>> you published the 96 page report of the new media people as to what they need to do did you see some lessons in their for new media companies? staff research of where media is added -- headed? mobile is huge and cannot be ignored. if there are new companies that are not thinking deeply about mobile than they should be. --had athat report was law and it. how do you focus? there are a lot of good ideas.

you can only focus on a few things. there is the question of what are you going to focus on at your company? focused. have to stay sorting through the good ideas is sometimes hard. >> other questions? >> do you see yourself as you evolve as a media company getting to other things like conferences and events that you states -- stage? >> we do some of events. we interview people. and it is an interesting way to

generate media. it is a trend of live event plus live content. >> do one more here. just say it. i will repeat it. >> first of all, i want to tell you that i respect your model and how you went and asked studies of the real media companies. you are right. it wasn'te nothing if for a guy by the name of read

old --illed -- read chef sheffiled. in his book, reed was the one who recruited all the people from new york and they lived in a fleabag hotel while they founded cnn. >> it is a great story. i read the book called "cnn: the inside story" with lots of inside stories with schonfeld being a major player while ted turner is out on his job. >> we need to wrap up. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> here is a look at our primetime schedule.

a congressional investigation to general motors ignition switch recall. then book tv with books and offers who have written about money issues. american history tv with programs on the civil war in 1864. earlier john kirby held a briefing with reporters where he discussed equipment used by local law enforcement officials. here is a look. >> but how one where and in what circumstances the equipment gets used is up to local law enforcement agencies to determine. is why not take the next at and review it? can you tell us what the this department has given to ferguson?

question presumes there will be a review or decision to review. the secretary is digesting information he got this morning , they haveuson, since 2007, we have transferred to them to humvees, one to the police department. in all of st. louis county, over that same time, which includes ferguson, six pistols, 12 fries. three helicopters, seven and tonight vision devices. 2 night vision devices.

i don't exactly the chain of custody here. all the equipment went to st. louis county police department. >> does anybody think that somehow the ferguson the police department misused or abused the right to use these humvees? >> we don't take a position on the way the equipment is being used. that is up to local law enforcement to determine. we have rigorous compliance and accountability standards. by annually we spotcheck many of these local law enforcement agencies to make sure they are keeping proper accountability, inventory of the equipment. we do not legislate. any certainndate

use. that is up to local law enforcement. >> remarks from john kirby earlier today. see the entire event online. >> joining us on the phone, he has this piece, congress is ending the police weapons program for any time soon. am anytime soon." how and when did the police forces become militarized? guest: this is been going on since the 1990 costs. -- 1990's. it has been tied to the so-called war on drugs. the national defense authorization act. four point $3 billion worth of military equipment has been transferred to local police forces -- $4.3 billion worth of

military equipment has been transferred to local police forces. host: what types of equipment are we talking about? guest: all types. the bulk of it is non-weaponize to equipment. computers, all kinds of tools that makes it easier for the police to do high-tech kinds of jobs. be left out that there are also long guns, military style weapons, humvees, even a tank or two. host: given the situation in ferguson, what are lawmakers saying about what should be done? guest: this is the thing. more than ever before, this program is being reevaluated. there is already a bill in the

house that is going to be put forth next month to limit the kinds of military equipment that local police forces can acquire. conyers and some of his colleagues wrote a letter to the committee chairman bob goodlatte asking that he convene hearings. host: you broke up their little but at the end. little bit at the end. guest: the house has already passed a version. takeenate said they will up some kind of legislation re-examining the program. to me, it is unclear whether the house would accept something like that.

i talked to a spokesman for republicans. program, saying it saves money. it protects taxpayers and law enforcement men and women. tends to be softer radios, uniforms, office supplies. maybe there will be some kind of measure to limit the kinds of heavy military equipment that the local police forces can acquire, but on the whole, this program is not going anywhere. host: put aside the pentagon program. you also have homeland security grants that have gone out to rural communities across the country, urban areas.

they say the federal government needs to give me grant money to beef up my police force because of a potential terrorist situation. how do those grants add to this situation? guest: it certainly adds to the pocketbooks of local police forces. it has been an equal amount of discussion about how the war on terrorism affects local communities. communitiesry small that have disproportionately large munitions and vehicles for the potential threat that any kind of terrorism act faces. will probably see some talk about that and some reevaluation of that as well. you have high placed groups defending these law enforcement

, friends of the fraternal order of police have been critical of president obama's response. the nra has yet to weigh in. it will be interesting to see what kind of response they have. whether it becomes an issue of disarmament or they toe the libertarian line like rand paul. host: what is the fraternal order of police saying? basically that obama has been too critical of the in this thingons that happened in ferguson. he has been too critical of the officers and their response when he should be sticking up for them. host:

tomorrow, our great society johnson'sinues on push for changing immigration law. the omnibus housing act of 1965 which aim to provide affordable housing for americans. we take your calls and tweets. life on wednesday at 7:00 eastern. >> here are the highlights for this weekend. friday, we and visit -- we visit important sites in the civil rights movement.

q&a with charlie wrangle. with reza-depth aslan. goldstone.rence american history tv on c-span 3. a look at hollywood's pro-trail of slavery. saturday, the 20th -- 200 anniversary of the burning of washington. sunday, help residents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us or e-mail. join the c-span conversation. follow us on twitter.

earlier this summer, tom johnson moderated a panel on the future of news. this is one hour. the microphone for use or questions for the program is in

the center of the room. i regret that someone will need to come up. i regret that. those of you on the side of the room will need to come up. it will create a short line. this is being done primarily for technological reasons. do not let it discourage you from coming over when we get to the q&a time. i should've introduced to you the person who has been the mover and shaker in getting this together. that is a person who worked with me at cnn. she is the executive director at the atlanta press club. lauri strauss. [applause] she learned at the elbow of the master on how to get things to happen. her grandfather was, is the legendary bob strauss who probably was one of the legends of politics in america. before he asked mark to kick it

off, a book is out that i just watched called "the death and life of american journalism." the book is dedicated to bill moyers. there is a quote at the beginning that says this is a crisis for journalism that is also a crisis for american democracy. you are experiencing it now. >> thank you. great to be here. i have met so many wonderful people already in this room. thank you to tom for encouraging me to come, and to you for being here. i'm afraid i might have been oversold a little bit in the sense that i cannot tell you what the future of news is. i guess i would challenge anyone in this world to say what the

future of news is. it is in flux. there is a thinker about journalism, clay sherkie, who wrote a blog post several years ago in which he says memorably, the phase we're in now given the great digital changes in the world, in terms of the scope, to the changes that occurred when the printing press was coming into its own. that complete upheaval that was happening at that time. we are going. change like that now. because we are in the middle of it we can't know what the overall effects are going to be because we are living through it. we can't really get a handle on how it is going to play out.

however, i think we can identify some things that are happening. one of them is, as much as i might not want it to be the case, and many don't, we can agree print is in serious and probably terminal decline. i have been in the newspaper business for a long time. i love the sound of the presses and the smell of ink. but we are not going back to that heyday in which newspapers were able to make vast profits, were able to hire at will, and be comfortable. life is no longer comfortable in the world of newspaper

journalism at all. we are scrambling to figure out a way to survive and thrive, in what is an uncertain future. the present is uncertain. there are some interesting things going on. one of them is happening at the place i work, "new york times." "the times" has successfully instituted a pay wall. now there are 800,000 digital only subscribers. it is bringing in lots of money. in fact, an interesting milestone occurred about a year and a half ago in which, traditionally as many of you know, advertising revenue was the way the whole thing was

powered. circulation was much smaller part of where the money came from. at "new york times" because of the decline of print, and the cause of success of the digital subscriptions, that was flipped on its head about a year ago. consumer revenue both in subscriptions, it has surpassed circulation revenue. advertising revenue. let me restate it. consumer revenue has now surpassed advertising revenue. that is upside down of what it used to be. it is a big change and a

heartening change. it means something is working. we all want something to be working. the thing that i would say in terms of looking forward is that there are values that i think is very important the values don't change as the business changes. the values i hold dear and tried to write about and encourage our those of fairness, accuracy, and accuracy has gotten trickier in the digital world. we are so fast, and can put things up immediately. there is so much competition we feel pressure to do so. accuracy and fairness, and integrity. there is a discussion about whether the news business should be adversarial. should we be adversarial with government, with business.

a distinction and editor whom i admire much made recently is not necessarily adversarial, but independent, so that we are not in anyone's pocket, and we keep our independence, and represent what is best for our readership. as the business changes, i hold fast to those values because i think they are the things that ultimately are going to endure. they will make what we do worth paying for. i do think that quality journalism is worth paying for and people are finding it to be so in all kinds of forms. the other thing i would say is that we are trying experiments now. some are working, some aren't. we have to be quick to try them and abandon them when they don't

work. it is a very unusual time in our business. there is a lot of great things happening. it is scary. when i came out of graduate school and went to work for my hometown paper in buffalo, i had reason to think i could stay there for a long time. i did and became editor of the paper. but i don't think that happens very much for students these days and young people. but you can come to an institution and stick around for 30 years. probably it is not part of the model anymore. that is an overview. i would love to delve into the subject more deeply. >> because it is timely. this is an article, it ties directly.

it is not just jill abramson. women everywhere are getting pushed out of journalism. true or false? >> i don't know where that is from. i have not seen it. the jill abrahmson, she was until recently the editor, executive editor at "new york times." she was fired. it has been a great deal of discussion since then about whether this was propelled by sexism or something else, or if there were gender issues. my feeling is it did not represent some kind of institutional sexism. i don't think that is the case. but, i think you can't say about it that there are no gender

related issues here whatsoever. i know after, someone coined the expression recently editing while female. [laughter] a dangerous thing to do. there are some tricky things about editing while female. i also know a number of wonderful strong women editors and think the future is bright for women going into journalism. they are going into journalism in droves. i teach at columbia university. the classes are much more heavily female than male. i guess that speaks to the pipeline. >> editing while male can be a dangerous thing. i appreciate comments. i have a few of my own.

i would like to thank tom for putting this together. a couple of comments in the same vein of margaret. i'm looking forward to the questions. don't be shy. when i think about the future of news, i think about it through different lenses. one is the business model, the most unknown one yet. content of all forms is breaking up from bundles to individual pieces. in our business, the newspaper, it was always sacrosanct. you paid $.50 for it. we will put on your doorstep. you pay what you pay for it. today there is a growing trend

of people reading through the morning package on the internet and picking and choosing the articles they like, e-mailing them to a friend, and providing their color commentary. sometimes you will send an e-mail, they will respond. that is interesting change. you would get the institutional opinion of the day's news. that opinion comes from your friends and family, story by story. it is much more targeted, the articles that are specifically related to you or picked out of the bundle and sent to you. we still make most of our money from print. the bundle is still king. more and more it is going digital. our telecom business is oddly the same. we sell a package of video, the majority of our business.

you pay cable for a bundle. more and more there is talk ofàa la carte pricing and people not wanting specific channels. people say they would like -- >> please keep cnn. [laughter] >> currently the way things are priced if you broke up the bundle and paid just for the stations you want, the number of cnn or espn subs would go down because it is subsidized by selling the bundle. they would have to pay more to make up for the revenues. it would be more expensive. certainly there is a model going towards all a card and breaking up the bundle. the consumer sentiments win over time. less and less people watch the 90 minute news broadcast from the beginning to end than they used to.

cox has a legacy of higher ratings during the news than the network programming on either side of it. we do that in our company. the ratings go down during the news and then back up. but we drive a strong news product. we continue doing that. it is harder and harder with people picking and choosing pieces. >> wsb. >> strongly recommended. and the cultural model. i don't know how the business model is going to turn out. it used to be well-known how you make money and how you are going to make money in the long range

plan. now it is unclear. we do plan on sticking with it. it is what gets us up in the morning. we love our hometown and the business of news. the second thing is the cultural model. if you look at the cultural model, what does news mean to society? for me that goes back to the beginnings of our company. our first business ever in 1898 was a small newspaper in dayton, ohio, the number five horse and a five horse race. my great-grandfather purchased it for $26,000 and said he would rather have a failing business and have to work for somebody else. he stuck with it and found over the years that accuracy, integrity, balance wins out in the end. not pandering to the people in power, it can make you money and make the world a better place. >> he was also a politician.

he became governor. he ran for president with roosevelt. >> roosevelt was his vice presidential ticket. that gets to the point of this. he believes in public service. that is what news is all about. it is a service. it made a lot of money over the years, which we use to diversify over the years. that gets to the fourth estate. a lot of you have heard that. there are three branches of government that are supposed to provide checks and balances. a famous justice said that actually is not enough. it does not do it. you still get too much corruption. there has to be a fourth estate that watches the watchers. what we have found is that through the changes in our business model, and through

everything that was previously known and unknown, will people value the most are the political truth meter. >> on behalf of the journalists in the room, the impetus h hc is putting on reporting is essential to this community. if you need a great example, the type of reporting you did on our school boards in atlanta. i just want to tell you from that perspective. [applause] i think it is that type of indispensable reporting that is so critical to us as readers and citizens of our various communities. thank you for that. >> i grew up going over to my grandmother's house every

weekend. i always remember her on sunday, she would put the paper in her arm and see how heavy it was. that was an indication of how things were going. >> ann cox chambers. >> she gave it a field. over the years as advertising began to go digital and things lightened up we were forced to make changes. kevin and others made questions about what is truly important, and what is going to keep us here in the long run? all the research and obvious arrows pointed to local watchdog investigative journalist. there are things we are going to have to take out of the paper. one is not watchdog investigative journalism. transparency, telling people

what is going on, and empowering them to make better decisions is the core of the business. i was thinking about this this morning. my great-grandfather has in his will written gems of information that he left for the rest of us. i wanted to read a little passage i wrote down this morning. "these newspapers which i have taken pride in developing should make themselves champions of the rights of the people. such power should not be used as an encroachment on the rights of individuals. i asked my children and trustees to recognize these obligations." whether we make money at it or not, one thing we don't forget is the legacy that was left to us, the fourth estate accuracy, and championing the best interest of our community where we live. hopefully we will continue doing that.

in some ways the future of news has never been brighter. if you think about the access to information, people are not dependent upon the one newspaper at their local newsstand. whether it be in a revolutionary state into ran or somewhere else. the technology and the access to aggregate data, cookies and google, and apple, all the data as creepy as it sounds, is being accumulated. there is different ways to bundle it and look at anomalies and trends. it gives us information that we used to have. the atlanta public school story started out as a discovery that test scores had dramatically turned around in a short time. data discovered it was

statistically impossible for that to happen. that was what the team uncovered. putting those scores together paint a picture that was impossible. >> they had dated different from the date of others that you recall. i would say something about families. the solberg her family owns the "new york times." those families have maintained their commitment to quality. that is an exception in an america today. so many families, for many reasons, tax reasons, so their companies. thank god for the sulzberger's and the cox's. i can't tell you how many few owners would make the statement

that alex just made. we understand the role of the watchdog in our newspapers and journalism. we are profitable and other areas of our company and we can support excellence in our newspapers. i would say there are 5% in america, -- there are some, like jeff bezos, and there is some hope that he will restore that in "the washington post." we don't know what will happen to my old newspaper, " the los angeles times." a once great american paper is in a precarious state. tell us to what extent, what is the future? [laughter] >> um. >> i started with a lot of

praise. >> going back to the public school story, and recent stories about our elected officials, charging personal expenses, credit cards to the taxpayers, things like that would not get uncovered if our folks weren't there to uncover it. i can tell you we have a large business. the atlanta newspaper part of it is a couple of percentage points. it is 90% of what we hear from jim kennedy every day. he reads every word of the paper no matter where he is. the phone rings and you know he

is calling to talk about something he read in the paper. it has to do with the politicians that think they can charge their cell phone bill to the taxpayers. the passion around watchdog journalism has never been greater in our company. we intend to stay committed to it. we believe that news and business can make the world a better place, if you don't focus solely on profit, if you have a values-based culture, where you spend the money on the right things and are willing to take a hit on some things in order to do it right. we intend to invest heavily in watchdog journalism. we hope over time as print the clients we are able to make the switch to digital effectively. our digital subscribers are up

25%, which is a huge growth rate. we need to see that continue. we need to see people do what they are doing at the "new york times." you can build a business off that for the future. >> will there be 80 printer version of "new york times?" >> i think there will be. i don't think there will always be. but i think that it will be around in 10 years. there are those, and i am not sure how accurate this is, but there are certainly those that think at some point some daily papers will be eliminated and the sunday will live on, the lucrative one with the advertising and it and the biggest editorial effort. there is no discussion of anything like that that i am aware of. but, there is no question that is the trend. we have no way of knowing exactly how quickly that will happen. you don't have to go back far to realize, 10 years ago things were very different in the newspaper business.

it is difficult to look out 10 years. >> in the past, most newspapers generated 85% of revenue from advertising. 15% from circulation. you can imagine the tremendous difference. for those of you who have questions, and we take questions on all topics, i want you to work your way over to this microphone if you will. i will ask you to identify yourself and your organization if you are proud of it. [laughter] if not just give us your name. >> him i the only one? this is a wonderful event. i admire your contributions to our industry. i'm a working journalist.

i have been guilty of editing while female many times. this is a great conversation about the future of news. i am particularly interested in a journalist as a broadcaster, what is the future of the news consumer? of the service of news? >> i will take a crack at it. nice to see you here. i think you can't make a sweeping statement about what consumers want. i think different consumers want different things. they will find those things. they are all available. but i do think that if you are going to ask people to pay for news, you have to have it at a very high quality. as things begin to settle out and differentiate those organizations that can provide

the values that i was talking about, and the attributes, those will be an absolute necessity. individuals want to read pretty much about foreign affairs, and some people want to read about jennifer aniston's baby. there are different audiences. you can't really generalize completely. >> it is tough when during my era, we would want to do straight news, hard news, and then comes o.j. simpson. the audience levels went absolutely -- we would try to shift back. an important speech by president clinton at columbine. we had total meltdown when

people wanted to continue on the o.j. story. i don't think public television has ever been better than it is. [applause] i take great pride. i am just delighted. >> if i might ask a follow-up question. my question is about the balance between what the audience, giving them what they want to know, and giving people what they need to know. what is the expectation of americans about first amendment and what they want to know? >> we did a study about people's changing perceptions of the news, where it falls in their

daily needs. it was fascinating. there is a few pieces of it. one of the things that stuck out with me, what do i need? this sounds funny but it is true. people said their cell phones ranked higher than water. they didn't think of it as something they needed to get on about their day. so, obviously it is not true but it is what they think. a lot of people said they believe news was an inherent right as an american. you are entitled to news. it should not be cap from you. it should not be edited. facts are in the public domain. what people don't know is the difficulty it is to uncover facts.

there are people in power who hide them, and left unchecked they will hide a lot of them. it gets rampantly out of control without some kind of a good for the state. over time, in the grand scheme of things we are in the early years of the internet. if you look back through the emerging technology, electricity, transportation, most of the money and business models were solidified in the last half of that era. not in the beginning. right now we live in the wild west and people don't think about where information comes from. you just pick and choose. if you want good, reliable research information yet the thing about who is giving it to you, and not trust everything you read. google doesn't do that for you. organizations like ours go through, and this team will take any big investigative story and talk it over. are we sure we are right? they go through a discussions about where did you get your

facts, how did you research this? are your sources accurate? are they telling you the truth? google does not do that for you. >> without an owner like this they could be [indiscernible] >> thank you. >> hello. i'm glad you are here. they key for having this conversation. i am lisa calhoun. i'm the founder of right to market what i founded after i was fired as the managing editor. best thing that happened to me. my question is in the "new york times," mozilla is building a platform of reader contributions. i was curious about your comment on this platform that is uniting

amazon, the new york times, and mozilla. thank you. >> i don't know the specifics of that project. i do know things are far different now than they were when the "new york times" was competing with these organizations. now there are partnerships. it is all part of this experimentation. many of these things don't work out. someday. it is a question of trying different things and seeing what will work. i think in the general sense that is what is happening. i can't give you chapter and

verse on that particular experiment. >> david? >> i'm a former cnn journalist. i think there is a deep and growing cynicism in the news consumers, that the very standards that you profess to have don't really exist. maybe it is best personified now by the glenn greenwald. let's just admit we have biases, and we act on them. it is impossible to be fair. what are your thoughts? >> i would love to start. i very much disagree with the idea that no one can be fair. it is possible, there's a debate happening about the extent to which it is important to come off as if you have no beliefs. can you let your stripes show, or do you need to be neutral observer? that is a valid and interesting debate going on. a deeper value is fairness.

that goes without saying. you can be glenn greenwald, or a reporter who would never vote, and there are people like that. glenn greenwald is the journalist who did the work regarding edward snowden and all the revelations concerning the national security agency, and the surveillance. he has done a great deal of civil liberties journalism, but most prominently he was one of the chief contacts for snowden. and, his view set, a believer that you stand for something and you can know exactly what it is but i can still do journalism.

i think there is -- i could argue both sides. i position has moved a little bit from know the journalist must be completely neutral to yes, it is ok to have feelings, beliefs, and to let them show. you need to be transparent about them. the catchphrase on that is that transparency is the new objectivity. [indiscernible] >> i can say every human has bias. your experiences are your bias. i can say at our news operations, when bias comes up at a table of discussion around

news it sticks out like a sore thumb. you are looked at as an abnormality if you're sitting there saying i don't like republicans or democrats and we should cover this angle of the story. you would never see that in a newsroom. it is so completely improper. >> critics to believe that. >> a lot of that comes from a long history of opinion writing. a lot of influential and powerful opinion writers that our brands with legacies. the journal and constitution used to be two separate papers. they were combined. all the legacies tie into your perceptions of the newspaper.

the "new york times" is no exception. they have a brand of bias. it should never get involved in their news coverage on the front page. i will say, however, people who have biases, and i know what they are, and they share facts that are well researched, i don't find a problem with it. transparency is the new objectivity. "the economist" is biased economists. [laughter] it is like your old wife's uncle telling you things. you know what he thinks. >> the history of opinion writing, as readership migrates online it is very difficult to tell what is an opinion piece, what is an analysis, what is a reported piece? it doesn't come with signifiers print did. this is on the front page. this is on the opinion page. this has a tag with a logo that tells me it is someone's column. these things have blended in. with that these traditional

differences have started to go away as well. >> the next questioner is anita shaw, the president of the atlanta press club. she coordinates investigative reporting for bloomberg. >> thank you. quick question. what new technologies are you both watching closely and think will potentially be the most disruptive? >> this is not a new technology but i will say i have become a heavy user and a fan of twitter. i find it an indispensable source of news and information. i haven't seen anything that is as useful to me as twitter.

twitter has only existed for less than 10 years. well under 10 years. as i watch what is happening, that is something i am weighing against. what is going to have the impact of facebook? what is going to have the impact of twitter? i have seen interesting things, but i haven't seen anything that looks like it is as dominant as that. >> social media monitoring allows you to see trending, stories trending that sounds pop-culture-ish. but in the old days, it was an editor's job to find out what people had on their mind. what story should you put in

front of people is what they wanted to know. it's easier to know that now because he you can put out a package of information and by the end of the day everybody is tweeting or chatting about a particular croup of stories. it gives you good direction on what to follow up on. your news tomorrow will be more relevant than it was today. >> are you worried about apple tv and roku. >> to those who don't know, it allows people to stream television without going through a dbs provider. they don't have as much content. netflix is an example of a company investing in content. "house of cards." but they don't have espn, cnn, fox. you can't get current news.

it is part of the changing technology. we have our own product called contour, which allows you to stream it to your tablet. you can slip through the channels and like a particular show. so we are trying to get our user interface out there now. apple has lots of billions of dollars to spend. it is over-the-top video, where video is trending. >> the power that comes from being a moderator. i would like to bring maria up for a moment. there's a reason. in my old days in washington

there were reporters who were the stakeout reporters. you couldn't get away. they were standing outside the door, and ice, rain, sleet. helen thomas was a good example. atlanta has one of those. they can't get out that door without maria being there. i have had tremendous admiration for her enterprise, please. >> what you are saying is i'm a pain in the ass. [laughter] i have my own website. supporterreport.com.

i have a foot in both doors. you talked about it being the wild west. i think it is an apt description. i'm on the board of the atlantic press club. one of the things we wrestled with, because there is a lower barrier to entry, what can we do, and this is more traditional news world, to help the consumer be able to differentiate what is credible news, and what is either made-up or not substantiated? i keep thinking, get it first, but get it right. i think there are certain standards not everybody plays by the rules. what can we do to help the public understand there is a difference between solid journalism and all the clutter?

>> i would just say having these discussions is good. i don't know if you can have enough of them to reach enough people. but telling people that you go through great lengths to fact check stories will allow them to see the difference between that check and not fact checked. i think talking about it is important. for us, i know i have great faith in our news organizations. i have watched the discussions that go on. if they didn't go on that would be of great concern to us. we internally know when it is happening and when it isn't. we get phone calls and e-mails, bombarded with them. people will send you an article from some source. they say you blank, blank. i have no idea where that came from. who is saying it.

there is no editorial judgment going on. but it is out there and people are reading it. that is dangerous. that is why it is the wild west. in time people will want less static and more signal. >> it may be the biggest issue. will people, thinking about our granddaughters, will they realize the importance of the new york times feed? the option, all the other information streaming into them, and realize this is fact checked, and they were to get accuracy? it is a tremendous need of our educational system, and our parenting.

there is more garbage coming at you then there is solid information. >> i would like to see schools bear down on teaching news literacy. to the extent that an organization can support the and foster it, it would be very helpful. when i was in buffalo we had a publication called next. what we found was geared towards teens. those preteens and teens who read next were much more likely to become subscribers to the paper. they understood from an early age that what this was, so get them early and teach them, and support the programs that do

that. >> i hope you will take a copy of her article which is outside. you will find one of the best. we are going to take one more. i asked the aba question and not a commentary. >> i'm going to take two minutes of your time. and tell you who i am. why i came here 45 years ago, and since the title of this gathering is the future of the news, i feel i have moral obligations to you all to tell you a brief idea about the past of the news. it is crucial for the troubles

this country faced. i will add one more thing. those troubles have their seeds in georgia. atlanta, georgia. i'm a structural engineer. i came to the united states in 1969. 45 years. i got my masters degree in 1971. with one mission in life, degrees are not important. money is not important. positions, not important. rule one in citizenship, i am right now citizen of two countries. the united states and iraq.

rule one in citizenship, never subordinate your country to a pocket book. once you do that you violate rule one. and, when i came to speak here, ms. straus told me i'm not supposed to carry those documents in my hands. i'm going to give those documents to those gentlemen. they will see the horrible things going on. >> i want to be very respectful. this is a q&a session. would you put the question to our panel? >> i'd be glad to.

if somebody told you that some of the major media in this nation kept the american people in the dark about major events, and this question is addressed to all three, if somebody told you that, intentionally cap the american people and the world in the dark, if somebody told you that, what would you tell him? >> that we have failed if we have cap american people in the dark about any significant event. i have served in several positions, chairman of cnn. if we have kept the american people in the dark on any major significant event and we have failed our jobs. i hope that we have not. i would be pleased to answer specifically what topic we may

have kept from the american people. >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> i would agree with what tom said. we would have failed. sometimes there is information we don't report on because we don't deem it to be newsworthy, or verifiable. >> no comment either. the "new york times." >> our job is to get out the facts and not withhold them. >> i'm going to give you documents. you study them and research them. if there is an accuracy in them i am liable for them. your answers were not satisfactory. i need you to apologize to the american people. >> we will see.

we have time? one more question? >> i have a question about google news. does the press media love google news? would you rather have a penny a click for looking at your stories? from the business model where do you see google news? >> google in every business we have worries me. [laughter] we spend billions of dollars providing internet across the country and they are starting up with new google fiber business. in newsday disseminate news around the world. in general they motivate philosophy to positively impact a billion lies.

they seem sinister. there is nothing bad about it. they just disrupt our businesses. in the grand scheme of things, disruption is a good thing. [laughter] >> it reminds me of power you would feel asking if he or she was asked would you rather have the internet around or not? in some ways, some people might say, i wish it never came about. it has destroyed our business. others would say, it is the best possible thing to happen. i put myself in that can. we would rather move things forward and pick up pieces.

so, that is a macro way to answer your question. >> i would conclude by thanking everyone for coming here today, especially thinking the two of you. margaret'sote out of recent column -- the question is are today's journalists doomed? [applause] entering a business in freefall or are they coming into aim world bursting with4 new possibilities? it is my view you becoming into a world bursting with new opportunities. thank you all very much for coming. [applause]

>> tonight, look at the congressional investigation into general motors ignition switch recalls -- the ceo took responsibility and responsive ice -- and apologize to the victims that died because of the faulty switches -- here is a look. >> more than a decade ago, gm embarked in a small car program. sitting here today, i cannot tell you why it should prolong for a safety defect to be announced for this program. i will tell you we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation which involves vehicles we no longer make but it came to light on my watch and i am responsible for it. we will bevances, fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers. while i cannot turn back the

clock, citizen learn about the problem, we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past, we will not scared from our response abilities now or in the future. the gm will do the right thing. with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected i this recall. especially, the families and friends who lost their lives. i am deeply sorry. >> a that was a portion of the hearing that took place earlier this year. you can see the entire event tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. all this month while congress is in recess, we're showing you both tv in prime time. tonight, books on money issues. a look at the book world -- war

and gold. and then michael lewis on his book. ames forbes and elizabeth talk about money and the discretion of the dollar threatens the global economy and what we can do about it. that is both tv tonight starting at 8:00 eastern. it is american history tv with programs on the civil war battle of fort stevens. in july of of place 1864 in washington, d.c. when confederate soldiers probed the defenses of the capital city before deciding to turn back. into these programs tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span three. bus is aeekend's multimedia education center. c-span's public affairs coverage did you and your community.

we will visit schools and critical events throughout the country. go to c-span.org/about,/community. can e-mail us at educate. c-span.org or send us a tweet. we hope to see you and your community. >> here's a great read -- c-span's latest book -- sundays at 8:00. some of the nation's most influential people of 25 years. >> and there was a risk in the bohemian. i decided to take it because whether it is an illusion or not, i don't think it is, it helped my concentration. bored, me from being stuffed other deal -- other people from being bored. it would keep me awake. i can have longer conversations.

about asked what i do it again? the answer is probably yes. open the get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say. it will be not nice for my children here because it is you responsible. the truth is it would be workable for me to say no, i would never touch it. i did not know. everybody knows. >> the soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contained its own self-destructive. it began than the bigger beginning. as for already about the attempt to control all institutions and all parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems is when you do that, we've got a control everything, you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have the paint the same way in one artist says they don't want to do that, you have just made

them into a political dissident. if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees that it is something we should subsidize, put it on the ballot sheet. make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when you deliver through these third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, we deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders and executives who have been extracting a lot of that's a subsidies for himself, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. christopher hitchens, gretchen morgenstern, a few of the 41 engaging stories now available at your favorite bookseller. >> a look of president johnson's great society continues with a discussion on the public broadcasting act. forrovides financial system

noncommercial tv in review broadcasting. this is 40 minutes. "the washington journal" where looking at lyndon johnson's vision for great society. that he'll by bill. look at the public broadcasting act of 1967. joining us this morning for that discussion is the president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting patricia de stacy harrison. let's begin with what is going on in the 1960's that president johnson feels the need for the public broadcasting act? guest: as we look back at that you're a, so much was erupting. i think it was a very aspirational time. it is interesting to compare today in terms of media with what was going on then. so you had the era where

americans are feeling perhaps the focus on education needs to be stronger in a competitive way. then you have the chairman of addressing the association of broadcasters and talking to them as commercial television is failing the country, not focused on education by providing basically what he termed that famous phrase, content that is creating a vast wasteland for americans. so there was this drumbeat. in the meantime, you have the carnegie corporation and networking with educators and also working with educational television broadcasters who really want a system. they want interconnection. butr focused on education, it is very disorganized to a

certain extent. so there is a drumbeat to do something about this. the commission had an interesting group of people, educators, but they also had lyndon johnson's soon-to-be secretary of health education and welfare pushing for public broadcasting system. even before the commission released the report recommending that the government create a nonprofit, nongovernmental corporation for public broadcasting that would receive and disburse friends, the president of the united states has public broadcasting really has a role in american life -- not only american life, but globally, and to raise the level of education. so we have almost a perfect aboutof people concerned the quality of content. you have to think about television, this new, exciting vehicle and people are worried it is being misused or not used

in an optimum way. host: here's what president johnson had to say on the day he signed the public broadcasting act. give a wider and i think stronger voice to educational, radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities." what is the corporation of public broadcasting? guest: it is all of that. let me go back to 1961 briefly.

you have this astonishing letter that eb white, the wonderful author, wrote to actually the president but also the head of the carnegie commission. basically, so excited about the process that does prospect of public broadcasting. he said, this could be our minsky's. in other words, it isn't just this highbrow focus. it is going to provide content that informs and educates and entertains at all levels so that when you consume this content, you're better off for it. and that has been the mission of the corporation for public broadcasting. the first and foremost in the very beginning, our job is to be stewar word of these -- of these funds.

how do disperse the funding? guest: it is very interesting because unlike and every single country throughout the world, public media funding in this country is uniquely american and entrepreneurial. a most fulfilling what ronald reagan said that government should provide the spark and the private sector should do the work or the rest. and for 40 plus years, that has been, i think, the best example of the public/private partnership. so the funding we receive from the federal government is very strictly allocated in terms of what cpb can do with it. approximately 90% of our funding goes to stations and some producers and film makers, and , 70%the remainder of that

goes to television and 12 5% to radio -- and 25% to radio. our admin administration budget is capped. that is not the whole story. it is very complicated construct. so the money goes to stations in the form of community service grants, and they use that in a variety of levels. but in order for them to get that grant from cpb, they have to raise a certain amount of nonfederal funds. what this means is, they're constantly having to connect to their own community. it is almost a report card. and the community response or doesn't respond. basically, with variations poor,ing on stations in areas or suburban areas,

stations raise six times the amount of the original federal investments. so our budget for let's say an average station would be approximately 15%. they have to raise 85%. it is an amazing system. recently i was part of a conference with international public media broadcasters and they were astounded because they are all funded by the government. cost to support $80, 80 five dollars. in this country, can you take a guess what it is? it is under $1.35. host: the expense to the taxpayer? guest: yes. , let's use that as the means, you have what i think is a golden passport for content

for free and commercial free for your children, lifelong learning from the very youngest to the very oldest. it is sort of the virtuous circle, i think, of proven value delivered to the mac and people. host: we're talking with the present ceo does president and ceo of cpb. in that position since 2005. we're talking about the act of 1967 under president johnson's vision for so-called great society. thatis the agency disburses funds for pbs, npr, other public broadcasting. we want to get your thoughts and comments and questions.

you can also send us an e-mail or send us a tweet. take a look at cpb's appropriations history from your website dating back to 1969, appropriated $5 million in that year. guest: it was a controversy from the beginning. host: what was the debate like? guest: it is who we are as a people. are the most part, this idea that government should not be in the broadcasting business, fear that connection between government and journalism. so the funding was much less than the act wanted. i do believe that even though it is a very complicated system, that public media over the years the recent it is so vibrant and relevant today is because of that report card that the federal government insisted on. so i would not say to placate, but to address the issue and

address the concerns, we are funded at a specific level and the rest of the money comes from other sources -- the community, major funders, foundations. it is this partnership. but we need the federal funding to really strengthen public media. in 2014. my dollars -- 445 my in dollars and 2014. what costs that much? guest: content, technology. isould like to say our value evergreen, but we have always been committed to connecting with the american people in ways they are now accessing media. so we are now on air, which is very important, especially in an so much.cable costs so many families cannot afford cable. this is for free and

commercial-free. whereso, we have a system people are demeaning more and , that is measured and evaluated, especially in the educational sphere. so unlike commercial television, which certainly provides children's programming, we invest a lot of money into educational research. so we are actually teaching the young child how to read, how to get ready for school -- math, science. we would measure it. we evaluate it. how do you know this program is working as opposed to some other? we have educators. it is a constant focus, not on the bottom line and selling anything, but to providing content that really does enhance the lives of each american at every single level. wherever they come from, whatever their background. we belong to the merrick and people. that is what the funding goes for. host: let's get our viewers

involved. new hampshire, republican caller. caller: very nice. atden was perfectly correct that time going on in all, it was an affirmative action. we have a complete record of day-to-day of every day that came and went through the corporations and the library of congress. there is a copy of every thing that happened on that radio show every day. just check in the library of congress records and you will come up with the exact show. it is perfect. thank you. host: so you think it is a good thing? the corporation for public broadcasting is a good thing? caller: certainly. we're still alive, aren't we, in

a plutonium age? host: what do you make of that? guest: americans always have an opinion about everything. in the case of public media, the andic -- republicans democrats support as wholeheartedly. for the 11th consecutive year, pbs has been voted, judged, pulled most trustworthy organization second only to the military. of newsstworthy source and information. and also, the most trustworthy by teachers -- especially preschool teachers. when you're providing a safe place where children can learn, what i like to do is look back to the 1960's before the internet, before we even had this democratization of technology and the understanding you want your child to be able to learn without being sold

something. nowakes even more sense where your child can have access to all kinds of things that may not be positive and helpful. a public media is that oasis for parents. republican caller. caller: good morning. cured towardless the radio aspect -- more or less i am geared to the radio aspect of it. is, i lovepoint clack, i listen to the mall. the nonpolitical shows are great. all the political shows that you have, though, are far left wing. they cover almost everyone

covers three subjects. andal warming, racism, homosexuality stuff. host: that's get a response to that. guest: thank you for being an avid listener. in fact, npr right now is growing so much. they had over 35 million listeners. this is not even counting online a week. your point that you're making has been made and sometimes has continued to be made by a lot of people. -- when reason, cpb has people call or write or e-mail and they have a complaint, let's they feel both sides were different sites have not been represented. we collect those responses. i would advise you to e-mail us

and we provide this to congress. we provide a report to congress. it is independent. we also funded an editorial integrity project. stations themselves have agreed to a code of professional editorial integrity. nothing is perfect. we human beings doing our best. it belongs to all american people. it doesn't belong to one party on the left or the right. it is sure american public media. if you have concerns, let us know. . host: here is a tweet -- let me add to that, corporate sponsorship. guest: it is all viewer supported. corporate sponsorship has a lot of strings attached to it. i will give you an example. cook on publicus

television. she is not allowed to have a bottle of olive oil that she uses -- she may be using this at home or everywhere else -- where the label is shown to the public. there are so many strict guidelines about corporate sponsorship. host: and they come from where, the guidelines? guest: from pbs and on the other side, npr. just as the caller called before, there is concern -- appropriate concern that we never filed late the trust that the american people have placed in us over the past decades. and the reason why we haven't is because people are very, very serious about our integrity and about what we are putting forth either on air or online. that has been the debate. in march 2011, you saw that

debate openly on the house floor and in the congress, republicans saying -- calling the corporation for public broadcasting nonessential government services. let's take a look at that debate. guest: do we have to? host: and we will hear from colorado republican. [video clip] >> the point at issue is not the quality or content of public programming or the degree to which americans support the arts, ritter news and educational programs. the point today is whether government programs and services that can't be funded privately or otherwise available in the private sector should receive taxpayer funding. apart from constitutional concerns as a country, we no longer have this luxury anymore. with the national debt over $13 trillion, the government cannot fund nonessential services. host: mrs. harrison, why do taxpayers have to provide funding? guest: first of all, these are

not nonessential services. the second thing is, in terms of the deficit, we represent 1/10 0th of 1%. i do believe the honorable gentleman has since walked back his strong opinion. the fact is we provide a service that could not be provided without the help of the federal government. it is not 100 percent help, as i said before. this is a great partnership. we have been very responsible about holding up our end, ensuring the funds do not just come from the backs of taxpayers. from $445 million taxpayers. what is your operating budget in total? guest: cpb does not raise money, so this is our total funding for public media. were talking about the corporation for public broadcasting. host: for pbs, npr?

guest: those are separate. host: on average percentagewise, how much are they getting from taxpayers versus corporations? guest: out of this performing television andto 25% to radio. pbs is a membership organization. npr is a membership organization. so they raise funds host: they chargedues? guest: they do, and some of our community service grants have money so they can pay dues. it is a circle of strength, i like to view it that way. there are very, very different organizations in the sense they are standalone, even though cpb formed pbs in 1968, 1969 in around 1970, npr. so they have their own ceos and board of directors. host: sally, democratic caller.

caller: i will tell you, i am so thrilled with this whole program. i am 89 years old. if i did not have public ilevision, i don't know what would do. i did of been the morning and i watch and from 8:00 until sometimes 9:00 or 10:00 at night. with the book television is fabulous. i just can't say enough about it because this is all i can ever watch. let the other programs are so terrible. -- all of the other programs are so terrible. i wish i could give more money so you could be held more than you are now. is last thing i have to say i did not realize how much president johnson did for this

country. this this morning from you. i did not know. these did not like him because he swore a lot and everything. if i did not have public television, i could not be learning. i feel like i am in school for practically the whole day because of public television. thank you, thank you, thank you. host: all right, sally. leading up to president johnson signature on this act, and after, what happened with public broadcasting? guest: well, we began -- it was a short period of time from started68, 1969, we disbursing funds to stations. we did invest in interconnection. we created the system. as i said, it was a couple of years later that pbs was created and then npr.

the reason for that is that cpb does not create content. we do not own the stations. that is another really good step back to ensure that government doesn't get involved. there are so many really good, i think, caveats to what we can do and what we can't do.

we have an initiative called the american graduate which ron attention to the fact that one million young people are failing to graduate high school. for the firstter , highn american history school maturation rate is 80%. public radio stations are telling the story of the teachers, the dropouts and the people who are working to help these really bright kids graduate. >> tom, go ahead. >> good morning. texas. caller: i just want to say that even one penny of taxpayer money

is going to fund pbs and npr. and it's not because they're invested with nothing but militant leftists, a penny of taxpayer money shouldn't go to them no matter who controls. host: what are you saying? it's controlled by anti-americans? caller: it's controlled by hard-lined leftists. host: okay. patricia de stacy? guest: people have different opinions. there are people who believe that government shouldn't fund a lot of things. all i can say is the proven value over decades has resulted in a positive for this country.

host: how does the board work? guest: the board is appointed by the president of the united states, confirmed by the senate. it's a nine-member board. and no more than five members can be from any one party. really, when they created the public broadcasting act, they had this debate. as a result, they looked at just about everything. right now, we have a board coming from many different places, republicans, democrats, but they all have a love for public media. host: rob in alabama. caller: good morning. it is an extreme left-wing

organization. yet, people hired simply because they don't -- the -- i don't want npr funded by public money anymore than i want rush limbaugh funded by public money. guest: that opinion is out there. but really going back to our mission and how we have kept to this, nowhere does it say political point of view. it says that it should be content that informs. we're doing that. that educates. we have measurement in that. that entertains. entertains in a way that goes beyond learns about the kardashian and various other things. so the $1.35 that each taxpayer contributes to support this is probably the best value that any

american is getting out of their taxpayer dollar other than the military. host: do producers check content to deapproximate depoliticize it? guest: we do not do that. we have a code of ethics. things don't just show up with a point of view without a lot -- you know, one of the big complaints is it takes a long time for things to get funded through cpb because at the time everybody looks at everything, that poor filmmaker is getting ready for retirement. but it's all good because it's being responsible for money that comes from average americans. host: here's a conservative

take. the writer says the current rate of funding, cpb would take in five to 6 billion from americans over the next decades. it's not huge but it's a small piece of the entire pie that could be cut. but could they replace their funding? maybe start advertising. given the success of their programming, raising dollars in this capacity should not be difficult. on their website, they have a page about their large audiences. not only does pbs score big in the children's market, but they have huge funding in prime time as well. the funding would be there. guest: that's a good argument. the reason i know it doesn't is congress a couple of years ago -- dive into different

funding for public funding. it didn't just come from within cpb. the bottom line is that if public media did not receive federal funding, it would soon become commercial media. rural stations could not add content without commercials. also, in terms of raising money, there's no way that that amount of money to sustain an available, vibrant, really worthy public media service would be along the public media, it wasn't sustainable. we appeared before congress. we have this report. if anyone would like to have it, i can provide it. but it was such a deep dive that it really put to rest the idea

that public media could exist without the federal appropriation. it would also change the nature of the service to americans of -- especially underserved audiences and unserved audiences. host: are those reports on your website? guest: yes. host: so cpb.org. jack from new hampshire. caller: i can't resist saying when i heard ms. harrison say that pbs is the second most trusted institution second only to the military and the question leaping to my mind is why do we trust the military. let me get to my point. we keep hearing television, commercial television, referred to as the vast wasteland.

but my memory goes back because i'm old, prior to that, and i remember some really good quality television that was on in what was sometimes called the golden age of television. i remember my mother saying -- that was all on commercial television. i think the idea that commercial television is inherently capable of giving us quality television is not true. at the same time, when i turn on pbs these days, i find retro rock and roll shows and lawrence welch which i think is away from the tradition of public television. and i wonder why you can't give

us more live entertainment. or, you know, live variety shows like prairie home companion. why can't we also have more american productions. host: all right. thank you. guest: i love this call because i agree with everything. i can't speak for pbs, but they are looking to announce pretty soon something much more american focused because as popular as "downton abbey" is because i received a call from a character who was killed off asking why he was killed off. but you're right, it was the golden age of television. but what happened is it became more and more expensive to

attract viewers. i have a lot of commercial television in my life. the problem is they're driven by the bottom line. so a ken burns, if you're watching the civil war, you don't want it interrupted by a commercial. this is an oasis. it should not be a question of should it be commercial. it's not that. what commercial the fact is -- the fact is, we have cable and cable costs money and a lot of the wonderful dramas today, i love "mad men", you have to pay for it and it's a lot. so we're really an oasis of people who can't pay or those who can but choose to watch public television. but i agree with you on more drama and live events.

let me just say something about the late lawrence welk -- guest: we're the steward of the appropriation. your job is to get the money in an appropriate way to stations, filmmakers, and then we step back. host: you are not involved in the content? guest: no. but i would like to see an american version of "downton abbey." host: patricia de stacy from the

corporation for public broadcasting. this dolores in maryland. caller: good morning. i love your show. i remember back in 1983 when there was this ruckus about trying to demolish pbs broadcasting and i appealed to my congress to please not get rid of public broadcasting. that's crazy. it's free information for everyone. it doesn't matter who you are. information about everything. as a child, i remember seseme street, electric company. so it would be a shame to all of president johnson's initiatives

to have free broadcasting for everyone. that's one point. so keep up the good work. although i'm worried about -- i've been listening lately to the heritage foundation but i won't get into that. i just don't agree with them. but i guess everyone has to have their opinion. host: all right. let me hear from greg next in idaho. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you c-span. pbs and npr, not so much. you pretty much summed it up in your mission statement, they're clearly -- you wanted to talk with all the 88 year olds who agreed with you. and i think that's what pbs and npr are all about. i watch the news hour every evening after watching c-span

all day. and you put it in a format where there seems to be a debate. it's all left leaning. and i would like to echo some of the previous callers. host: have you ever gone to the corporation for public broadcasting's website where they report to congress about the studies that they've done, the research that they've done into their content? the content of npr and pbs, et cetera. caller: i have not. for years, i was a contributor, a dues-paying member. and they have just become so left leaning, it's very difficult. host: okay. all right. what about this perception? guest: i take it very seriously. the reason i enjoy talking to

folks is it's wonderful to hear that somebody is getting something of value and it's making a difference in their life. that's a positive story. equally, i do respect these views and we work very, very hard to ensure that no one group or ideology owns public media. so i think within a day of listening and viewing, there are things you will like and things you won't like. but we try for ultimate transparency and accuracy. host: what's next? how do you adapt to the new world, the new technology? guest: really, we've been focused on this for a while. and i'd like to say, suddenly, the audience wasn't where they were last time. they were going, not sitting on the couch. our investment has to be to keep up with our audience and to make

sure the content goes with him when, where, and how they want it. that's a big focus. to keep us on this track, we created a strategic framework and how we're funding. we call it the three d's. digital, diversity, and dialogue. the community is our partner, they want to be served. and we are really into the ability to really have the audience as our partner. so in a way what has happened is we've come from broadcasting, pushing out, and whether you like it or not, all of us now in media have a very interesting

new partnership, collaboration with people, people who been calling c-span, who have informed opinions and really they shape, help to shape, how you go forward. so it's an exciting time because of >> tomorrow, a look at the role of state and local police make in soho this birds is like in ferguson, missouri. the u.s.ith of citizenship and immigration services on president johnson's push for changing laws. after that, kent watkins, the chair of the national academy of housing discusses the housing act of 1955 which aims to

provide affordable housing for americans. we will take your phone calls and tweets. >> earlier this year, general motors recalled one million vehicles due to faulty ignition switches that had been linked to 13 deaths and 54 different caches -- different crashes. tonight i'm a we will take a special look at the gm recalls issue. it includes those house and senate oversight hearings. we will begin with the ceo of wherel motors mary barra she took responsibility for the faulty ignition switches. then the family members speak out -- the family members of those killed speak t