you don't even have to give the website and e-mail address. just a username and a password. this is good because it gives you accountability. if you are logged in, every edit you make is tracked to that account. i mean this not confused with edits made by other people. you can as tablets, yes, i am a good community member, and even though i am -- you can establish, yes, i am a good committee member, and even though i am editing from this same building as this jerk over here, my edits and hit -- his edits are different. that can keep others from saying, you did this good at it here, and here, but you did these terrible ones, so we are blocking you. having your own user account is important. another thing you can do is right on your own user page. it is kind of like your profile, and you can write on that just like any other profile about yourself will serve you can

write who you are on this page. you can say, i am bob, i work for congressman such and such, and i'm interested in these fields. you can say what your credentials are. like, i have a bachelors degree in agricultural economics will so that it interesting for anyone who read your edits, because they can say, o, they studied this in school. they know a lot about it. you can give you credentials. establishing editor accounts also improves other people's perceptions of you, because you show more commitment to the website. people take you more seriously. they can also reward you by giving you these things called barn stars, or cookies. that can be good. it also allows you to build relationships with people. by doing that, you establish that you want to join this community and be in good standing. the next thing you could do is if you are really unsure and you really don't want to make any mistakes, because you could edit on the talk page instead of on the main page. behind every wikipedia article is a page called a talk page.

that is for people, editors to write about the article without writing the article. they can say, hey, i found this paragraph in here and it is total junk and it's a bunch of lies by our filthy appointment -- opponent, and we want it taken out. and the editor would say, well, you shouldn't say filthy dog -- filthy, but i think you're right. or they can have this whole huge battle. you can be more cautious right on the top page. if you're ready to go anything you have good information and you will contribute well and are comfortable with doing it, you can just edit the main page and make sure you cite your sources. wikipedia, and i think i listed this on the worksheet, has very clear guidelines for what good and bad sources are. anything from the mainstream media pre-much counts as a good source. -- pretty much counts as a good source, and from books and journals, things like that.

if you cite your sources, use neutral phrasing, and say, this is such and such group or persons opinion instead of saying "this is true," then you have been helpful. most have a watch feature. you can -- if you are logged in as a user, you can watch a page. which means if you go to your watch pay -- your watch list, you can go to the most recent edits from the last three to seven days that are on your watch list. people can watch the page you did, and if they grew -- if they agree with your edits, they will let it go. if they hate your edits, they can change them immediately. that is one of the best parts about wikipedia. it is a self-governing society, and it protects you and your opponents, and cuts down on some of the political fighting because people are viewing what you're doing, and they can undo

your work if you are not behaving appropriately. >> yeah, i would say, if it's a bill that you have an ax to grind, you definitely have a conflict there. it is important to try to maintain a neutral point of view, which is another policy. yes, top ages, people don't know that they are there, but yes, please, let's use them. there is a process we are supposed to follow called edit, revert, talk. if someone reverts your edits, please don't am revert. it then you are edit warring. please go to the talk page and try to engage in a discussion about what your issues are. the idea is that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia that is based on facts. and we are going to now have a meta-discussion about what the facts are, and then try to

mediate with the best references are to make an argument about what the facts are. >> i think the panel did a good job of talking about how people who are knowledgeable can become more engaged, and improve public and government, essentially. i think what is on most staffers mind -- i'm not really being paid to engage in public debate. what benefits are there to congressional staffers, and maybe can clarify with some bills that are being attacked in the media. could you elaborate on war tangible benefits that would encourage a staffer to go out and become more engaged? >> i think the battle over legislation, and i think most people know this, it is largely fought and built on a terrain that is built out of talking point.

it is a contest of talking points, a contest of getting favorable constituencies or authorities to weigh in on your side. it is really not as high a quality debate as we all would like to have. i think wikipedia allows you to provide information and allows for the public, the actual constituents, to access information and make up his or her own mind. i think quality articles about bills will convince or dissuade people on the merits, and all of them will be happier with the opportunity to do that than they are now where there opportunity is to choose what team they are on, or what ideology is theirs. there are facts about what is happening in congress. there are fax that can be gathered -- there are facts that can be gathered and arguments that can be organized.

there doesn't seem to be a lot of opportunity for a lot of folks, because again, that is -- the consensus out there is actually anger in discomfort. and to indicating with the people in the land is actually what often brings back that discomfort or anger. but i think you will find people are motivated and concerned about wanting what is best for the country, and they are more willing to work toward consensus than they were would fight. most of what happens in this debate is about fighting. but there's a great mass of people out there who want what is best for the country and they want a way to productively work toward that. i think, informing them through wikipedia would facilitate that kind of democratic deliberation. >> yes?

>> there have been some questions around the twitter bot. and in the last couple of weeks, there have been questions about edits in the house, ip addresses being blocked. do you think this discourages people from editing because congress edited x, y, and z, or does it encourage people in general you are >> on the whole, i think it's good to congress edits twitter bot, because it spurs discussion. the discussion is profitable and worth having. on the other hand, it is not a full win, because there are anonymous edits that are not as good, and certainly not as well trusted as edits by users who are logged in.

anonymous edits coming from the hill, they are immediately cast with the likelihood that there are low quality edits and inappropriate edits that have to be reversed. i don't know the intentions of the designer of the bot, but perhaps it was to show that congress is monkeying around with wikipedia. there is another way to do things, and that is why we created wiki bill. it's in the same spirit. i don't think congress edits are all bad. but wiki bills, our bot, is just meant to show edits happening to legislation. it doesn't matter whether it is coming from the hill, anonymous, or not. there's a fair amount of editing happening, but not enough. the more people follow wiki bills, the more they will be aware of what is happening and inclined to participate on the hill and off. it is a net positive because it's for discussion and inspired our own wiki bills. the starting point is that the editing from congress is a

negative. nothing that can be reversed. we can have high quality, careful editing of wikipedia that would be a very good thing for transparency. >> the twitter bot made a lot of news, because it's easy and it's automated. but again, you had the same problem in 2006 with ip editing. the story could have been written anyway, even without bot. and part of this is a volunteer at mintz who block network -- volunteer administrators who block network i fees --ip's. after all, they blocked the d.c. public library, too. it's not like they are picking on capitol hill. it's that they see a problem and they want to address it. >> could you both discuss the

policy called "don't bite the newbie"? maybe that will encourage people to edit. >> this is another policy that i'm afraid all of the older wikipedians have forgotten about. i keep fighting this battle myself, trying to get people to be more friendly to new editors. and there are a lot of issues, such as the tea house, and we do a lot of this at our local events. keep in mind, this is a cultural thing going on among average wikipedians, that they will tend to view new editors as spammers and whatnot. you will have to build up some report to prove yourself, which is unfortunate -- some rapport, which is unfortunate. >> there is a guideline "don't be a jerk to someone just starting out." hopefully, you would not be a jerk if you were there for a

long time. but wikipedia was having some trouble recruiting new editors, and part of that was because they would recruiting editor and they would not do that great because they did not do well with the editing tools or the secret code that goes on behind the scenes, and they would get yelled at or have all of their edits reverted, and they would never come back to the site. the tea house that he mentioned is a message board to be friendly to new people. i also encourage, sign up as a user. get your own username because then you can write on your talk page that says "high, i knew, and i would like advice and help. and if you have a problem with one of my edits, please talk to me about it and we can have a discussion." i found this very much to be true. i was being persecuted or hunted by this particular user who

renamed every article that i started because he didn't like the naming convention that i was following. we had it out after about six months of him editing every single one of my pages every day. that was eventually resolved. but if you do join, it -- don't let a handful of crazy people on the internet keep you from joining and being helpful and joining in with the community. talking to the people in the trinity, talking to myself, talking to other editors. there are people who want to -- talking to the people in the community, talking to myself, talking to the editors. there are people who want to help you. >> i don't know if it is done, but you could almost create a taxonomy of wikipedians. there are some who have a technical specialty, fixing a certain element of every article.

and they are indifferent to what the article is. it is some convention and they will fix it to where all the articles are polished to some particular convention. and in there seemed to be a wikipedians -- the wikipedians that feel a certain way about a certain issue. we had some folks with a certain ownership because they had been the only ones there and they were doing good work and contribute in positively or productively. but one or two people can only do an incomplete job of this. when michelle came and started working there -- she had edited before, obviously, but the new kid on the block treatment was what she got. okuma you will not be around for that long. here is how we do it. -- o, you will not be around for that long. here is how we do it. but her persistence and care in addressing forthrightly what the

issues are, and encouraging and inviting conversation on talk pages rather than going to battle, she established herself, michelle, as an experienced and known editor. if people don't like an edit, they can go and look and see who this person is. she has a lot more credit with the community now. it is deep history now. you build experience. you build as an editor on wikipedia and you will be a stronger editor. your first day or two on the job will probably not be very comfortable. public policy tends to have a lot of high temperatures around it, some people will be very suspicious about it in the early going. but stay with it and building history and you will establish a reputation on wikipedia. but i will help you. >> michelle will help you. -- >> i will help you. >> michelle help you. >> you were saying that they kept going back and changing what you had to say.

is there a specific group that has this ability to go and review what you are about to publish before he goes online? how does the process work echo -- how does the process work? >> when you get your user account, you get different user privileges. there's a small group of about 1000 people who are administrators. they can block users for violations of policy. usually, if someone is being a vandal, just going in and editing articles to include curse words, deleting an entire article, or just general mischief, there is a series of warnings that you post to their user page, and after a certain number of warnings, they are blocked for a certain length of time. often, with congress people's pages, if there is an edit war going on there, or someone has been adding very demeaning material that is incorrect and

does not belong in a babbler fee, they can put a block on -- belong in a biography, they can put a block on a page fraser did their time frame, like two weeks or months or something like that. if you are personally having a problem with someone chasing you down or harassing you, or if there is a situation where it needs to be blocked, there are ways to bring that sort of visit to kuwait and -- that sort of situation to an administrator and they can deal with it. >> typically, any editor can revert any edit. in general. but then there are exceptions. typically, if an editor is interested in the same topic matter, you will find yourself editing a lot of the same articles.

there are dispute resolution processes to follow. and then yes, if a certain article is a subject of dispute, and it is not being resolved on the talk page, then yes, certain and ministers will come by and, perhaps put locks on, and maybe even sanctions if people act out too much. there are whole levels of peak -- of things that happen to people. >> in general, let's say, someone adds one sentence to the article. you want to say "this bill passed the house today in a vote of x to y." all you would have to do is go to the page, whether you are logged in or not. if you log in, the edit will be credited to you. if you do not login, it will be edited to the ip address. you scroll down and hit the site button --cite button and it adds your citation.

and then there is the boxed with the updated vote tally. then you hit save, and is done. that is the simplest way to edit. like the edits go live as soon as you save them. -- >> the edits go live as soon as you save them. there was some discussion about having a preview of changes by administrators, but that is not on wikipedia. other languages do other things. some german wikipedia has done some of that. right now, if you want to edit, typically, you can change things on the fly, or live. >> how will you ensure people understand the credibility of the page you are reading? i use wikipedia every day, but i never add anything. i never knew about conflict of

interest or that kind of thing. how do you understand that the users understand how the pages are being maintained? will you make sure you understand how pages are being maintained? >> one thing the community does is if there is dispute about the neutrality of the article, at the top of the article someone will have edited template that gives you an alert notice that says that the neutrality of this article is under dispute. two it -- to a certain degree it is reader beware. all of the citations are in the footnotes of the text if they want to know a citation is true they can find the footnote. occasionally there is a way, if another editor reads it and says i'm not sure that this fact is true, they can add a "this needs

citation" notation. beyond that, it is just a reader beware system. >> it is a problem that the average reader does not understand what is all behind the backend. a lot of the editor hold your tongues to be tour this other -- editor culture tends to be toward the other editors. part of what we do is deal with local cultural institutions and educational foundations. it is a long and big problem going forward for wikipedia. >> there have been some studies

done comparing the reliability and accuracy of wikipedia to other formally written by advanced degree holders scholars encyclopedias. i think they found that wikipedia was just as reliable as other encyclopedias. there is a list somewhere of scholarly research done on wikipedia. it is more accurate than you may fear. >> we do have some allies oust reached -- nice out reach brochures. again, the average reader tends to not get that. we are trying to explain it as we go along. >> that is another reason it is important to have people in this audience. you have expertise and you

should share that with this world. >> can you tell you write neutrally about a bill? >> when i write a piece of legislation, we have a skeleton that we use that includes the sample box we want to put in which is info, just dates and people. a background section, a provisions of section, th congressional budget officee section report. the procedural history, and then the debate section. really the debate section is probably the most controversial

section and the most non-neutral place that you could have problem's. for the provisions, whenever available i just use the commercial summary. i wiki link all of the nouns, counting on crs to be neutral for me. the congressional budget office, i use their info, and i used these governmental institutions with responsibilities to write about this legislation. with the debate, that is one of the places i would like to see more everything happened. so often, it is easy to find what one side is saying about the bill, and not to find with

the other side is saying. especially with bills that pass under suspension. the people who want, who got their bill passed, are very proud and pleased to announce it and say look at this great thing we did. it is easy to find what they say, it is harder to find the organization who has some great objection to it and say what they say. in terms of being a neutral i try to decide who said it -- to cite who said it, so you know you're getting this persons up e-mail rather than presenting the opinion as true facts. other than that, people read the article, and they will help me to change it. >> in a lot of respects the article skeletons are the beginning of reporting. you say who said what on both

sides. people can follow those links if they want to. part of the goal of this event, and our push to get congressional staff and other interested people, is to get further into the debate of who said what on each side. here are the current social, economic facts. here is what the bill would do, and that is also contestable. it is something that the article could flesh out and handle. the result would be an improvement in the state of affairs in the country, on one side, or it would not on the other. these are things that we should cap be out, there is no snap of the figures and in every wikipedia articles fully

informative. but by getting a cohort of people who are highly knowledgeable and good editors will start to see higher quality articles that go deeper into what a bill does. what the circumstances are now, how it would affect his, and what the outcome would be. >> just to be circular, we can save the washington post, and put a sentence in there about with the washington post said. there is a certain level of adding references on the newspaper level, and then the next that is to go to the scientific papers. we will try to find academic studies with support statements. that is the next level of quality as we go along.

>> we are just about out of time. thank you were coming. if you work on the hill as a congressional staffer, you care about the well-being of our republic, hopefully this battle has encourage you to become more involved in wikipedia editing and improve the debate. michelle is already on record as saying she will help you. i'm sure that the jims will not mind helping as well. if you have any questions, we will stick around. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

thisre are highlights for weekend -- friday in primetime, we will visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from this year's new york ideas forming living a cancer biologist. 'with charlie&a wrangle. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, "in depth." saturday on "afterwards tomko retired neurosurgeon. eastern,ght at 11 p.m. lawrence goldstone on the competition between the right brothers and. a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. 200rday night at 8:00, the anniversary of the battle of bladensburg. sunday at 8:00 p.m., white house

chief of staff talk about how presence make decision and finer television schedule one week edit www.c-span.org -- an advance at www.c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. on the next washington journal, a look at how the obama administration has been handling events in the middle east and ferguson, missouri. that, we continue our weeklong discussion on president lyndon johnson's great society with patricia harrison, president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting and will talk about the public road testing act that was signed by president johnson in the 1960's. we will also hear from the former center for medicare services administrator tom scully about the creation of medicare under lbj and we will take your phone calls and look

for your comments on facebook and twitter live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. up next, president obama gives an update on the situation in iraq. he also talks about the police shooting of michael brown and ferguson, missouri and subsequent protests there. >> good afternoon, everybody. earlier today, i received an update from my team on two separate issues that i've been following closely. our ongoing operations in iraq, and the situation in ferguson, missouri. with respect to iraq, we continue to see important progress across different parts of our strategy to support iraqi government and combat a threat from the terrorist group isil. first, our military operations are effectively protecting our personnel in iraq. they have successfully pushed back the terrorist's.

meanwhile, we have provided arms and assistance to iraqi forces, including the kurdish fighters on the front lines. today, with our support to the iraqi and kurdish forces took a major step forward by recapturing the largest dam in iraq near the city of mosul. it fell under terrorist control earlier month and is vital to our objective of protecting americans in iraq. if that dam was breached to make could have proven catastrophic with floods that would've threatened the lives of thousands of civilians, and endanger our embassy compound in baghdad. iraqi and kurdish leaders were on the ground and performed with courage and determination. this demonstrates that iraqi and kurdish forces are capable of working together in taking the fight to isil. if they continue to do so, they

will have a strong support of the united states of america. second, we are working to build an international coalition to address the humanitarian crisis in northern iraq. even as we help thousands of yazidis escape the violence at mount sinjar, many more are still at risk. we will work with the iraqi government, as well as partners like the united kingdom, canada, france, italy, and australia, to get food and water to people in need and to bring long-term relief to people who have been driven from their homes. third, we will continue to pursue a long-term strategy to turn the tide against isil by working with the iraqi government and with key partners in the region and beyond. we have a new prime minister designate there, haider al-abadi, and the outgoing prime minister maliki agreed to step down.

this peaceful transition is a milestone in iraq's political development. but, as i think we are all aware, the work is not yet done. for the next few weeks, dr. abadi needs to complete a broad-based plan for the iraqi government, one that addresses the interests of all iraqis. without that, outsiders will continue to trade upon iraqi -- prey upon iraqis through division. with that new government in place, iraqis will be able to defend the country from the threat from isil, and they can look forward to increased support not just from the united states, but other countries in the region and around the world. let's remember, isil poses a threat to all iraqis and the entire region. they claim to represent sunni grievances, but they slaughter sunni men, women, and children.

they claim to oppose armed forces, but they after -- they claim to oppose foreign forces, but they actively recruit foreign fighters to promote their hateful ideology. the iraqi people need to reject them and push them out of the lands they have occupied, as we are seeing at mosul dam. this will take sometime and there will be challenges ahead, but have no doubt that the united nations will continue to carry out the limited missions that have been authorized. protecting our personnel and facilities, both those in iraq and erbil, and baghdad, and providing humanitarian assistance as we did on mount sinjar. we have coordinated closely and we will do in the weeks to come. when it comes to the security of our people and our efforts, we need to be united in our resolve. i also want to address the situation in ferguson, missouri. earlier this afternoon to my spoke with governor nixon as

well as senators blunt and claire mccaskill. i also met with attorney general eric holder. the justice department has opened an independent, federal, investigation into the death of michael brown. they're on the ground and along with the fbi, they are devoting substantial resources to that investigation. the attorney general himself will be traveling to ferguson on wednesday to meet with the fbi agents and doj personnel conducting the criminal investigation. and he will receive an update from them on their progress. he will also be meeting with other leaders in the community, whose support is so critical in bringing about peace and calm in ferguson. ronald davis, the director of the doj's office of community ordinance policing service or cops is working with those on the ground. and we have been working in ferguson since the day after the

shooting to reduce tensions and increase communication. let me close in saying a few words about the tensions there. we have all seen images of law enforcement in the street. it is clear that the vast majority of people are peacefully protesting. what is also clear is a small minority of individuals are not. i understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of michael brown. giving into that anger by looting, carrying guns, or even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir up chaos. it undermines rather than advancing justice. let me also be clear that our constitutional rights to speak freely, assemble, and to her -- report in the press must be vigilantly safeguarded -- and to report in the press must be

vigilantly safeguarded. especially in moments like these. there is no excuse for excessive force by the police or any action that denies people the right to protest peacefully. ours is a nation of laws. the citizens who live under them and for those who enforce them. ferguson is a community that is rightly hurting and looking for answers. let me call once again for us to seek some understanding, rather than simply holler at each other. let's seek to heal rather than to wound each other. as americans, we've got to use this moment to seek out our fair share of humanity that has been laid bare by this moment. the potential of a young man, and the sorrows of parents, the frustration of a community, the ideals that we hold as one united american family. i've said this before into many -- i've said this before.

in too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. in too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind to be seen as only objects of fear. i am personally committed to changing both perception and reality. and already, we are making significant progress as people of goodwill of all races are ready to chip in. but that requires that we build and not tear down. it requires we listen and not just shout. that is how we are going to move forward together. by trying to unite each other and understand each other and not simply divide ourselves from one another. we will have to hold tight to those values in the days ahead. that is how we bring about justice. that is how we bring about peace. with that, i've got a few

questions i'm going to take. i will start with jim. >> the incident in ferguson has led to a discussion about whether it is proper to militarize the nation's police forces. i'm wondering if you see that as a factor regarding the police response in ferguson. and also, do you agree with the decision by the governor to send in the national guard? >> well, i think one of the great things about the united states has been our ability to maintain a distinction between our military and domestic law enforcement. that helps preserve our civil liberties. that helps ensure that the military is accountable to civilian direction. and that has to be preserved. after 9/11, i think understandably, a lot of folks saw local communities that were ill-equipped for potential

catastrophic terrorist attack. and i think people in congress decided that we got to make sure that we get proper equipment to deal with the threats that historically would not arise in local communities. and some of that has been useful. some law enforcement did not have radios that they could operate effectively in the midst of a disaster. some communities needed to be prepared if, in fact, there was a chemical attack and they did not have hazmat suits. having said that, think it is probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars to make sure that what they are purchasing is stuff that they actually need.

because there is a big difference between our military and local law enforcement, and we don't want the lines blurred. that would be contrary to our traditions. i think there will be some bipartisan interest in re-examining some of those programs. with regard to the national guard, this is under the charge of the governor. this is not something we initiated at the federal level. i spoke to jay nixon about this. i expressed an interest in making sure that if, in fact, a national guard is used, it is used in a limited and appropriate way. he described the support role that they will be providing to local law enforcement, and i will be watching over the next several days.

to assess web -- whether it is helping or hindering progress. >> how long do you think it will take to contain isil? >> i have been firm from the start that we are not reintroducing thousands of u.s. troops back on the ground to engage in combat. we are not the iraqi military. we are not even the iraqi air force. i am the commander-in-chief of the united states armed forces. and iraq is going to have to ultimately provide for its own security. on the other hand, we've got a national security interest in making sure our people are protected and making sure that a savage group that seems willing to slaughter people for no rhyme or reason other than the fact that they have not kowtowed to them -- that a group like that

needs to be contained, because ultimately, they pose a threat to us. my goal is to make sure, number one, we've got a viable partner. that is why we have so consistently emphasized the need for a government formation process that is inclusive, that is credible, legitimate, and that can appeal to sunnis as well as shiites and kurds. we have made significant progress on that front, but we are not there yet. i told my national security team today and i will say publicly that we want to continue to communicate to politicians of all stripes in iraq -- don't think that because we have engaged in airstrikes to protect our people that now is the time to let the foot off the gas and return to the same kind of dysfunction that has so weakened the country generally.

dr. abadi has said the right things. i was impressed with the conversation i had with him about an inclusive government. but they've got to do this. because the wolf is at the door and in order to be credible with the iraqi people, they will have to put behind some old practices and create a credible united government. when we see a credible iraqi government, we are then in the position to engage in planning not just with the iraqi government, but also the regional actors, the folks be on -- beyond the middle east, so we can draft a kind of joint strategy, joint counterterrorism strategy that i discussed at west point and some years ago at the national defense college. our goal is to have partners on the ground. if we have effective partners on

the ground, mission creep is much less likely. mission creep happens typically when we start deciding that we are the ones that have to do it all ourselves. and because of the excellence of our military, that can work for a time. we learned that in iraq. but it is not sustainable. it's not lasting. and so, i've been very firm about this precisely because our goal here has to be to be able to build up our structure not just in iraq, but regionally, that can be maintained. and that does not involve us effectively trying to govern or impose our military will in a country that is hostile to us. >> [indiscernible] how long will it contain -- will

it take to contain isil. >> i don't think, steve, at this point i'm prepared to provide a blanket answer to that. a lot of it depends on how effectively the iraqi government comes together. i think you will see, if, in fact, that government process moves rapidly and credibly, that there will be a lot of actors in the region and around the world that are prepared to help and step up assistance, many of whom may have been reticent in the last several years because the perception was, at least, that baghdad was not being inclusive and was going to be self-defeating to put more resources into it. i think you will see a lot of folks step up. suddenly now, iraq will have a variety of partners. and with more folks unified around the effort, it is something that can be accomplished. it also means there is a prospect of sunni tribes who are primary residents in the area isil now controls saying, now we have options.

we would rather work with a central government that appears to understand our grievances and is prepared to meet them, rather than to deal with individuals who do not seem to have any values beyond death and destruction. i'm going to take the last question from somebody who after 41 years, i understand has decided to retire. anne compton, everybody here knows, is not only the consummate professional, but is also a pleasure to get to know. i was proud to be able to hug her grandbaby recently. and i suspect that may have something to do with her decision. but i want to say publicly, anne, we're going to miss you

and we are very proud of the extraordinary career and work that you have done, and we hope you are not a stranger around here. [applause] anne compton. [applause] i suspect you may get some cake at some point. >> [laughs] let me ask you -- this is an interesting time in your presidency. one of the things you have emphasized in the past few months, the last year or so, is this reach out to my brother's keeper, and to a generation does not feel like it has much. sending the attorney general to ferguson is a place. -- is a step. has anyone asked you to have you considered going yourself? is there more you can do not just for ferguson, but for communities that might also feel that kind of tension and see it erupt in the way it has in ferguson? >> we have seen this around the country. this is not something new.

it is always tragic when it involves the death of someone so young. i have to be very careful about not prejudging these events before investigations are completed. because although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the doj works for me. and when they are conducting an investigation, i've got to make sure that i don't look like i'm putting my thumb on the scales one way or the other. it's hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure it's conducted in a way that is transparent, where there is accountability, where people can trust the process, hoping that

as a consequence of a fair and just process, you end up with a fair and just outcome. but as i think i think i've said on some past occasions, part of the ongoing challenge of perfecting our union has involved dealing with committees that feel left behind. -- communities that feel left behind. who, as a consequence of tragic histories, often find themselves isolated, often find themselves without hope, without economic prospects. you have young men of color in many communities who are more likely to end up in jail or in the criminal justice system than they are in a good job or in college.

part of my job that i think i can do without any potential conflicts is to get at those root causes. now, that's a big project. it's one that we have been trying to carry out now for a couple of centuries. and we've made extraordinary progress, but not enough progress. the idea behind something like "my brother's keeper" is, can we work with cities and communities, and clergy, and parents, and young people themselves all across the country, and school superintendents, businesses, corporations, and can we find models that work that move these young men onto a better track? part of that process is also looking at the criminal justice system to make sure that it is

upholding the basic principle of everybody is equal before the law. one of the things that we have looked at during the course of investigating where we can make a difference is there are patterns that start early. young african-american and hispanic boys tend to get suspended from school at much higher rates than other kids. even when they are in elementary school. they tend to have much more frequent interactions with the criminal justice system at an earlier age. sentencing may be different. how trials are conducted may be different. one of the things that we have

done is to include the department of justice in this conversation under the banner of "my brother's keeper" to see where we can start working with local communities to inculcate more trust, more confidence in the criminal justice system. and i want to be clear about this, because sometimes i think there is confusion around these issues. and this dates back for decades. there are young black men that commit crimes. and we can argue about why that happens -- because of the poverty they were born into and lack of opportunity, or school systems that fail them and what have you, but if they commit a crime they need to be prosecuted. because every community has an

interest in public safety. if you go into the latino community or the african-american community, some of the folks that are most intent on making sure that criminals are dealt with are the people who have been preyed upon by them. this is not an argument that there is no real crime out there and that law enforcement does not have a difficult job. they have to be honored and respected for the danger and difficulty of law enforcement. but what is also true is that given the history of this country, where we can make progress in building up more confidence that our justice system is acutely aware of the possibility of disparities and treatment, and that there are safeguards in place to avoid those disparities.

where training and assistance is provided to local law enforcement, who may just need more information in order to avoid a potential disparity. all of those things can make a difference. one of the things that i was most proud of in the state legislature way back when i had no gray hair and none of you could pronounce my name, was i had passed legislation requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions. and i passed legislation dealing with racial profiling in illinois. in both cases, we work with local law enforcement and the argument was, you can do a better job as a law enforcement official if you have built up credibility and trust. and there are some basic things that can be done to promote that kind of trust.

in some cases, it's just a lack of information. we want to make sure we get that information to law enforcement. there are things that can be done to improve the situation. but short-term, obviously, right now, what we have to do is make sure that the cause of justice and fair administration of the law is being brought to bear in ferguson. in order to do that, we have got to make sure we are able to distinguish between peaceful protesters, who may have some legitimate grievances, and they may be long-standing grievances, and those who are using this tragic death as an excuse to engage in criminal behavior and tossing molotov cocktails, or looting stores. that is a small minority of folks, and they may not even be residents of ferguson.

but they are damaging the cause, not advancing it. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this month c-span presents d bates and genetically modified foods and an issue spotlight with looks at veterans health care and oversight and loan debt and campus sexual assault. new perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, writing infectious diseases and food safety and their history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find their tv schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching by calling us or e-mail us. onn the conversation facebook and twitter.

"washington journal" is next and we will take your phone calls and look at today's news. then a discussion on the role of philanthropy in defense funding. we will hear from retired colonel richard dunham live at noon eastern. later, conversation on u.s. relations with asia focusing on japan and south korea. watch live coverage from the heritage foundation at 2:00 eastern this hour, a look at the obama administration's handling of events in ferguson, missouri and the middle east. then we continue our weeklong discussion on president johnson's great society programs with patricia harrison with the corporation for public broadcasting who will talk about the public broadcasting act signed into law in 1967 by lyndon johnson. we will also hear from former

centers for medicare and medicaid services administrator you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ president obama on monday interrupted his vacation said dam is apture of mosul major step forward in iraq. the president held a news conference and addressed the situation in ferguson, missouri. he said that he would dispatch attorney general eric holder to ferguson tomorrow. we will begin with the situation in ferguson and get your thoughts if police are becoming