claims of omniscience to claims of implicit acknowledgment that television news was at best partial, limited, a part of the world tonight. a similar tone of honestya simiy characterized tom brokaw. the boyish south dakota 42-year- old ended each of his television broadcasts as nbc's anchor with a simple statement -- that's

nightly news this wednesday night may 1 or whatever. he did not even stake out the claim of part of the world. long before brokaw, the nbc network contributed one very important earlier element. in 1956, and nbc pioneered the practice of a dual banker, -- dual anchor. chet huntley and david brinkley. huntley was a serious type against the dry wit and sometimes morbidly funny observations of the far younger wrinkly -- david brinkley. they ended their broadcast with a personal exchange -- good night, david. good night, chet.

the closing could not help viewers nightly that they were expanding the way it was. the broadcasters were themselves human. they inevitably work in a collaborative journey with others. his ironic tone, his individual takes on the news were another important step in transformation of the genre. paving the way that national broadcasting toward the highly individualized style in many of today's cable and alternative new shows. abc, the network of our guests, was relatively late to the network part b. it ran their place finish until the 1970's when the head of abc sports turned his genius to abc news. from his collaboration with the abc news team aimed a series of

ideas and inventions that put abc in the broadcast race for real. canadian peter jennings moderated "abc tonight" longer than any other broadcaster except dan rather. diane sawyer has closed with the words, "i will see you back here tomorrow night." perhaps reflecting less the godlike certainty and more the aality that broadcast news is product where market share is crucial and getting the viewers back tomorrow night is of high concern. at no time in these short not much times, for the advent of 24-hour broadcast news. cnn news in 1981 began another profound change, 24 hours of

coverage every day. it was generally 16, 1991, that cnn reporters found themselves in the hotel in baghdad as america launched operation desert storm with a massive air bombardment of the iraqi capital. reported on live television the incoming missile rounds of an air bombardment all around him. television and broadcast news expanding again literally overnight. murrow offered live bombing coverage. 50 years later, american broadcasters were reporting incoming american missiles. two final observations i will leave with the audience, many of you young journalism students in chapel hill. the first is obvious. you have been drawn to a profession that relies on

narrative, storytelling, to inform and share the news. yet your profession must serve up its daily stories in media that are among the most unpredictable and rapidly changing technologies in the modern world. , not even the a gust journalists, can perceive the format or delivery systems and audiences for narratives you want to share. 75 years ago, the idea that one could link journalists in vienna and new york at the same time was almost unthinkable. for seasoned war correspondents, it was foolish to abandon radio for the dubious flickering black-and-white child that was early television. ,- was not until 32 years ago

that 24-hour a day news coverage began. that came not from the smartest man at abc, nbc, or cbs, but playboyoudmouthed living in atlanta, ted turner, who dared to think there was money to be made and audiences to be won on a diet of all day and all night television news. whether the internet, facebook, media will take you and all of us in the years ahead is no one's guest tonight. but i agree with these panelists. it will be an extra ordinary adventure. my final observation about this uncertain world. it was 21-year-old charles collingwood, 26-year-old eric sever eyed, 30-year-old edward murrow, 35-year-old david

brinkley who struck out to make radio or television history. along years ahead of us to you, to you students. law or investment banking can seem to be areas in which family or college connections can play a huge role, yet every one of the broadcasting greats i have mentioned tonight were tied by birth or close connections to no one in the trade. they were not from the media centers of new york or washington. north dakota, south dakota, kansas, and montana that the great broadcast journalists came. each of you journalism students tonight is presently receiving a unc of education at the school of journalism under the leadership of dean king and her faculty. you're in a profession that will

change in ways that will confound virtually all of your elders gathered here tonight. feeling there is nothing that would please them more than to sit together in 20e assisted living facility or 30 years from now and brag, we spoke one evening in chapel hill about the future broadcast journalism. do you know who was in the audience? student. fill in the blank. it was you. the broadcast future awaits you. it is not going to stop moving, and neither should you. and that is the way it is. good night and good luck. [applause]

>> a look at what is coming up tomorrow morning on "washington journal." we will speak with the executive director about the progressive agenda and the legislative focus in the year ahead. then the republican party and conservative focus in 2014 with andrew roth. the war on poverty with the former oklahoma representative who is a member of the lyndon baines johnson foundation board of directors. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. later, more on the republican they on "newsmakers" with ceo of the advocacy organization linked to the heritage foundation. here is a preview. >> we need to modernize our

immigration system. we need to have a system that says we welcome people from around the world to come to this country and contribute and have jobs. unfortunately, you only get one chance every 20 years to do bold immigration reform. >> what about the ones here? >> there are all sorts of problems that need to be looked at. you do not do something as big as immigration reform. president who has illustrated how he wants to use it for political means and not the policy. many people can agree we need to increase the number of h1b visas. that should be something we can agree on. i support a guest worker program. we should have a program where people can work for a limited time and they go home, which is what many people want to do.

when you start fixing the imbalance in the labor market that exists, security becomes easier. you build trust with the american people. there may be a time in the future where you say now that we have fixed the system, what do we do about the people here now? >> you would back some incremental approach that would keep amnesty off to the side? >> it depends. with the president going forward, i think he has been clear. i suspect it would be difficult to get much immigration reform done that does not include some sort of amnesty, and we are against that. i think the right way to do it is to look incrementally at what we can do to fix the system and start improving the lacking in matching between employment and labor supply. >> it seems you're suggesting some bigger fix to the immigration system is not going

to be possible until after this president is out of office. >> i do not think you get a modern immigration system from this president. i think it would include a guest worker program. he does not want that because guestworkers do not sign up for labor unions. >> you can watch the full interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, the weekly addresses. talks aboutama extending unemployment insurance for the more than one million americans who are unemployed. he is followed by the republican mississippi congressman who called on the senate to pass the kids first research act to increase funding to battle childhood cancer. the addresses are about six minutes. >> hi, everybody, and happy new year. this is a time when we look ahead to all the possibilities and opportunities of the year to come -- when we resolve to better ourselves, and to better our relationships with one another. and today, i want to talk about one place that washington should start -- a place where we can make a real and powerful

difference in the lives of many of our fellow americans right now. just a few days after christmas, more than one million of our fellow americans lost a vital economic lifeline -- the temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet while they look for a job. republicans in congress went home for the holidays and let that lifeline expire. and for many of their constituents who are unemployed through no fault of their own, that decision will leave them with no income at all. we make this promise to one another because it makes a difference to a mother who needs help feeding her kids while she's looking for work, to a father who needs help paying the rent while learning the skills to get a new and better job. and denying families that security is just plain cruel. we're a better country than that. we don't abandon our fellow americans when times get tough . we keep the faith with them until they start that new job. what's more, it actually slows down the economy for all of us. if folks can't pay their bills or buy the basics, like food and clothes, local businesses take a

hit and hire fewer workers. that's why the independent congressional budget office says that unless congress restores this insurance, we'll feel a drag on our economic growth this year. and after our businesses created more than two million new jobs last year, that's a self- inflicted wound we don't need. so when congress comes back to work this week, their first order of business should be making this right. right now, a bipartisan group in congress is working on a three- month extension of unemployment insurance -- and if they pass it, i will sign it. for decades, republicans and democrats put partisanship and ideology aside to offer some security for job-seekers, even when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today. instead of punishing families who can least afford it, republicans should make it their new year's resolution to do the right thing, and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now. after all, our focus as a country this year shouldn't be shrinking our economy, but

growing it. not narrowing opportunity, but expanding it. not fewer jobs, but doing everything we can to help our businesses create more of the good jobs that a growing middle class requires. that's my new year's resolution to do everything i can, every single day, to help make 2014 a year in which more of our citizens can earn their own piece of the american dream. after five years of working and sacrificing to recover and rebuild from crisis, we have it within our power, right now, to move this country forward. it's entirely up to us. and i'm optimistic for the year that lies ahead. thank you, and have a great weekend. >> good morning and happy new year from the capitol. kids are always saying something isn't fair, but sometimes they've got a point. did you know that today in america, only 4% of all federal funding for cancer research goes to childhood cancer? that's right, 4% for all pediatric cancers combined.

this doesn't just set us back in the race for cutting-edge cures and treatments. it places a ceiling on a child's ability to overcome obstacles and do great things. i'm sure this issue hits home for many of you. it certainly does for our family. livingston, our oldest, was four when he was diagnosed with fragile x syndrome, a disorder that is often misdiagnosed as autism. today, he's making his way through college in a program for students with intellectual disabilities. many families, of course, are not as fortunate. they're out there waiting for hope and answers that often never come. no, we can't fix everything. but that doesn't mean we should accept things as they are. after all, don't we teach our kids never to settle for less? that's why i was proud to introduce h.r. 2019, the gabriella miller kids first research act. this bipartisan legislation directs much-needed resources to pediatric research at the national institutes of health.

we do this using taxpayer dollars currently set aside for political party conventions. instead of funding these conventions once every four years, we'll make it a daily priority to explore the full potential of clinical trials and advancements. not only for childhood cancer, but for all pediatric conditions even the most rare genetic diseases. last month, the house passed h.r. 2019 with strong support from both sides of the aisle. now it's the senate's turn to step up so we can send this bill to the president's desk. the good news is these same senate leaders have already voted to end the taxpayer subsidy for party conventions. here's a way to cut this unnecessary spending and put it towards building a better future for our kids. peter welch, my democratic co- sponsor for this bill, had it right when he asked: "can we just put the battle axes down for a while and take a step forward?"

i know we can. and if we do, it just might inspire us to come together and do what the american people sent us here to do. jobs, health care, energy, education, and innovation are all areas in which the house has started work that washington needs to finish this year. but first, we need your help to get this done. don't take it from me. gabriella miller, this bill's namesake, was -- well, she was something special. she was nine when she found out that she had a brain tumor the size of a walnut. and she was 10 when brain cancer took her life. in that time, gabriella -- never at a loss for words or wisdom -- became the leader of this movement. and she was awfully good at it. "if i go," gabriella said, "if i lose my battle i'm going to want all the people to carry on with the war, and we're going to win this war." let's go out and prove her right. join us in urging our senators to put kids first and pass this

bill. in this season of sweeping resolutions, here's a chance to show how one small change can make a big difference. thank you for listening. >> both chambers return from recess this coming week. to senate gavels in monday consider a three-month extension of unemployment benefits which expired on december 28. on thell continue debate nomination of janet yellen to be the federal reserve chairman with a vote at 5:30. a simple majority is needed for confirmation. you can follow the senate live on c-span2. the house returns tuesday for a pro forma session. they will recess until 6:30 when they will vote to establish a quorum to mark the start of the

second session of the 113th congress. later in the week, house plans to vote on two bills related to the federal health care law. implementation through weekly reports and the other to protect personal information used on the healthcare.gov website. live house coverage on c-span. later today, oral argument from the supreme court. a review, our view -- of key decisions in 2013 and a look ahead to the 2014 calendar. this is just over 50 minutes. >> we're joined by the harvard law professor and scholar of all things supreme court. scholar of all things supreme court mark tushnet. what are the two forces that are in the balance in this book? guest: the easiest way to describe them is they are divided now between five

appointees of republican presidents who are quite conservative and four appointees of democratic presidents who are more liberal. and the balance is between those two, and in particular the future of the court depends on what the next appointment is going to be. in the book you talk about the difference between the roberts court and a kagan court. explain that. guest: usually we talk about the chief justice, but the chief justice is not always the leader of the court. brennan, under all warren, was probably the leader of the court in terms of organizing the thinking of the court and writing the most important opinions.

a chance if the next appointee is a democratic appointee that justice kagan will emerge as the court's leader, displacing chief justice , leaving a more or less liberal majority against the conservative majority he is leaving. you write in your book that the future of the court will be shaped by not only the nominations that obama and his successors will make, but the competition between roberts and kagan for the intellectual leadership of the court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. when the justices are looking at cases, how much are they taking the long view, the competing balances you are talking about, and how much our cases decided in a vacuum? thet: each justice comes to

court with a relatively well shaped judicial philosophy or ideology that he or she deploys in a particular case. of course each case presents different issues, and those issues are legal and limited to particular problems. so in some cases, every case is a combination of applying your theral legal philosophy to particular problem at hand. the balance will shift depending on how significant the case is, whether it is a question of interpreting federal statute, where the judicial philosophy will have a relatively smaller part as compared to an issue like the constitutionality of a major federal statute where the judicial philosophy will have a

much larger role. with markre talking tushnet, the william lawson cromwell professor at harvard law school, who divides his time d.c. n boston and if you want to talk about all things supreme court or his book "in the balance," our phone lines are open. for republicans, 202-585-3881. 202-585-3880. , 202-5ependents 85-3882." how long have you been studying the supreme court? have been teaching for 42 years. before i started teaching, i was a law clerk for justice thurgood saw how the court

operated inside the court. things have changed a lot in the way the court operates, but i have been paying attention to the supreme court basically for my entire professional career. host: you say things have changed. the 2012-2013 term of the supreme court -- how demonstrated is the balance between law and politics? guest: i actually think the dates of decisions begin to blur and you have been studying the court as long as i have, but obviously the decision in the affordable care act or obamacare case was a central feature of the court's most recent recordns, and there the -- the court divided oddly in a many issued case, ultimately upholding the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but really structuring it in a way that contributes to some of the problems we have been seeing as

it is coming into force. the five justices held the constitution did not allow congress to enact a statute under its power to regulate interstate commerce, but five justices did say that congress had the power to do this as an exercise of its power to tax, so we have an individual mandate coming into effect over the next couple of weeks. in addition, there is the decision last term in the united , a lateral but important issue in connection with the issue of gay marriage. a decision striking down an important provision of the voting rights act of 1965. all of these are changes where the traditional philosophies of liberals and conservatives divide them and lead to

different outcomes, lead to the divisions that we see in the court's interpretation of the constitution. host: you write in your book that some of the 2013 cases from this past summer might demonstrate that the court is still justice kennedy's court. explain that. right now justice kennedy is what everybody would describe as the swing justice. now, he is quite conservative, but he is not consistently conservative or does not go along with all aspects of what the current conservative ideology is. he has been on the court for a relatively long time. he was appointed when conservatives were somewhat different from what it is now will stop and he has a libertarian streak that comes out particularly in gay rights cases. the alignment is right,

when the issues are ones that particularly appeal to his distinctive way of being a conservative, he will be the dispositive vote." that will not last forever. there will be new appointees, and justice kennedy may not be, as the political science calls them, the median justice in the middle of the court. for more than a few more years. host: we are talking about the supreme court with mark tushnet. scholar of all things supreme court. if you have questions for him, comments and phone lines are open some of the books that you have written -- we will start with randy from citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans. randy, good morning.

good morning. i would like to dispute's your .uest's assertion that justice roberts is the strong conservative leader of the court. i would disagree. i would say just as thomas is the intellectual leader of the group. if not him, maybe scalia. but i understand the inclination an any harvard academia --they want to basically prop up roberts as a hero because of his vote on the health care law, each, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of us, is a stain on his tenure. tushnetet's let mr. krishna

explained that. guest: i don't want to dispute the claim that justice scalia and justice thomas are powerful influences on the conservative side. justice scalia has articulated a philosophy or judicial approach of interpreting the constitution according to its original understanding. estes thomas is even more so unoriginal honest -- an originalist. but leadership on the court involves a combination of intellectual chops, the ability of -- the ability to articulate a visionnd forcefully of the constitution, a combination of that with kind of a marshaling of the forces, ,eing able to go along with you

and justice thomas in particular is largely -- he is not all that interested in making sure that he puts things in ways that other people will be able to sign on to. does haveice roberts this sort of -- i would call it a sort of social facility, and being the leader -- not nearly intellectually, but in combination with the sort of social skills that allow him to assemble a majority. bill king writes in on twitter -- guest: i think it is quite unlikely that any of the current

justices will depart the court voluntarily before the next presidential election. i put it that way because several of the justices are getting up there in years, and you never can predict things about health issues. but at the moment all of them appeared to be perfectly healthy and likely to stay on through , because it ison a good job and they like what they are doing. host: how much is the idea of who takes over there see important to justices when they look at the timing of their from twitter -- there are some scholarly studies about the timing of departures from the court, and reasons a sort of modest

that you can see for justices to to stealhe court, and a president from the arty whose president appointed then controls the presidency. it is a modest tendency, not universally true. on,e is some of that going or some of that affects some of the way the justices think. and sort of understandably so. justice scalia has said he does not want to leave the court, preventing an opportunity for -- presenting an opportunity for a them a credit president that would undo all the work justice scalia has been doing over the course of his career. that three ofting the conservative justices are , as supremeoung

court ages go. kennedy arelia and the most senior in age, but they have expressed no interest in leaving not just -- well, justice scalia because he does not want to see his work undone. justice kennedy, because he likes being the focus of attention as the median justice. host: we are talking to mark previously he georgetown law university. he is here to take your questions and comments. herb is up next from springville, new york, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, professor. my question relates to a subject

that, as far as i know, has never been heard or considered by the supreme court. let's go back just a little bit in history. in 1945, as you well know, we were a signatory to the united nations charter. in fact, we were a charter member, you might say. as at only signed signatory to the united nations charter, but it was then ratified, as you also well know, by our senate. that, to me, makes it the law of the land. the united nations codifies international law. hasn't, sincewhy it has been the law of the land, why hasn't the united states been required to follow international law as codified by

the united nations charter? the constitution does say that treaties that the united states find are the law of the land, the supreme law of the land, and the u.s. is required to follow international law, the supreme court has said so and has enforced some aspect of international law, even cases that get to the court. now, a lot of issues involving international law, those get to the supreme court or to the federal courts at all, partly because they are largely political issues. but it is also partly because the court has developed a series of doctrines that screen out the , these doctrines including the idea that the person bringing a constitutional

talent has to be injured by the illegality that is alleged. the issue cannot be, as the court puts it, a political question which is left to the congress or the president to resolve. those devices keep a fair number of important issues of international law away from the supreme court. host: john is from owings, maryland, on our line for independents this morning. you are on with mark tushnet. gentlemen.d morning, i have a question about comparing and contrasting juryial activism, nullification, and the role of the supreme court in these issues. guest: ok, so -- i am pausing because i want to make sure i can get the analogy correct. i guess the idea is that when a

jury engages in jury nullification, it is setting its judgment about what is right against or over the judgment of the legislature with an active statute, there being -- and the analogy is that the supreme court, when it finds a statute unconstitutional, is also setting its judgment against what the legislature did when it enacted the statute. i think there is a certain kind of parallel, but it is worth emphasizing that when juries nullify, they don't have to use plain what they are doing. whereas when the supreme court the statuted unconstitutional, they have the right an opinion of explaining why in their judgment the statute is inconsistent with the

constitution as properly construed. is just a maybe this professional interest of mine as a law professor, but i think there is a difference between actions that are made, that are explanation, and those that come accompanied with an next donation. although there is some parallel -- i don't want to deny that -- i think the president host: talking about the all supreme court with professor tushnet. the case before the court. ifonder if we'll ever know roberts was threatened over the obamacare and what made him change the law to a tax? a chapter in the book about the affordable care act.

i take the position that nobody agrees with, i think as i put he there were stories that changed his mind sometime between the time when of the case was argued and the time it came down. outset, he said he thought it was unconstitutional. he ended up -- as a couple of yours have suggested, upholding the statute on one ground while striking on a mother. in between, he changed his mind. my own view is that he actually did not change his mind -- he made up his mind on issues he had not thought very much about. given the attention on whether congress

has the power to require people to buy insurance because of his power to regulate interstate commerce. the chief justice said, no, the congress does not have the power. they been thinking about this. once they had a majority saying it was unconstitutional on grounds, he had to see if it was unconstitutional or not on whether to impose taxes. i do not think he devoted a lot attention to that before hand. when he sat down and tried to write out an opinion, he concluded that given other aspects of his judicial philosophy the statute was constitutionally permissible as a tax. colleagues but it is important to understand the processes.

they hear the arguments and they gather for a conference which is an hour or two discussion, but there are nine of them. the affordable care act had a lot of issues involved. my guess is if the conference is , ite -- vaguely indicated was probably unconstitutional and not focus in on a particular issue about the tax aspect and he ended up having to write about. , nobody agrees with me, conservatives inc. he was threatened in some way. there were comments after the oral argument about a vice president biden and senator reid and president obama about their expectations that the court would do the right thing. justice think a chief

would be intimidated by that. there records of the conference that you talk about that we might see that might prove one way or another your thoughts here? will not include me. there are records. the justices keynotes. i can say that congress is closed to outsiders, just the justices. one of the traditions is if it's a message that has to be out, somebody knocks on the door and a junior justice gets up. i guess justice kagan and goes to the door and opens it and get the message and brings it back in and gives it to have her messages for. no cell phones. no conversations thousand records. -- outside of the courts. it will be really improper to answer a message.

they are taking notes. they will going to their files. now, 70 years from somebody will be able to see what thosesay. host: justice roberts famously said he had the job -- his job was to be like an umpire calling balls and strikes without did the affordable care act the decision go with that philosophy that he outlined? emphasize, heto said people have probably made too much of the metaphor. he may have emphasized it too much because it does suggest a kind of mechanical aspects of judging which nobody really agree is there. i do think, as i put in the book, if you wanted to apply the did sort ofhor, he

call of one strike and one ball. know note -- i do not which is the striker which is the bald. one way it was unconstitutional at it was constitutional. result not ofas a a neutral umpire but in the the chiefn that justice brought to the job. -- the realr tragedy is judges bring their political ideology to the court. hard -- ass very justice thompson put it in his confirmation hearing, stripped down like a runner and approach every case as if you have never thought about the underlying issues for the deep issues that are implicated in the case. after all, these people have

been experienced lawyers and have handledey cases. they have thought about these issues. it seems to me, it is a realistic to expect they will simply discarded them once they get to the court. in addition, they are chosen, partated, and confirmed in because of some sense of the parts of the president of how they are going to approach cases. i have tried to characterize as judicial philosophy. it is not realistic to think that judges cannot -- will not have these views and that they bring on specific cases. oe on the line for republicans. you are on with professor tushnet, the author of the book "in the balance." goldberg said of

the constitution is not a suicide pact. i think the problem -- in the opposite direction from where -- the supreme court justices think very little -- have very little working knowledge of technological bomb waske atomic developed during world war ii. one man lost his security clearance. there is lots more. there are genetically modified foods, technology, and other technology that the court is simply unprepared to deal with. it shows over and over like this tax issue. justice roberts

opinion that it was a tax, if god don't any scenario work -- he is not doing any scenario work. these things move around. with regard to technology issues, what about peer-reviewed , qualified technologists for supreme court justices? and polygraph examiners on live tv to see if that been improperly influenced? make twowant to points. act, onceable care you characterize it as a tax, there are other issues that arise. several of them are continuing to be litigated in the lower carts. so far, none of them have advanced very far. still rattling around.

the issue about technological change, he is clearly right. justice kagan, the court heard a case about regulation of violent video games. she made a comment about how amusing it was to see the talking abouterks how you play a videogame. of a combination of two things. appointedes are toward life terms. or forced totire leave the bench because of illness or death. they are there for a long time. in combination, there is rapid technological change. inebody was appointed now 2017 a let's say will be facing

issues in 2057 that we cannot imagine. i do not know -- we have to go to science fiction to be robots to sit that have constitutional rights. i do not know what the issues will be. whenbly reasonably clear justice kennedy was appointed in the mid-1980's, i do not think anybody would've expected him to have any knowledge about genetic technology and patents on human genes. these have come to the court during his tenure. i have a colleague who suggested that one way to deal with these issues as to get away with the idea that all of the justices and every one of them can only be a lawyer. maybe he said, there should be

people with other specialties. people with backgrounds in engineering, for example. host: technological changes comic. your thoughts on putting cameras in the courtroom. guest: this is an issue i do not have any influence on. their minds have unfairly stacked against it at this point. i do not think their fear that if they express are realistic. i think it would be a benefit for the court and the public more importantly to see and for people to think to see what is going on during these arguments. right now, we have the sketch artist who puts up snippets and -- excerptho accept snippets. releasedsions are

within the week of the argument. host: same-day audio now. guest: on important cases like the affordable care act. i do not see what the loss would be of having cameras in there. checkif viewers want to out more about these bands work on cameras in the courtroom, you can check out that at www.c- span.org. up next on the phone is larry from mississippi on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, repressor. professor, -- good morning, professor. professor, they voted foolishly. i just do not understand.

this is interesting fact that i want to mention. how -- fromt to say an overall perspective. the perspective as a lawyer, the blitz. decision is a not significant or constitutional law, but there are two cases that are always mentioned when i give talks about the court. one is bush versus gore. the reason for the latter is the view not unrealistic that an important reason for the presidency of george w. bush was the vote of the supreme court. a very close election. a lot of people voted for george w. bush.

are thes that matter five votes on the supreme court that resolved the controversy. from a constitutional point of , bush versus gore is not that interesting. from somebody interested and constitutional politics, the fact that the supreme court had a decisive role in making george w. bush president is extremely important. it is not something that i, at the constitutional lawyer, would think very much about. twitter, it was the worst ruling of our time and that includes the bush versus gore will link which we all regret. we are taking comments on twitter and facebook page is open. our phone lines are open. robert daniels had a trivia question.

what is the shortest supreme court decision? some areell -- extremely short. there are these things called procuring opinions that were issued by the court. of anypically dispose did not a very brief order narrowly -- order narrowly way. y- order near he -- ordinaril way. i do not know what the candidates would be. deadlinesuced under of 24 hours. maybe that would be a candidate. i would want to look. brown versus board of education

was seven or eight pages long. not a long opinion. that's the shortest really important decision. i do not know. i would have to look. next on thes up line for independence. your own. -- you are on. caller: good morning. -- i considery all day talking with a constitutional lawyer. i want to get your opinion, a lot of people in d.c. do not follow the constitution is money taken old. i like to ask you -- even though they took an oath. you, what gives obama the 40 to remove a private -- to remove a private industry ceo? and was a lot has been made in

the past and is signed by him, that he cannot change and congress can only make amendments to the loss -- laws? i believe obama has overreached his authority much too much. an ideology of progressivism. he said he stands for change because that is what has taken over the party. thank you, professor. guest: i am not entirely sure about the removal of ceos, i think it has to do with the powers under recent financial reform legislation, the dodd frank statute. the other issue is the suspension of various provisions of the law. in both of those instances, the say -- his actions

lawyers say it is authorized by provisions or general authority of the executive branch to make decisions about what issues to pursue through enforcement actions called discretion. everybody agrees that the not have to use -- theyatute to the have discretion. let's give this one a pass. it is not important to devote the energy and well more important antiterrorist issues. everybody agrees there is that type of discretion. there is an argument that presidents do not have the power to exempt matters by category from enforcement.

there is litigation going on now. it is very hard distinction between ordinary not to enforce a law and larger ones that the president has been engaged in. we will eventually weigh in on that issue. my view will become insignificant. host: cases moving through now. what your out about the new challenges to the affordable care act which would've been talking about a lot this morning? what are going to be the things to watch in the coming year? guest: the supreme court had already granted review with a contraceptive mandate. the issue there is whether private for-profit operations whose owners have religious objection to providing access to contraceptives for insurance

tons can be required purchase those plans for their employees. that issue is going to turn not on the constitution but on a federal statute called the religious freedom act that said congress cannot impose substantial burdens on a religious exercise of individuals unless there's a substantial justification for it. whetherhe issues is these private conversation -- corporations are covered by the constitution or the religious restoration act with respect to religious conscience. ofre is resonance of united what people are saying. the opponents and supporters of the mandate are saying, how can corporations have religious conscience if they support

speech but conscience is something internal to their head? the court will decided that by the end of this year. the other issue that is still in the lower courts is a competent question about whether there can be subsidies for people who purchase insurance on the federal exchange and states over the states have not put out the exchanges. gethe texas, if you want to , purchase insurance, you have to go to the federal exchange. that itute is written provides subsidies to people who .uy them all state exchanges it is not clear it will provide subsidies to people who buy them on the federal exchanges. there is litigation about that going on in the lower court. on the latter when i would expect it eventually the federal