i have had class-action lawsuits, 58 of them at the time i left chrysler five years ago. some would allege our engines were durable enough. well, you know, everybody in the industry is being faced with these lawsuits. they say, let us see all the engine design plans you have going back the last 10 years, all the options you considered. we want all the testing results and what other factors you thought about putting in or not putting in and then we will decide whether or not we have something to tell the jury about, whether you did everything possible to make sure the engine is as robust and without -- without going further, you go, i am sure they will find something. in one of our engineers notebooks come it says we could've done something else. we could have done something else other than what we did. they will find something they will be able to then say was a step that was not proper. you're looking at this as, now we might have the chance -- 75%

chance of winning. we have the expense of millions worth of dollars worth of discovery. the news press is out there covering this. depending on a law firm, you get to know, good friends in the press, and they will start this drumbeat and they will make it harder and harder for you not to say, "this is stupid." i have had contentious cases. they said, wait until you see what will happen, i will tell you we have talked to these consumer advocate groups and this is what you will see next month and tell your friends. it is a very implicit threat of blackmail. when we come after them, they should find a way to resist. in the case of my management, they were savvy about this game and were not going to be bullied. my colleague and i oversaw this. steve gets credit. he is not here.

we wrote an article in the journal of ethics saying we would not take settlements. we did that in part to make a chess move publicly that says, do not come to us with the settlements because we are not interested and we will not go there. we settled cases in novel ways, including a consumer public service announcement about not putting children in the front seat of cars because we believe that is a good thing. you should not put them there. in the case of the plaintiff lawyers at the end of the day, 28 miles an hour -- that is what they got for all they had done. we did not agree to a $550 times two fee. even thinking 30% or so is what their thick -- their fees might be, and it turned out that way. you're willing to pay some degree to get the pain to stop. you're willing at times, if you have your management properly counseled, if they're willing to

hang in there, and make them prove their case, you will contest there is a harm, and appeal it, they tell their friends that these people are not easy to sue and they will not play ball with you and you might want to try suing someone else. at least you are saying, do not come here, we will make it tough on you. >> for big companies, and it is big companies that will get this type of litigation the most because they have deep pockets, you face this repeatedly, the hard line. if you see 58 cases over the span of seven years, it could benefit you. there are still complications with that. let me play devil's advocate a minute. anyone up here can talk about this. there have been a number of folks, in the academy and in the press, that would challenge this general position and challenge

ted's work. basically, we reached the position it does not matter whether there is compensation or not. who cares if the plaintiff gets compensation and gets no compensation and he goes to all the attorneys. the attorneys are doing a public service by deterring fraud, deterring misconduct on the parts of these corporations. how do you respond? >> it assumes the case is being settled are good cases. we see from bluetooth and motor fuel, we see from a lot of these cases that the underlying cause of action is completely bogus. what is happening is the sort of extortion bob is talking about. a nice company you have here. it would be a shame if you had to spend millions of dollars on attorneys fees. you can either pay us now or pay your attorney $3 million to get rid of the case. you probably want to pay us the million dollars.

at the counter, you say yes, this saves us $2 million. and, the negatives will go on my competition, who now face the same sort of class-action. so, what is being deterred when you are suing bluetooth headset manufacturers? i do not see that. i would say if the law professor you're talking about is saying, you have a zero dollar settlement and you are encouraging people to bring these class actions and now you will not encourage them to bring class actions, i would say that is a feature in not a bug. any thoughts? >> yes. as an academic, in a very distinct minority, legal education, i have taken note in my book about the reliance of most legal scholars on a belief

in the deterrence value of class actions. indeed, i regard that, from their perspective, as a matter of faith, that is a conviction that, if corporations pay billions of dollars to settle class actions, that must be good. when you look behind that to see whether there is any him." basis for that, you find out, largely, that there is none. moreover, you begin, as i have done, in my research, to see a close financial relationship between the legal academy and plaintiffs counsel. tens of million -- tens of billions of dollars a year move from plaintiffs counsel to members of the legal academy for, among other things, what i

call in my book the council who are hired by the class counsel at the time of the settlement to write an opinion to the judge, saying, we think this fee is fair. indeed, understated. for those opinions, they get paid $50,000 or $100,000. the greater their institution they are affiliated with, the more prominent, the the higher the fee. i do not think class actions meet the test of generating deterrence. i think it is very rare. i think the majority of class actions have no deterrent value. they are simply ways of transferring money from lawyers,

from corporations to lawyers. >> how about that? you worked at a company and you dealt with these. do you think there are deterrence that come with these? >> i do not want to say there has never been a case. i was thinking now the case going on with target with all the fraud. let's take that as an example. target left themselves wide open, many believe. it happened. it is a criminal enterprise. but i also see what target is doing. they are already offering some of the remedies that have come out of previous class-action litigation. they are offering people credit tracking for your children and sent out a nice letter and have given full disclosure. there are congressional hearings on this. congress has a good idea and a way to get their attention and make sure everybody in the retail sector is paying attention to this. it will cost a lot of time and money.

what more now are the plaintiffs going to do to help consumers other than to have make sure they have done all they can do, make sure it is a public issue. they have gotten public scorn and now have congress help them solve problems. no one wants congress try to help you solve problems. but in other cases, whether fda or in our case, the national highway traffic and safety association, you have a regulatory body out there and you have the fact most of your big companies want to do the right thing and have quality and warranty and other things built in. they have a reputation to protect. the degree of deterrence are getting here is minimal. then you say, why did the companies go on at all? there is a lot more we could say, including the career of the lawyers inside the company. he says, fight this and you will win, his friends from law school and otherwise say, hope you win

that, otherwise somebody's head will be on the block for deciding on these big fights. what kind of advice will i give, the management is thinking, how much of this publicity do we want? in one case, cnn started mentioning it regularly. we said, get rid of it, make it go away. it will cost us more on advertising on that particular issue than it is worth. are they right or wrong? are they saying it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars -- kill the case, do whatever you have to do to make that go away. a lot of different ethical intentions are going on here. if i occur more legal talk -- more legal costs in the next two years, people argue about whether or not you should just take the million dollar deal, pick it up and go. you have to look at whether or not your problem really had a prop -- your product really had a problem.

few things are not really regulated by the government one way or the other. you already have these deterrent factors. the reputational damage to the company is one of the issues you are trying to avoid. >> that makes a lot of sense to me. we have a lot more questions but i want our audience to have the option of asking questions. i will call on you. please identify yourself. wait for the mike. any questions from the audience? >> harry lewis. i'm a litigator here in new york city. i do not generally do class-action litigation, but have had situations where my client comes to me with class-action notices in settlements and i suggested the panel that the situation is more perverse than the panel suggested in this respect. in my experience, even if the underlying class-action

litigation is a good case, meaning the corporation has done something seriously wrong, plaintiffs counsel will still cut a deal with defense counsel for a lowball settlement that gets them their fees. that essentially cuts out the class, even in the case of a valid and good lawsuit. that has happened in my experience with my clients. i had a situation, i represented a physicians group, a group of physicians. there was a class action alleging certain insurers had underpaid litigious groups to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per dr. over years. the proposed settlement was going to get the doctors $10 ahead. it was a horrible settlement for my clients. i advised them to opt out. that was the advice i thought was appropriate under the circumstances. if you're talking about a good case, and the incentives remain

perverse, in that case, the counsel were ecstatic to get rid of it. they were getting rid of a huge problem for them by cutting those lawyers. those scenarios occur and are perverse in this context. >> i have seen a sentiment like that. we had one pending in front of the ninth circuit where the attorneys got $9 million and the attorneys were certainly thrilled with that. about $225,000 in cash was paid for the class. another $3 billion would go to the attorneys, two local colleges all affiliated with the defense attorneys. and, what this company has done is pretty clearly fraudulent, the type of thing where you did not realize you are being

subscribed. please click on this button and now your credit card has been billed $20 a month. it was a worthless settlement. the attorneys got paid over $1000 an hour. everybody was happy except for the class members, who did not know their attorneys sold them out. very fortunately, we found an objector who wanted to do the right thing. we will see if the judge approved the settlement anyway and we will see what the judge wants to do with it. opting out will not do anything. in the case -- unless you can actually mobilize tens of thousands of doctors to opt out, all opting out does is that these doctors will not get their $10 and they still will not be able to bring the lawsuit

against the insurance company because the reason of the class action in the first place was because it would be unfeasible. the only time an opt out really makes a difference is in a securities litigation where you have a lot of small individual shareholders who cannot feasibly opt out, but maybe a large pension fund can opt out and what i hear anecdotally, and no one ever studies this because all settlements are content -- even in these big settlements, where it looks like the defendant is giving up hundreds of millions of dollars when a large institutional shareholder ops out of the class, they end up being able to negotiate a better deal for themselves separately. it suggests that shareholders -- the good shareholder cases are

not doing much better for shareholders than the bad cases. we had a case and we said, wait a second, the shareholders are settling for three cents on the dollar. this is clearly a recent settlement. why are attorneys getting -- they are asking for four times their hourly rate. for settling for literally pennies on the dollar. how is it you are giving any incentive to attorneys to bring a good case? what are you going to do when somebody actually wins a case? you cannot get them more than what these attorneys are getting. when a case like that happens, one of two things happen. in one case, they should not be paid. or, they are selling out the

clients who have a legitimate claim, and they again should not be paid, but punished. and they get rewarded by the status quo. the judge was kind enough to slightly slice the fees, but was a lot meaner to me than to the attorneys. >> that raises a question i had. if somebody else has a question from the audience, raise your hand. how do we fix this, apart from what you're doing? unless this is one of the best ways to fix it, but, of course, the problem is you have got to keep doing it. if he retires and there is not someone equally smart and energetic filling your shoes, these things could revert ready quickly back to the way they were.

i think bob's comment suggests maybe discovery reform is one answer, where you could at least take that he's out of the economic equation to encourage defendants not to settle bad cases, but what are changes in the laws that would actually have an effect here? >> well, it is hard to say. the law was already there. it just was not being enforced. parties did not have the incentive. perhaps you could create a bounty system whereby you come in and make a successful objection and the plaintiff's attorneys are required to pay that objectors a sum of money and you have people with actually the incentive to do it. i got into this, the very first objection i brought was as a private citizen in 2008 and i noticed a bad settlement over a video game where the attorneys were getting $1 million and the class members were getting $24,000.

i went in an object in and object it on my own. sure enough, the judge blows up the settlement. meanwhile kind i am out a couple thousand dollars. i took time off to do writing, and i had to travel in new york and stay in a hotel. it adds up. without my particular brand of obscenity, that objection would not have happened and the settlement would've been approved. i found people generous enough to fund me in my insanity, but, it should not have to be that way. we award plaintiff's attorneys for bringing successful class actions, even when those class actions are not all that successful. what i have found is even as a nonprofit when we bring pretty modest fee requests, judges that are very happy to rubberstamp multimillion dollar fee requests come in and start asking about every little piece of our

request. they knocked one down to $10,000. it has gotten to the point where i said, we are not wasting time on them anymore. it is snapping too much of our resources. we will do it in one big case a year, where we won millions of dollars and it is unambiguous we're entitled to fees. without creating that incentive structure, there'll always be a problem. the class action fairness act, section 715, congress thought they were doing something. before they have a class-action settlement, they have to notify all states attorneys generals that a class action settlement -- give them a chance to reject. that has done absolutely nothing. you see the state attorneys general coming in, maybe one or two cases a year. even then, judges ignore them

and the state attorneys general has no standing to appeal. there is no incentive for the state attorneys general to get involved. who will watch the watchmen watching the watchmen? i do not see how that does not have regulatory capture. once upon a time in the bush administration, the fcc thought about getting involved. there was a young staffer by the name of ted cruz. i do not know whatever happened to him. [laughter] he came up with the idea they should get involved in those things. that aspect, your taxpayer dollars are still paying for it. staffers are apparently devoted to it but have done nothing since the most recent president got elected.

>> i have a question. if you want to feel that. >> keep it short in the form of a question. >> this is a policy question. you mentioned bounty in your remarks. it would be better if they had false claims involving bounties. might that work as a policy option? >> yes. the principle is there in terms of the common benefit and so on. it just needs to be a real substantial bounty. we do not see that. right now, the incentive, there is no incentive for people to come in and do this.

i have had people approach me. people are starting to think about it because they realize how much abuses going on in these security cases and what you need, you need the institutional investors to come in and say, you are stealing money from us with these fee requests. probably hundreds of millions are being siphoned out of the economy. in pure rent seeking. why aren't our elected officials who are managing pensions doing more about it? may be political pressure on that end. the status quo right now, the only thing happening in the nonprofit arena, public citizen comes in and brings a handful of objections a year but nowhere near the scale we do and there attack is typically more on the settlement is too low and the defendant should be forced to

pay more, rather than the abuse of allocation that we are putting out. >> the idea of statutory relief is simply out of the question for the foreseeable future. whatever changes that are feasible, are restricted to the judiciary, which created the problem in the first place. first by changing the rule with regards to opt in and opt out in 1966, and expecting only a very small change in the way this would occur thereafter. failing to take into account the enormous incentives lawyers provided by contingency fees. i think one way in which we could improve the situation

would be to clone ted. [laughter] we would need more ted's. it is not out of the question. i think there might be others that follow in his footsteps. when courts get serious, lawyers making serious arguments, they will pay attention in ways they have not here with regard to objectors. there are specific policy areas i've focused on in my book. one has to do with the so-called american rule. as opposed to the english rule. the american rule, each side is responsible for their own attorney fees. under the english rule, the losing party pays some part of the prevailing party's attorney fees. we have statutory fee shifting in our country, in which the prevailing party is able to collect attorney fees.

under various statutes involving civil rights, environmental issues, and a variety of issues and other things. but when the supreme court of the united states adopted american rule back in the early 20th century, 19th century, sometime -- i'm trying to member. 1820's or something like that. that has had a remarkable effect. a lawyer seeking class action status and so on, and trying to use the asymmetrical costs that benefit them, that they could impose enormous costs and force them to deal with literally millions of documents, that could generate settlements just in terms of cost avoidance for the corporation.

but there is no incentive for the corporation to really duke it out. the lawyer, the class lawyer, may lose the case. there is no financial penalty because the prevailing party, i.e. the corporation that got the case dismissed, cannot impose any fees. some enterprising judge should look for a crack in the american rule doctrine so in cases which are brought solely for the economic interest of the lawyers, these i think in many cases are pretty apparent, a judge can say, maybe bad faith, but that may be a bit of a

stretch, that the plaintiff lawyers will have to reimburse the company for some part of its legal expenses. there are judges who might be willing to do that. one of my pet peeves in the class action system, which we have not touched upon, the lone star. a big word that simply means, the number of hours you worked times the hourly fee. i wrote in my book that some of the lawyers have fees that are out of this world. while a day on earth is only 24 hours, some of the lawyers bill on saturn time, where it is 704 billion hours. i have seen bills with 72 hours billed in a single days. not that uncommon. the lodestar is on an honor system basis. frankly, i think there is an enormous amount of cheating that goes on. if you are sitting down and writing yourself a check, you have a choice.

you do not write the check to $1000 to yourself or $10,000 or $100,000. this is tough. i have to decide which one i will do. there is a way in which judges could go behind us. they do not want to because if this was really exposed, it would be an embarrassment to the judiciary. but if the judge required not just the fee request of a law firm, which could run thousands of pages, many in one firm working on the matter, but if they required the firms when they put in a fee request, to also put in the hours their staff people, their attorneys, have worked on all class actions, as well as all other matters. this could be done electronically so that is it is a very simple coding process. you would find out the depth of

cheating that goes on in terms of how many hours worked, my seat-of-the-pants sense is we're talking about anywhere from 25 to 40% of the hours claimed in the lodestar are simply -- i do not mean the kind of hours where you meet with your partner. i am talking about real cheating. >> it is fascinating. we could talk about all night but we are running short on time. we have talked about discovery and potential bounties, lodestar reform, shifting, any other policy ideas before we wrapped up? >> i agree with everything said. you are doing public awareness. getting the story out there and people understand it. you're looking at the company, what would they think and know about the subject and how impressionable with the book out is fantastic.

i think a lot of good things are here. judges, making sure we elect good judges in a hold them accountable is really key. >> all good ideas. the one idea not feasible is to clone ted frank. but he is an american treasure. for those of you out there in the national television audience, how do they get in touch with you, ted, if they want to send you a case or send you a check? >> classactionfairness.org. >> those of you out here, if you have a bad notice in the mail on -- >> good morning, everybody.

andnt to thank jack jacobs all the partners at safeway for having us here today at this busy distribution center where delivery trucks get everything from doritos to diapers where they need to go. way, i have a soft spot for safeway in my heart because some of you may know i went to high school and lived with my grandparents -- our main grocery store with safeway. [applause] outrandmother would send me to go shop at safeway and everybody treated me very well so i very much appreciate the good work you guys do. i want to thank all the workers and business people and labor leaders and environmental leaders were here today as we take another big step to grow our economy and reduce america's

dependence on foreign oil. in my state of the union address , i said this would be a year of action and i meant it. over the past three weeks, i have asked federal contractors to pay their workers a fair wage of $10.10 an hour. we believe in a higher minimum wage. we need to train workers with the skills that employers actually need. i directed the treasury secretary to create something we to helping my ra americans start saving for retirement. we have brought together business leaders. i am eager to work with congress enever i i can, but whateve

see opportunity on my own, i will do that. although the economy has been doing better, we have spent the last five years fighting our way back from the worst recession of our lifetime. our economy has grown. the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in over five years. long-term trends that have hurt middle-class families for decades have continued. folks of the top are doing better than ever before. average wages and income have not budged. people are working harder to keep up. my job is to not only get the economy growing but also reversed the trend and make sure that everybody can succeed. we have to build an economy that works for everybody, not just the fortunate few. opportunity for all. that is the essence of america.

no matter who you are, where you come from, no matter how you start out. if you are willing to work hard and thick response ability, you can succeed. i have laid out an opportunity agenda to help us do that. more jobss to create that pay good wages. jobs in manufacturing, energy, exports, innovation. part two, we have trained folks with the skills they need to fill those jobs. every childuarantee access to world-class education. par 4 is making sure that the economy awards our work with wages you can live on. savings you can retire on. health insurance you can count on. there are very few factors that are helping our economy grow toe than our commitment american manufacturing and american energy. that is why we are here today. five years ago, we set out to

break our dependence on foreign oil. today, america is closer to energy independence and we have been in decades. for the first time in nearly 20 oils, america produces more here at home than we buy from other countries. our levels of dangerous carbon pollution that contributes climate change have actually gone down even as our production has gone up. one of the reasons why is because we've dedicated ourselves to manufacturing new cars and new trucks that go on a gallon golf -- of gas. that saves families money, cuts and createsution new advances in american technology. for decades, the fuel efficiency standards of our cars and trucks was stuck in neutral. technology leapt

forward. i left families and businesses and our economy vulnerable to fluctuations. the economy got hurt. our automakers were in danger of being left in the dust by foreign automakers. carbon pollution was going unchecked, which was having severe impacts on our weather. office why after taking in my administration worked with automakers, autoworkers, environmental advocates and states across the country and we put in motion the first ever national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the united states. retooled andkers prepare to start making the cars -- the world's best cars again, we aimed to raise fuel standards

to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. [applause] that was an increase of more overeight miles per gallon what cars that average at the time. what we were clear about what is, if you set a rule, a clear goal, we would give our companies what they needed to innovate and out build rest of the world. they could figure out if they had a goal that they were trying to reach. thanks to their ingenuity and our work, we are going to meet that goal. two years later, we've already seen enormous progress. we are building on that progress by setting an even more ambitious target. we're going to double the distance our cars and trucks can go on a gallon of gas by 2025. we will double it. that is big news.

[applause] is, you have to fill up every two weeks instead of one week. family more than $8,000 at the pump over time. am assuming you can use thousand dollars that you're not paying at the gas station. [applause] cuts american, oil consumption by 2 million barrels. we let the ottoman makers decide how they're going to do it. we said, go figure it out. they invested in innovative and cost-effective technologies. some are already making cars that be the target of nearly 55 miles per gallon. they have plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles, taking advantage of the investments that the recovery act made so

cars are getting better. they're getting more fuel-efficient. for anybody that said that this cannot be done or that it would hurt the american auto industry, the american auto industry s old more cars than any of the year since 2007. since we stepped into a -- stepped in to help them retool, the american auto industry has created almost 425,000 new jobs. we raised fuel efficiency, help consumers, help improve air quality and we are making better cars and the automakers are again for good jobs across the country. [applause] more plants are running at full capacity.

some are running three shifts, 24 hours a day, putting out some of the most high tech, high performance cars in the world. story of american ingenuity. american grit. everybody has a right to be proud of that. but today, we are taking the next step. account forrucks just four percent of all the vehicles on the highway. i know when you are driving sometime come it feels like it is more. [laughter] y are responsible for 25% of the carbon pollution in the auto sector. they are responsible for about 20% of our on road fuel consumption. since they haul about 70% of all domestic freight, 70% of the stuff we use, from flatscreen tvs to diapers to produce, you

name it -- every mile that we is worthuel efficiency thousands of dollars in savings every year. that is why we are investing in research to get more fuel economy gains. thanks to a partnership with between industry and my ministration, the truck behind was able to achieve a 75% improvement in fuel economy over the last year. 75%. a "super i call eight truck." these are really big, that you can see how they have redesigned the truck in order for us to save fuel economy.

and improving gas mileage for these trucks, which is going to drive down our oil imports even further and reduce carbon pollution even more and cut down costs.nesse's fuel it is not just a win-win, it is a win win win. you get three wins. [laughter] new standards for heavy and medium trucks to take effect for this year and last until 2018. three weeks ago, in my state of the union address, i said we build on that success. today, i am directing anthony mccarthy, two outstanding public servants -- their goal is to develop fuel

economy standards for heavy-duty trucks that will take us well into the next decade, just like our cars. they're going to partner with manufacturers and autoworkers and other stakeholders, truckers to come up with a proposal by march of next year. they will complete the rule a year after that. businesses that buy these type of trucks have sent a clear message to the nearly 30,000 workers to build them. we want trucks that use less oil, save us money and cut down on pollution. 23 companies that join our national partnership to reduce their oil consumption or replace their old fleets of trucks with more fuel-efficient models. collectively, they operate one million commercial vehicles nationwide. if rivals like pepsi-cola and coca-cola and ups and fedex and

at&t and verizon can join together on this, then maybe democrats and republicans can do the same. [laughter] [applause] maybe democrats and republicans can get together. companies, see these it is due to this partnership. safeway was an early leader on this issue. by improving the aerodynamics of its trucks, investing larger ,railers, more efficient tires safeway improve its own fuel efficiency and the result is so solid that safeway now encourages all the companies that hires to ship its products to do the same. to help our businesses and manufacturers meet this new goal, we are offering new tax credits for companies that manufacture heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicles and

those that build fuel infrastructure so that trucks running on bio diesel or natural gas will have more places to fill up. the goal we are setting is ambitious. where ambition has worked out really well for us so far. make big plans, not small plants. who had dire predictions for the auto industry said, we could not do it. jobsacturers cannot bring back to america. every time they say that, they're proven wrong. every time some it is says that you can grow the economy while bringing on pollution has turned out to be wrong. anybody who says we can't compete when it comes to clean energy technology like solar and wind, they have added to eat those words. betcan bet -- you can't against america or you'll lose money every time because we know

how to do this when we set ambitious goals for ourselves. [applause] from day one, we have known that we have to build our economy for a clean energy future and it would not be easy or quick. we have a lot of work to do on both accounts. the economy has grown. we are creating jobs. generating clean energy. going down this road, we're going to have a future full of good paying jobs. we have assembly lines that are humming with components of a clean energy age. we have some of the best trucks and cars in the world manufactured in america. if we keep going, we're going to leave a better future for our children. i'm proud of safeway and its workers for helping to show us the way. if it can be done here, it can be done all across the country.

congratulations to all of you. thank you, and god bless america. [applause] ♪

>> president obama at the safeway distribution plant outside of the nation's capital, tweeting about today's announcement on truck standards.

a heavy truck fuel economy proposals is a one-two punch against foreign oil dependence. for more live coverage coming up this afternoon, including a speech by the european commissioner for trade on the latest development in the u.s.-europe transatlantic trade deal. that is on c-span two. here on c-span this afternoon, a group of u.s.-russia experts discuss the history of relations between the two countries and the collapse of the soviet union. looking ahead to tonight come here on c-span, our america profile interviews with senator .orker and club whic tonight come a look at the careers here in washington. we hear from james cargo and congressman keith, the first muslim member of the u.s. congress.

american history tv looks back frome clinton impeachment the u.s. house floor. at the creation museum, we teach people the difference between belief and what one can actually observe an experiment. we are teaching people to think critically and think about science. it is the creationists that should be educating the kids out there because we are teaching them the right way to think. scientice is based on the bible, but we are challenging scientists to teach the difference here. why should we accept your word for it that natural law changed in for thousand years ago completely and there is no

record of it? there are pyramid's that are older than that. there are human populations that are far older than that. traditions that go back farther than that. it is not reasonable that everything changed for thousand years ago. the species, the surface of the andh, the stars in the sky the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it is just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. >> evolution versus creationism. darwin'st working with origin of species and ken ham with the bible. the debate on wednesday night. jim littell recently talked about her experiences covering religious issues, including same-sex marriage. she was the first religious correspondent for the bbc. from the university of colorado

in boulder, this is one hour and 15 minutes. thank you, stuart. a lovely introduction. it is a real pleasure and a great privilege to be with you tonight. you alleful to for inviting me here to share some of my experiences in covering religion and the ways in which i have seen the beat change, rise, fall and evolve over the last two decades of my career. which has been largely focused on religion as an editor and correspondent and presenter. on staff and off staff. that is where my experiences. i'm very interested in hearing perspectives on the coverage of religion for mother parts of the world. in some ways, i feel like it has come full circle because stewart hoover helped launch got my path.

it was while doing an undergraduate dissertation on televangelist and that i read his illuminating book on the subject, mass media and religion. i read it on the beach. it accentuated its many positive qualities. my interest inn religion, the media and their infractions. while it did not exactly inspire me to follow in the footsteps of pat robertson, i did in some ways create my own different version of electronic evangelist when i set up the post of religious affairs correspondent for bbc. it took some youthful ambition because a of fate fellow journalism student and amateur extra latest -- amateur astrologist tells me that in a was destined to be a preacher or journalist. i combined them.

i have always had a fascination with the role of religion in public life, particularly here in america where it is so rich and paradoxical. in asian with the soul of a church where religion and politics are such intimate bedfellows. then our full the was just right, it like being a student. learning something new every day come extending my horizons, only i got to travel widely and the pay was better. in the early 1990's, when i was an undergraduate at cambridge, only one of two people in my college reading religious studies, i was often asked, usually at parties by slightly inebriated students, why i would choose such a subject. looking puzzled at the

student in their midst because i , thed to become a nun priest was not an option back then. a few years later, sitting at a the bbc service world christmas party weeks after i begun this new trial beats a religion reporter, i was asked i slightly drunk colleague, why are you asking -- why are you interested in religion? i would get that many times over the years. incidentally, a political correspondent does not get asked how they vote. it is not deemed to affect their reporting at the bbc, which is route of impartiality where the reporter never inserts himself or herself into a new under extraordinary circumstances. imagine these encounters, giving him a flavor of the bill rabon -- be will ferment as -- be will

wilderment that they would be interested in religion without an agenda. i would embark on a passionate explanation as to what religion mattered in the world in a real and vital way and how we could not come to understand cultures and societies without first starting with what motivated most of the people on the planet, which was their search for meaning. that most deeply held belief and practice. while i did not become a nun or was myt, the studio secular pulpit and the audience was my congregation. in the case of colleague, they were not an easy convert to the value of reporting religion in the news. quite the opposite, in fact. to london fromed studying and reporting in the united states and i was working

freelance for the bbc as a general news reporter and producer. a couple of editors asked me to trial a new role as religion reporter. they had little backing, knew it was a risky proposition and there were few thrown my way. i was given a desk, a quick tour of the studio and four weeks to see if i could find some interesting news to justify the post. two-putted in context, there was a religion department at the bbc which produced well-regarded tv and radio programs on religion and ethics for the domestic audience. there was also a religion department at the bbc world service which was well staffed with producers and would put out several programs a week. some of you might remember focus on faith, reporting religion, heart and soul. but there was no correspondent to cover religion in the mainstream news.

it was a subject that was clearly marked "religion." something the bbc had to wear to it was something that they had to wear to fulfill requirements, but should not invade the superior news space. at that point, they considered t something close to the parish news, churchy, and not to be taken too seriously, or in some cases, not at all. there were some producers who were so anti-god, as they sought, that i knew it would be virtually pointless trying to get a piece on the program, at least, short of, the pope is dead. [laughter] which, by the way, was the one religion story that the bbc dedicated vast resources to for many years , in fact, before pope john paul ii, before they provided us with the news. by which time, the powers that

be could not afford it, and cnn got the best spot. and i spent several memorable weeks up the ladder. as a further aside, i am never given the luxury of that in broadcasting, so i'm relishing footnote potentials here. that event was handled in a very similar way to the recent death and funeral of nelson mandela. both he and john paul were towering figures whose passing sparked much reverential reflection on their lives. in these cases, as well as royal deaths, births, weddings, closer to help, the bbc relishes their role as the nation's, and to some extent, the globe's, world broadcaster. interpreter and purveyor of meaning to the matters. ? anyway, back to my earlier point about the facility toward religion in the news environment. religion was held to a different standard. i had to prove i did not have an agenda. i had to work extra hard at the morning meeting to show why a story was relevant. and meanwhile, an editor could

later reveal personal bias against a new story, in ways that probably would not have happened with an art piece, and certainly would not have done so with one on politics. i do not mean to make my colleagues sound stupid. they definitely were not, but many were older, schooled in 1960's britain, and had embraced the secularization ypothesis. religion was backward, anti-progress, and society as a developing got more educated, would relegate believes to the midsection at the back of the bookstore, or in our case, to the bottom of the news roundup. in those weeks, i was often stopped in the fourth floor corridor by one cardigan wearing hack with the same joke, how is god today? the joke soon wore thin. at the other end of the spectrum, there were one or two in the morning news meetings who took my subject very seriously, indeed, i was seen as a

adjunct theologian. i'll never forget one 9:00 a.m. meeting, packed with those who ran the language services, mostly middle-age men, and they were exchanging views on how to cover the death, just announced of the cambodian dictator, and one man, a decent local journalists, turned to me and suggested that i write a dispatch, that was a one-minute news piece on the problem of evil. all eyes were trained on me, the new girl on the block, and i took a very deep breath and thought we might need a four-part documentary slot for that. it was a milestone of sorts. many in the room saw the man's suggestion as mildly absurd, and as a test of my news judgment, which i guess i passed. from then on i felt things got a little bit easier, though not less hectic because i was on this mission to prove that religion was of interesting and relevant as politics, that in

fact it often overlapped with and often undergirded political events and i had four weeks to prove it. i'd no idea what was expected of me so i would come in at 5:00 a.m. to record features and turnout news dispatches on multiple subjects. it was everything from buddhist monks writing in thailand, to sectarian tensions ring in jesuit ng in kosovo, to astronomers gazing at the stars near rome, to a mormon temple going up in northern england, which i traveled to, and where i sought the views of the locals. i spoke with an old man, wearing a cloth cap, who gazed up at the structure and proclaimed, it's a bloody eyesore. that remains my favorite. eventually, as the last day as my period dawned, that same cardigan hack came up to me and

i based my cell for the anticipated, how is god today? instead he said, it is quite interesting, religion, isn't it? surprised, i concurred and he said, i thought you'd just be reporting on the archbishop of canterbury's sermons. my first convert. it was quite a victory to savor. and often gave pause for thought. clearly many did think of my beat as religious news rather than religion in the news. in fact, i would say the topics i covered over those 10 years as religion corpte and later as editor and presenter, would break down into two basic categories. the obvious religion story. the pope is dead. the gay bishop is elected. and the category two story. how and why religion might fit into political and cultural events unfolds in various parts

of the world? clearly there prl overlaps between the two, not least in the election of the first openly gay bishop in the world. that was an event that would mark a key moment in the culture wars, which sent shockwaves around the community. aided and abated by the media the new digital media was speeding up the news and amplifying the reaction. the aftereffects of that election are still being felt, not the least in other denominations where the gay issue had been fought over internally, mirroring what's happening in wider society. just this week, we saw the u.s. supreme court plays a hold on gay marriages in utah. sorry. let me say that again. gay marriages in utah. if you told me, as i watched robinson's cons cration as bishop in hampshire that 10 years later a conservative mormon utah would become the 17th to allow gay marriage, i would be

rendered speechless, so dramatic was the cultural shift here, and elsewhere in the last decade. more than a dozen countries have gay marriage, and is about to become the law in england and wales. journalists, like everyone, are scrambling to keep up with the rapid flow of events. so there is no bold line between the two types of stories, religion, and yes religion plays a part, but as a general rule, i found the category two story to be the more interesting, one where i could add value, and that was where the bbc world service came into it. it takes those longer formats with more air time to allow the sort of space required to explain issues of identity, sectarianism, where religion or theology might or might not play a part in stories of the day. i got to make many documentaries on anti-semitism in europe, on the dalai lama, and exiled tibetans, on

revolution and reform in islam in turkey, iran and elsewhere. that was in the year 2000. and countless others that let me explore, ask questions. my thesis was that reformists were on the top in iran. was a couple of weeks later. it was undermined, when many were jailed. but even in terms of the news bulletins, i would often get the second slot on a story, the one that gave some context to the news piece above it. the domestic news bulletins at the bbc don't have that luctry, neither do they have over here. the world services i joined did. it was a deeply rewarding, enriching, and challenging a few years. i should mention that the newsroom manager did call me in and tell me to come back again after those first four weeks, and another, and another, so i remained on short-term contract, now practically the only contract out there,

sprinting constantly from one story to the next, in my bid to prove mine and the beat's worth. i was made staff eventually in the spring of 2001 and promptly collapsed with an exhaustion-related illness. that september i'd be lying on my sofa at home watching the news event that would dwarf all others and then undermine the value of having the religion specialist on staff. some news outlets, such as the associated press, already had one. many others soon added them. and so islam suddenly thrust itself into the western news agenda and the tragic events of september 11 have the unintended consequence of creating more religion reporter jobs, at least for a while. ey were in some ways the halcyon days for religious correspondence herein there was a widespread attempt to understand islam, as a security threat and a religion, one which turned out to be far more complicated.

than most -- was given much air and print time. a lot of the coverage was very negative of islam, particularly in the tabloid press, encouraged by politicses who painted an sometimes still paint islam as the boogieman. but there was a genuine asset to grabble with a phenomenon that the western media had not spent much time on. that was swiftly joined by the scandal of the sexual abuse of children by roman catholic clergy, one that was broken in the united states by a team of reporters at "the boston globe," with the expertise and resources to expose the abuse and cover-up in the boston archdiocese. their coverage of the criminal prosecutions of priests prompted other victims to come er pattern of wide abuse and cover-up became clear. the scandal rapidly spread to other nations, notably to catholic europe, where the governments of countries such as ireland, produced damming report into systematic cover-ups within the church hierarchy.

that story, more than any other i can think of, show the power -- shows the power of an informed and well-resourced media. it challenged religious authority in a profound way. it changed reverential attitudes toward priest. it forced some changes in the way the church did business, yet not enough for many catholics who voted with their feet and left the pews. i think of the response of the hierarchy to the disgrace of boston's cardinal law, cardinal bernard law. i should say disgrace in the secular sphere, because far from being quietly demoted, he was given an up appointment in rome. the media's coverage was so critical of the roman catholic leadership, which continued to obfuscate, to a lesser or greater degree, that few could ever imagine a reversal of its fortunes. more on that later.

but in the meantime, pope benedict, which was as cardinal ratzinger had been, had been the cardinal watchdog for a quarter of a century. he was not the man to open the doors, to throw the open, reveal a church ready to embrace transparency or to accommodate modernity. instead, his controversial moves, such as his speech that upset so many muslims and his reinstatement of a holocaust which upset jews, we enforce the mainstream media's view of religion as out of touch. if the media is run by a secular elite, it's viewed of a backward religion so easily affirmed. by the time of ben ticket who assumed the thrown of st. peter in 2005, editors in newsrooms were starting to lose interest in the religion beat. one american reporter, who's covered religion for many

years, reflected that the secular media is largely focused on religion in the public, especially the political sphere, not on religion as religion as lived and practiced within communities. in other words, more for cussed on my type two story. the problem with that approach, he mused, was at the fortunes of the god beat, depends on the ups and downs of the relationship between religion and politics. like me, he was consumed for a while with explaining islam, eporting on gay bishops, the hot button issues of the cultural years, evangelicals in politics, the child abuse crisis. at some point, editor's interest waned. he believed in the case of islam it was because another dreaded 9/11-type event didn't happen and also because islam turned out to be complicated. so editors went off of it because the categories of western discourse didn't fit neatly,

left moderate conservatives, etc., and because of the resources that were needed to try to understand them were not there. he and i both had editors request more coverage on the shiia-sunni split on islam, surely a subject of greater importance now, given the rapid and confusing developments in islam in the middle east. in his case, budgets are no longer there. to do justice to the story, which involves travel and time. in my case, i'm no longer there. i rest the religion beat in the world service in 2006 to work as a washington correspondent and i left it in safe hands. christopher is a very good reporter who also unusually was a theology graduate. he had the expertise and did great reporting, not least on the former archbishop of canterbury's comments that shahrya should have a modern

place in britain. he decided to leave and pursue a vocation as a priest. it was a loss to journalism, but should be a gain to the church which needs more priests who understand how the news media works. the bbc, faced with another round of budget cuts, used his exit as a chance to quietly close the post. there is no religion reporter at the bbc world service, where the largest audiences are still in africa, a continent were audiences do care deeply about religion, where it retains an obvious role in shaping identity. there is no religion department at all. that takes repeating. no religion department at all. even in the rather hostile rather secular climate i faced when i joined, it seemed to be a subject worth covering, even if some thought it believed in its own silo. i think for a publicly funded body which is to form, educate and entertain, it's a sorry state of affairs.

there is one remaining program, and that's "heart and soul." it's not made out of the world service. the producer who makes it is coming out of manchester and he does a great job on a tiny budget. here's my opportunity for shameless plug. you can hear my interview with joshua, president obama's spiritual advisor. he's written a daily devotional for the president each day for five years. and in "heart and soul" for the bbc world service he tells me about the seemingly most secular of presidents and his deep personal faith. elsewhere, a professional religion beat has struck. -- shrunk. for example, "the dallas morning news" which had three religion reporters, a complete religion section no longer has any of those. to a large extent, the for turns of religion reporters have risen and fallen in ways that mirror those of the news outlets they work for. as advertising revenues have

shrunk, so have newsrooms, and the religion beat is often one of the first to go. in the case of the bbc, it's working on tighter funding from the taxpayer. clearly, i don't believe that the religion beat should be the first to go but such is the harsh reality. there are religion reporters at "the new york times," "the washington post" and the "times new london." the bbc's robert does a great job on reporting on religion for domestic tv and radio audiences. meanwhile, as one points out out, where there is no religion reporter in raleigh, north carolina, a job she did very well, by the way, in is still part-time religion reporters elsewhere who split labors between beats. better than nothing. he is now the managing editor of religious news service, which puts out really interesting religious stories each day, funded by donations and grants from institutions that care about religion coverage.

the lily endowment is one. the -- another foundation gave a generous grant to the public radio program of the world, which allowed me to set up a religion editor position that oversaw the creation of more adept -- in depth religion coverage. they follow islam in a changing middle east. david ross recently reflected on how the obituaries for al qaeda in the wake of the arab spring were premature, to say the least. his sobering first line, last year was a good one for al qaeda and for jihadism more broadly. so there is good coverage in the traditional media but the landscape has changed beyond recognition since i started at the bbc. there are few religion specialists left. who cover the global picture, and they include accomplished ones such as bruce clark, a reporter at reuter's. but largely where they exist it's thanks to much-needed help

from foundations. so i think there is a great need for informed coverage of religion and events that touch on it, and i lament the professional passing of so many former colleagues. but i think it's too early to sound the death nail completely and i do see pockets of resurrection, not least at the battered and bruised "boston globe" which this week announced that it hired a vatican watcher. and also added a can not simple section. the media is reflecting a major shift in the west from religious affiliation to a more individual quest for meaning and direct experience. it is also clearly shaping and informing that shift and there are many here in this audience who are more qualified than i am to talk about the ways in hich the media, redefining religious community meaning and practice. what i would say is that this democratizeation of media, as reflected on the online social

media world of blogging and tweeting, is having a big and largely positive impact on the ways in which spiritual experience is being covered. i say spiritual experience because there is a more immediate engagement in the fluid forms of spiritual expression that the are a digsal media has had trouble keeping up -- digital media has had trouble keeping up with. i am talking about religion outside the box stuff. if the traditional media was slow to see the importance of religion in the public political sphere. religion as part of a so-called hard news story, then it is slower to grasp subtle revolution in a secular west where many have dropped the religious belonging of their childhood but not the believing in something other. that's hard to quantify. i'll give you one snapshot of a changing britain as captured in a new podcast series. i was asked to present a launch program in october of

things unseen. a podcast produced by an ex-bbc staffer for an independent company and funded by a charity. and it's focused on attracting an audience interested in faith, spirituality, the idea that there may be more to life than meets the eye. the launch program, recorded in a beautiful cathedral on london's southbank was a panel discussion about spiritual beliefs of modern britain. the survey found that while britain may be a post-christian nation, the former archbishop's words, not mine, it is far from a nation of atheists. spiritual beliefs are found across the board, not just one of those who follow the established faiths. the report found that more than half of british believe that spiritual forces can influence human thoughts or actions or the world around them. and more than 1/3 of the nonreligious hold this belief.

1:6 of those polled say someone they knew had experienced a miracle. many believe in angels. and younger people are, if anything, more likely to hold such beliefs than older ones. in other words, looking at the subject of spirituality or belief through the lens of established faith, no longer affects what is going on, at least in britain and the u.s.. here in the u.s., websites such as the huffington post are reflected in the -- reflecting and informing this development. there is a blurring of the line between analysis and commentary. there are more personal and how-to columns. elsewhere on the web, people are less interested in dogma handed down, and more an individual practice. click on one link on the power of intention or mindful living, and you find your inbox deluged with daily snippets of spiritual wisdom from online gurus.

there is in the new media age, the perfect union of consumerism and spirituality. presiding over it all is the high priestess, someone i have great admiration for by the way, oprah winfrey. for those who have not read it, i recommend, "oprah: the gospel of an icon. which i think beautifully captures a new form of religion taking shape in a new cultural space. and by the way, i think this form of spirituality is often criticized for lacking intellectual depth or communal tradition for coming out of a me, me, me culture. and while there may be justification for that in some areas, i think the criticism tends to come from those whose traditions are threatened by this new religious marketplace, and they tend to overlook the fact that new communities are emerging. it's often virtual communities in, for instance, oprah's book club. conversely, by the way,ate -- atheism tting --

is getting a good airing. richard dawkins -- they're becoming leaders of the movement defining itself against dominant religious culture. amanda has cocks, the editor of bbc editor's sunday program for british audiences, which presents good coverage of global religion, suggests that atheism gets disproportionate coverage these days, the reflection, she wondered, of the secular newsroom. suspect the leader of the alabama atheists would strongly disagree with that. on my way to meet him, i drove the alabama where roadside sides urged me to vote for jesus and when he found me he told me of the crosses that had been planted on his manicured lawn and the abuse his children faced at school because his dad was an atheist. i guess he's enjoying the news that he's not alone. i talked about the positive influence of the digital media,

of the democratization of the media, and that is a good thing. th so many good voices out there. and the flip side, one i believe ran forces my argument that we need more him partial as possible reporting on religion. because while more people are writing and everyone feels they can weigh in on a subject it does mean more biased and ill-informed opinion, especially in an age where the disappearing religious lit are a see in the west, a byproduct of the move away from established religion. social media has been in strictly embraced by islamic extremists. jihadists are tweeting their victory poses from the battlefields. in syria and iraq. establishment voices, authority figures in islam and other mainstream religions have often been left quick to realize the potential of the

digital age, perhaps initially seeing it as a threat or irrelevance, though the vatican did catch up. the new pope has an active twitter account. he's more less -- he's the most talked about person on the internet and the world. just yesterday i got a tweet with a link to him pick up a hitchhiker in st. peter's square. it turned out to be a fellow argentinean priest he recognized in the crowd. they went around the world in an instant. so this brings me to the story you thought i had forgotten about, the one where the roman catholic hierarchy in its deep crisis pulled off the most inspired move. and i speak not thee logically here, but as a journalist. the most inspired move ever by electing the little known man who got away last time, jorge as pope. the catholic hierarchy that had been written off as riddled by

corruption and sexual abuse scandals, and cable of putting the own house together and ever gaining a positive headline again managed to upend that narrative instantly with the election of pope francis. the choice of name, the gestures, the humble living and de tification with the poor mined the political battlefield, as one called it. and then in his response about gay priest he said, who am i to judge? blindsided the news media and won him many converts in unlikely places. his other gestures, the striking symbolism of him washing the feet, hugging a disfigured man, in favor of the simple robes of a poor priest, driving himself around in his old little beaten up car have made him something of a saint to a secular world. perhaps in search of one. and so "time" magazine embraced

him as person of the year and more strikingly, so did the gay magazine, "the advocate." who would have seen any of this coming two years ago, let alone 10, when everything started to go wrong? the big question for the future, can the honeymoon last, as martin marty puts it? arch traditionalists are taking comfort in the fact that the doctrine can't changed and can't do anything more than shift the tone. others on the other side say the opposite. an article by james carol says they do change in the fact that the gee us killed jesus teaching. and the view expressed by one jesuit. style is not just the cover of the book, it's the book itself. i suspect that view might find some sympathy among scholars of media, religion and culture. i'll have a few predictions of

the stories we might see more. the arab spring and the messy aftermath remains huge and what happens in the feuds within islam and the middle east will have an enormous ripple effect beyond those borders. pope mania will continue for a while but we'll get a clearer indication of where this pope is taking his church. not least from the birch bishops of 2014, this year, and the very interesting survey the pope's commission to be discussed there, he wants the views of catholics on remarriage after divorce and contraception. a pope seeking the views of his flock? the timely democratizization of relincoln or its downfall, much heated debate about that. and the culture wars continue to evolve. as a once cohesive religious right here will have alliances across denominations and even religion across borders as they fight for their face in the public sphere. we see battles against religious persecution and for

religious freedom at one end of the spectrum. at the other we see individual rights for the right to wear religious symbols, not to work on the sabbath, service alcohol, etc. more contentiously, we see religious claims of conscience pitted against the civil rights increasingly advanced in secular society. most notably in the question over whether believer's right to religious conscience allows them to discriminate against gays or employees who want contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. these arguments are being played out in the courts. the u.s. supreme court, in the european court of human rights and will continue to do so, reflecting a wider dilemma, succinctly put by a fellow british reporter, can a broadly secular society tolerate the existence of religious subcultures which live by their own self-imposed rules? much to reflect on and greater need than ever, i believe, for the experts to play their role.

because as any religion reporter and keen reader of oscar wilede knows, the truth is rarely pure and never simple but it's worth giving an erring. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, jane. that was very, very interesting as we thought it would be. we have time for questions and answers. with the recording, we would like to have microphones. perhaps you can handle one and we can have a volunteer to handle another one. the floor is open for questions. who would like to begin?

>> hi. thank you for your fascinating lecture. how do you see the role of the media today when there is a gap that is really hard to bridge between religions in europe? you see it on one side, and you mentioned it at the end of the ecture, but i would like you to, if you can, elaborate about it, how do you see the role of the media? does it bridge the gap or make it worse between islam and europe? >> an interesting and tough question. lots to unpack in there. i think there's one story that leaps out at me which incaps capsulats so -- in many angles to the battle between freedom of expression, as some sought in a liberal

western democratic culture which very much strongly supports and defends freedom of expression and versus freedom of religion and people defending their religious rights, their religious world views. the most striking example for me, and it is a few years ago was the prophet mohammed cartoons in denmark. there were so many different angles to that but clearly it infuriated and inflamed so much opinion in the islamic world. the modern media with the digital age soon sent images around the world. we had danish imams traveled to the middle east to share that story of how these 12 cartoons were blasphemous, offended islam and the prophet mohammed. he fact that you cannot even

depict images of the prophet mohammed was bad enough, but images of the bomb was very inflammatory, basically. so that triggered this huge firestorm around the world, as -- we had riots around the world, as you recall. we had killings of people. approximate set off a tragic series of events. it also set off heated debates about the role of the media. about freedom of expression. about the place of religious minorities in europe, about the accommodations that can be made. it was interesting to see people in the western media who didn't necessarily think it was a great idea to publish those cartoons come to the defense of the danish organization that published them because it was about freedom of expression. it was seemed to be a line being drawn in the sand about where the limits of tolerance work of the views of religious minorities. at the time, there were many

muslims who quite reasonably said, hang on, there are some interesting contradictions here. in a europe that's talking about freedom of expression, it also has several countries which outlaw denial of the holocaust. there is a limit to free speech. there were all sorts of interesting debates going on and much bigger snapshots of what was going on with religious communities in europe, and how far europe was prepared to go to accommodate it. that was one example. in terms of what the media's role is, the media was clearly involved in that to some extent. if they were a proponent and defender of free speech. the liberal values the media really cherishes. but there were also pockets of the media where there were interesting discussions going on with dialogue and interfaith. people were getting together trying to calm things down. so that story, the interfaith peace conference, the dialogues is not as broadly covered in a

media that tends to focus on friction, on differences of opinion, on big news events. it is quite hard to sell an interfaith conference to news editors in the newsroom, though think one should try. > in the back. >> is this working? ok. just to stick to that point, you covered religion in the states and europe. there was a time when people were enthralled with the notion of american exceptionalism. but recently they been talking about european exceptionalism, when it comes to religion. right. that is to say, europe is the only place where religion is kind of a bewilledering thing.

the rest of the world is like, yes, that is something people are into. people draw stuff from and europe is the only place where people are like, what is this? you are in a unique position to speak to that, i think. could you speak about that and elaborate on the tension between how we treat religion in the public space in the states as opposed to europe and other parts of the world? >> i think you're right. i've read grace davey who is very good in this area. it is the odd continent out in many regards. i mention the secularization hypothesis and religion in europe was about to die out. we were all postindustrial, getting very progressive and educated and then all of a sudden religion turned around caught europe offguard. if you look at religious attendance in churches, etc., europe's rates are very low.

i lived in the czech republic, prague, which is seemed to be the most atheistic country in the world. 1% or 2% profess any religious belief. it's the odd man out. and coming to america for the first time, it was fascinating to me. america is the embodiment of how wrong the secularization hypothesis was. and yet on the flip side we're getting data that religious affiliation, church going is going down quite a lot in america and we're now getting 12% s of athesits in the which is quite a large category. when you start looking at data it is quite difficult. some of the surveys pose questions such as, do you regard yourself as atheist, agnostic, or something else, nonreligious, and it's in that nonreligious area that i find there is a lot of interesting things to be done because a lot

of people would say that spiritual but not religious. there are a lot of people who are interested in, for nstance, next month there is a wisdom 2.0 conference where they're advertising online and they're talking about the intersection of the digital -- wisdom in the digital age and they're talking about wisdom leaders that you can go and see, you can go to yoga rooms, meditation. there is an inspiration village. eckhart tolle is there. they are being touted as wisdom leaders. people are in search of this more lived experience. i'll quote from the program. "join us how to understand how to live with more presence in the digital age." some interesting things are happening.

i agree with you that europe is very much the odd continent out, in some ways. > because of your professional background, media coverage you concentrated on the news, how it's being covered in the news. can you talk about the entertainment part of media? for example, father ted. will we be watching in the future? do you think there is a kind of a mission that only the news coverage but at the same time entertainment part of it, coverage of religion? thank you. >> i was invited to high-level gathering at the bbc. all departments, news, entertainment, everybody was invited to think about religion in a different way and reflecting the audiences more. i think there was a sense that religion had come back out of nowhere as it never really gone away but religion came on the

scene very explosively especially with 9/11 and the fallout from that. the news editors and editors of all the departments, arts, entertainment, science, drama, got together and try to discuss ow to better reflect the views of the audiences to try to give a fuller picture of what was going on, and come it religion from different angles. of course that was a very topdown approach and i think it had a very mix success. so for a while you started to see dralmas, soap operas like "east enders" which has been on for years start to tackle some of these religious themes. there might be a muslim character. there might be a gay character. there were ethical issues worked out. they did try. i am not sure i agree with a

top-down approach. interest waned. it moved on. i am a big fan of father ted, e is a tearcal comedy -- satirical comedy. it was great. i wish there were more of it. >> i will take the privilege of the chair and try question of my own. i've always been interested in the discourse of religion journalism, and the problem of evaluating journalism. one of the reasons why journalists are reluctant to cover religion, is because "there are so many of them. and you have to choose between them. and that sort of thing. so i'm wondering whether you think that situation will change in this new era you're talking about where more and more religious expression can kind of well up through social interaction, through digital media and whether, because it's no longer framed

authoritatively by media voices, or editorial , you know, decision-making, whether there will be more discourse comparing them? is there one better than that one and that sort of thing? >> very interesting. i think yes, yes. you know, in this new digital age, we will see more of that, more the religion outside the box. i think traditional media continues to struggle, certainly in terms of the news culture that i have come out of. because when you have a story that breaks, a news story, and it is evaluated for the value as a news event, there is a reflexive approach that looks for the leaders to speak to, the authority figures. well, that is breaking down in these wisdom conferences and elsewhere in the more democratized space. the digital media is more receptive to other voices who

be aren't the archbishops, aren't the imams, aren't the rabbis. i have faith that, if i am covering a hard news story, when i was religion corpte, ere would be great receptivity to me covering suicide bombings. i would be asked again, to the point got sick of it, having to explain that the elegy of suicide bombing, and go to the people who could talk authoritatively about how it doesn't fit with mainstream islam, etc. to e was less receptivity the touchy-feely stuff. and the spirituality. audience interest was huge. we did not have those ways of gauging it. but there was a great deal of audience interested in a series

that dealt with demographics and the way that religion had evolved. there was a postreligion religion evolving in secular europe. there was a lot of interest in that sort of thing. i think there is still, in a very structured media environment, and traditional media, there is this natural urge to go and seek out the uthority structure, when the authority, the leaders, the voices of the authority, when they're not there, they're left scratching their heads a little bit. this is an ingrained bias against -- and i touch on this. the feeling that oprah winfrey and everything going on in the internet, and he new spirituality out there, that it is intellectual. and that it doesn't justify much news coverage, there is a bit of that going on. win i was presenting a program, i would be trusted to be a regular journalist if i was interviewing the

archbishop of canterbury. i would be putting the tough questions to him and would be trusted to do so, but if there was somebody else there who was a little bit more sore airy-fairy, wafty spirituality, i was told to really go hard on them because of this sort of suspicion of it and the fact that it really wasn't that justified religion, if you'd like. >> you started to answer some of my question there. i was just wondering, you are talking earlier about defending the religious beat with the bbc. i was wondering how you see journalists defending their coverage of rising media religious practices. you use the term out of box religion. and i was wondering how they they will address issues of authenticity with new religious

experiences. if you had thoughts on that, thanks. >> i think it's quite hard for religion journalists to go into these areas. for instance, when i was a eligion correspondent, i was unraveling whether a war was sectarian or religiously rooted. we all know that it bleeds together. sectarian identity issues, it is hard to unpick them. at the same time i had to justify why the religion correspondent was talking about it. sometimes i'd bat a story away. actually it's more about economics or ethnicity or it could just inflame issues if you talk about religion because religion is in some ways the oil being poured on the fire but it's not what started the fire. i spent a lot of my beat trying define in my own head what was a religion story and what was not. at the same time i was trying to find myself out the box and

talk about interesting developments that you are referring to. it is a difficult one to navigate. i think it is happening. but one of the problems with the shrinking of the religion beat and the experts watching what's going on in our world is there's nobody spotting the trends. if you don't have a religion correspondent there reading and writing about them, then nobody is seeing what's coming up along the road and there's nobody really with that sort of expertise to figure out where things are heading. so i think it's a real problem there. and when you had a religion correspondent on the beat looking at, for instance, the gay bishop story, gene robinson, it almost came out of nowhere and yet it didn't because some of us were reading about it, knew it was going to happen, were able to respond in a different way. i think if you don't have the experts out there reading, talking to the experts, really sort of -- in my world i would like to see more bridges built between reporters and the

cademy and policy experts. to get everyone talking together. and then reporters naturally reflect more of what is going on in the world. and that's why you need religion specialist reporters. i am not saying they are the only voices. i am not suggesting you need an authority figure or the archbishop. i think it is great that there are more and more voices out there. but i think you do need some sort of ability to contextualize, give nuance to a story and that it is one of those areas which is quite hard to accumulate that. not that it's harder to be a religion correspondent than a political correspondent. it's a different job. and you're less reacting to daily events than crafting features and thinking about ways in which religion, spirituality is changing.

>> thank you, jane, for a wonderful, wonderful presentation. there are so much concern about the business model of journalism. you talked about the podcast , things unseen, that's funded in sort of a nontraditional way. i'm just wondering, is there a future for religion journalism moving forward? is there enough interest and nontraditional funding that would go into this kind of reporting? >> i think -- i mean, i'm invested in it because it's produced by friends who are coming out with great stories that i've long wanted to report on and they're giving me work so i should mention that. in fact, i'm off to arizona spirituality bout

and health issues that i'm interested in. i'm interviewing dr. andrew about mind, body, spirit medicine, and a cherokee medicine man who became a friend of mine, who is a fascinating man and widely read across different religious and spiritual traditions. and we are going to be talking about native american spirituality in particular, cherokee. there is a forum being provided that was not provided in the old traditional noom settings. -- newsroom settings. that is great for people interested in it. i think it should be funded, and it is being funded. it is fabulous that it is being funded. but it is difficult to raise money in this harsh environment. it is wonderful that there are big endowment. the lily endowment and the ford foundation and all these organizations out there are becoming absolutely vital if we want this kind of coverage to continue. and there are smaller funders in britain doing the same

thing. these podcasts are done on a shoestring and are not making you rich, but it is rewarding and enriching in other ways. >> i will do one more. you don't have to answer this. but i'm wondering whether you thought about the question of whether some religions get more or better coverage than others? are there religions that get more and better and why? why is that? >> i guess while i'm talking from a western perspective and my experience in the media here. i think the coverage has changed but it has traditionally been in the olden days quite reverential toward christianity. in the bbc that i joined, and the section of the bbc in the religious department there were a lot of christian devotional programs put out.

and even on the news side of things which was about religion in the news it was and still to a certain extent is largely about christianity. that reflects the audience in the domestic sphere because it is still quite a church audience that listens to the program. i would be constantly pushing the boundaries will but, very interested in covering different religions. as i mentioned in my talk, islam has got a real beating in the press for a long time. i think and hope that has hanged quite a bit, especially in the bbc, and the npr. interesting reporting on islam, but islam remains a big challenge i think for us because it remains, to a certain extent, in much of the media, foreign. and people do try to fit it into categories, discourse that doesn't fit it. it was interesting after 9/11 to see western governments, such as the british government

and after 7/7, the london bombings, if you remember, they went out looking for the moderate voices of islam and ry to co-opt certain groups that did not go down very well in many muslim communities. and they looked at sufis. they said they are great. they are great. well, sufis have a quite traditional view of the koran and women's rights. i would like to see fuller coverage that gives all angles of the story. but certainly islam became the news because of negative news events. and it's much harder to get into initiatives that are happening within islam and within between religions that are positive developments. such as the common word initiative that's happening within islam. i know that tony blair's faith foundation is very involved trying to encourage engagement as well as look at the role of relidge only in foreign policy,

an area he believes has been underassessed for many years when people look at the ideologies and different economic circumstances but not looking at religious causes and the outshoot of the tony blair initiative and all of that was all these initiatives to bring young people together to talk religion. and that's very interesting, but it's quite hard to sell as ews stories. >> 9/11 wasn't the thing which was given a boost to islam and the coverage of islam. the truth of the matter is barry gunther, in his book, bbc atching," which is domestic religion coverage, showed in the early 1990's questions -- which questioned different groups, christian,

non-christian, including islamic listeners and viewers, asked questions like, if you want more, what happens when religion comes, do you turn over? it was always islam, which all the religion sectors that said no, we want more, more, more. so signals about the imam for morris lamb was well before 9/11. have you read barry gurnter's report? >> quite. there were those reporting on islam before 9/11. i mentioned the revolution and reform of islam series i was doing. a lot of other people were talking about it but it just wasn't -- it was almost like it suddenly caught the news editors at the top. we're playing catch-up. that unfortunately happens quite a lot as a reactive environment in the media. more than it should be. and again that's why i think it's great to have specialists because there it can be less reactive and more proactive on

the things you report on. >> we have time for one more. two more. three more. all right. june park first and then dennis and then our friend in the front. so we'll start over here to my left. > i did -- i did research on religion in the context of korea. what i found interesting is that most of the time, journalism with religion, sometimes they do cover religion in a positive manner. i found that they have kind of expectations of religion. what religion can do for society. can you tell me one or more experiences where -- when you do cover religion and why you decided to do that? >> i would say i didn't set out with an agenda but this is a positive story. but there has been tragic stories out of which some very positive messages have come

from communities, christian communities and a couple of instances i can think of. so we had the july 7 bombings n london, tragic events, underground bombing and bus and a young man was killed in the london bus bombing and i approached his mother, marie williams, and of course as a human being i felt a little bit reluctant. here's a woman in full grief for her only son and yet i've heard she had a deep christian faith, the catholic cathedral she attended gave me her number. i asked permission from her to get the number and she gave the most moving interview i've ever done in my life. this was within 24 hours of losing her son in this bombing. and the interview went out on the very -- on the morning news

program on bbc radio called "today," which is usually a editorial versus politician, three minutes of hard fighting over political issues of the day. this went out about eight minutes, and really stunned mainstream audience and a lot of ed torts because she talked in great depth and with huge heart about her son and about the impact of the bombings on her family but also about her deep christian faith, how she forgave the bombers. this is 24 hours later. and of how she prayed for the bomber's families. it was a really, really moving event that came out of something that was a real -- a tragic case and you could just have focused on here we go again and looking at sort of the negatives of religion but this was something that was very, very positive and very moving came out of it.

and in those sorts of situations, when i was washington correspondent a few years ago, there was the tragic shootings in amish country in that was a fascinating example of the media rushed there. all the hosts of the evening news channels were there. satellite trucks parked. all of these satellite trucks and journalists standing there purporting. also, when you interviewed the families who have lost their children in tragic shooting and they can talk about forgiveness and the bible told them to believe a certain approach things stood still.