technology. this is being taped for c-span. so don't embarrass yourselves. as i might. also, microphones for questions are in thegram center of the room. i regret that in some ways, because 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. that is lauri strauss. right here. [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 i asked mark to kick it -- before i ask 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, compared 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. and the vast, you know, just

complete upheaval that was happening at that time. we are going through a change like that now. and because we are in the middle of it, we really 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 the truth is 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. and in fact, the president is actually pretty uncertain, too. there are some interesting things going on. one of them is happening at the place i work, "new york times." "the times" has successfully , after several unsuccessful attempts, instituted a pay wall. know, 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 in the newspaper business, advertising revenue was the way the whole thing was powered. wascirculation revenue eight much smaller part of where the money came from. at "new york times" because of the decline of print, and the -- because of success of the digital subscriptions, that was flipped on its head about a year ago. consumer revenue both in subscriptions and -- well, consumer revenue at the time, it

has now surpassed circulation revenue. i am sorry 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 y to write about and encourage are those of fairness, accuracy, and accuracy has gotten trickier in the digital world because we are so fast now and can put

things up immediately. there is so much competition we feel pressure to do so. so accuracy and fairness and integrity, you know, there is a discussion about whether the news business should be adversarial. should we be adversarial with government, with business. and a distinction and editor whom i admire much made recently 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 have to endure, and 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. and to move on. it is a very unusual time in our business. it is very exciting. there is a lot of great things happening. it is also 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. in fact i did and became editor , of the paper. but i don't think that happens very much for students these days and young people. the idea that you can come to a journalistic institution and yearsaround for 30

probably is not part of the model anymore. that is an overview. i would love to delve into the subjects a little bit more deeply. >> because it is very timely, this is an article that ties directly -- the headline is "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.

you know, 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. but i think 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. >> i can also say that editing while male can be a dangerous thing. [laughter] . have done it myself i am all for having as many women as possible in the newsroom, but i appreciate your 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. if you have good question, right it down and come on up afterwards. so 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. there is certainly a trend going on where news and content of all forms is breaking up from bundles to individual pieces.

so in my business, the newspaper, the morning package on your doorstep was always sacrosanct. cents for it and we will put it 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 or business associate and providing their , color commentary. sometimes you will send an four or five people, and all of them will respond. that is interesting change. you would read, the old paper and you would get to the opinion section at the end and get the institutional opinion of the day's news. now that comes from your friends and family, business associates, 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. in our telecom business is oddly oddlyecom business, it is 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. you either do or do not want espn could you may or may not want any number of channels. people might say they would like to -- >> please keep cnn. [laughter] >> oddly enough, 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.

but certainly there is a model -- al awards all a cart a carte 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. most companies do not. the ratings go down during the news and then back up. but we drive a strong news product. so we plan to continue doing that. it is harder and harder with people picking and choosing pieces. >> wsb.

>> that is right, channel two, strongly recommend it, in addition to cnn. there is also 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 kind of what gets us up in the morning. we love news and 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 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. -- vice presidential candidate on the ticket, that is right. that gets to the point of this. he believes in public service. that is what news is all about. it is a service. luckily it made a lot of money over the years, which we use to diversify over the years. but it is a public service at its very core. 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 supreme court justice said that actually is not enough. the three branches of government does not do it. you still get too much corruption. there has to be a fourth state 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 -- what people value the most are the political truth meter. like the political truth-o-meter , which has been very popular. a thumbs-up over there, very nice. >> on behalf of the journalists in the room and the business executives, too, the emphasis that is being pushed on investigative reporting is absolutely essential to this community. if you need a great example, the type of reporting you did on our school boards in atlanta. i know this is an ajc table -- 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. >> right, yes. i remember her lots of times holding that paper and sort of giving it a feel. over the years as advertising began to go digital and things up, -- 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. because we cannot afford to do it anymore, but 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. it will be for a long time. i was thinking about this this morning. my great-grandfather has in his -- in his will wrote a lot of gems of information that he left for the rest of us. i wanted to read a little passage i wrote down this morning. this was in his will, talking about assets and things. "these newspapers which i have taken pride in developing should make themselves champions of the rights of the people, but such power should not be used as an encroachment on the rights of individuals.

i ask 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. they can get on the internet and access news and information from any organization on earth in a moment's notice or any individual on earth that cares to post it, 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

access it and bundle it and look at anomalies and trends. it gives us information that we used to have. -- it gives us a lot more information than 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 allowed us to discover that it was statistically impossible for that to happen. that was what the team uncovered. how putting those scores together paint a picture that was impossible. quicksand they caught hell for having data that was different then the data of others, as many of you recall. i would say something about families. the solberger family owns the "new york times." the cox family owns cox. those families have maintained two their commitment to quality.

that is an exception in an america today. so many families, for many reasons, tax reasons, so their -- sold 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 realize the importance of the in ourg role newspapers or journalism, and we are profitable in 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." they continue to do absolutely

outstanding journalism. i should tell you we don't know , what will happen to my old newspaper "the los angeles times." the company is in an groep see -- bankruptcy. a once great american paper is in a precarious state. tell us to what extent, what is the future of the ajc? [laughter] >> um. [laughter] >> 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. but it is 98 percent 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 damn politicians that think they can charge their cell phone bill to the taxpayers. [laughter] 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. >> margaret, will there be a the "new yorkof 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. i mean, you know, 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. so it is difficult to look out 10 years. example >> 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. ,please. >> i the only one? ami am with georgia public broadcasting. 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. [laughter] this is a great conversation about the future of news. we have the business perspective. i am particularly interested in a journalist as a broadcaster, what is the future of the news consumer? what is the future expectations of the american public of the service of news and journalistic entities? >> i will take a crack at it. great question. 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. you can be sure that they will

find those things because 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. that individuals, you know, some people want to read pretty much about foreign affairs, and some people want to read about jennifer aniston's baby. there are different audiences. i do not think you can really generalize completely. >> you know, it is tough when during my era, we would want to do straight news, hard news, and breaking news, and then along comes o.j. simpson. the audience levels went

absolutely through the stratosphere on it. we would try to shift back. there was an important speech by president clinton at columbine. switch back, and we had total meltdown when people wanted to continue on the o.j. story. so the editors in television, and i do not think georgia public television has ever been better than it is. [applause] i take great pride. i worked with someone from there at cnn, and i am just delighted with her. >> if i might ask a follow-up question. my question is about the balance between what the audience, giving them what they want to 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's a few little pieces of it -- one of the things that stuck out with me, what do i need? that was ranked number one to number this sounds funny but it 10. is true. people said their cell phones ranked higher than water. they did not think about water as something they needed to get on about their day. and look at my cell phone, put it in my hand, and am busy with it. 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 kept from you and 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. you can go back through history. 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, things that have changed the way we live most of the money and , business models were solidified in the last half of that era. not in the beginning. and the beginning, it is the wild west. i think 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 -- researched information, you

have to think 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, you know this team will , take any big investigative story and talk it over. they will say 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. >> and without an owner like this, they could be dinosaurs. i am serious. >> 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. there are partnerships and collaborations with what would have been competitors. and it is all part of this experimentation. again many of these things don't , work out. some of them do. 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 am at current video production company owner. i think there is a deep and growing cynicism in the news -- among 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. the theory that 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 -- i mean, there is an interesting and valid debate happening about the extent to which it is important to come off as if you have no beliefs. you know, can you let your stripes sort of show or do you need to be neutral observer? i think that is a valid and interesting debate going on. but 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. >> explained to the audience glenn greenwald. >> 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 as you said, a firm believer that you stand for something and you can know exactly what it is but i can still do journalism. as i say, 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. >> 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. -- critics do not believe that. >> yeah, critics do not believe that, and a lot of that comes from a long history of opinion writing. a lot of influential and powerful opinion writers that

-- branded our brands with legacies. the journal and constitution used to be two separate papers. one had a conservative and one was more liberal didn't. 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. i think transparency is the new objectivity. one of my favorite applications "the economist" and they biased economists. [laughter] >> but in a good way. >> it is like your old wife's uncle telling you things. you know what he thinks.

i find it to be wonderful journalism. >> it is interesting what he said about 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? because 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, i think that these traditional differences have started to go away as well. >> the next questioner is anita sharpe, the president of the atlanta press club. she coordinates investigative reporting for bloomberg. >> thank you. i do not have to say anything. [laughter] 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 mean, so far 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, so it is stories trending that sounds pop-culture-ish. in reality 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 want 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. -- particular group of stories. it gives you good direction on what to follow up on. your news tomorrow will be more relevant than it was today. hopefully. >> are you worried about apple tv and roku. -- and roku? >> what are those? >> over-the-top video is a user interface that allows people to stream video or a quick your television without going to a cable company or satellite dbs

provider. they don't have as much content. netflix is an example of a company investing in content. "house of cards" was a popular show. my wife and i enjoyed it. 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 watch on your tv but also to stream it to your tablet. you can use your tablet as a remote control and you can slip through the channels and like a particular show, you can get it on your television interchangeably. 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 make one switch. i want to bring maria up for a moment. there is a reason for it. come on up. i am going to tell you, in my old days in washington, there were reporters who were the stakeout reporters. i mean, there were reporters that you could not -- you couldn't get away. they were standing outside the door, and they were in ice, rain, sleet. helen thomas was a good example. i could mention others. atlanta has one of those. it has four a long time for the chairman of the commerce club cannot get out that door after an executive meeting without maria being there. she is now in the atlanta business chronicle. i have had tremendous admiration

for her enterprise. maria, please. >> what you are saying is i'm a pain in the ass. [laughter] >> absolutely. have my own website. supporterreport.com. >> that was a commercial. >> i am trying to show that i have a foot in both doors. you talked about it being the wild west. i think that is a very apt description. i am also on the board of the atlanta press club. one think that we wrestle with because there is a lower barrier to entry in this new world, 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? you know, 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. ideally telling people that you , go through great lengths to fact check stories will allow them to see the difference andeen fact-checked stories not fact checked. i think talking about it is important. for us, i know i have great faith in our news organizations. i have sat in the newsrooms and i have watched the discussions that go on. if they did not 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. you know, this website said that you 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, i think people will want less static and more signal. >> i think it may be the biggest issue. i think about our two granddaughters now, 11 and 13, 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 -- work to get accuracy and a tremendoust is need of our educational system, and our parenting. there is more garbage coming at you than there is solid information. >> i would like to see schools bear down on teaching news literacy. to the extent that an media organization can support the and foster it, it would be very helpful. when i was in buffalo, we had a youth publication. it 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 kind of 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. i think you will find it one of the best. we are going to take one more. i ask that it be a question and not a commentary. >> it is not a lecture. i'm going to take two minutes of you who i am tell and 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 all in atlanta, georgia. yes, i said atlanta, georgia. i'm a structural engineer. i came to the united states in 1969. that is 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. never. once you do that, you have violated 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.

i really do. 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 kept the american people and the world in the dark, if somebody told you that, what would you tell him? >> i would say that we have failed at our mission if we have kept 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, then 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. >> the answer in the question stand on their own. 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." >> yes our job is to get out the , facts and not withhold them. >> ok, i appreciate your answer.

i am going to give you three 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 both study them and see. we have time? one more question? >> i am from georgia tech and have a question about google news. at my lapper is a phd at georgia tech. does the print media love google news or hate it? would you rather have a penny a click for looking at your stories? from the business model where do you see google news now and in the future? >> 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 news, they disseminate news around the world. they make it easier for you. in general, there motivated philosophy is to positively impact a billion lives. they seem sinister. there is nothing bad about it. they just disrupt our businesses. in the grand scheme of things, if we did not own them, i would say disruption is a good thing. [laughter] >> it reminds me of power you -- of how you would feel or how a journalist would feel if he or she was asked, you know, would you rather have the internet around or not? some ways, some people might say that 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 camp, that we would rather have the dissemination and would rather move things forward and take up the pieces. that is kind of a macro way to answer your question. >> i would like to conclude first by thanking everybody for coming here today, especially the two of you. and i have a quote from margaret -- are today's journalists doomed entering a business in e they coming into a media world bursting with new possibilities? beis my view that you will coming into a world bursting with new opportunities. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> and the faced a page for the army's fort lee, an update about an earlier shooting a look said a female soldier turned the gun on herself but did not wound any others. the base was temporarily on lockdown but has been reopened to the shooter was taken to a nearby hospital. no word yet on her condition to fort lee is in congressman randy forbes district him and he said in a statement -- this morning we were saddened by the frightening is that afford lee but relieved that the perpetrator had been disarmed and there were no additional injuries. i command the leadership, workforce, and law enforcement for their ineffective response to this incident and my office is in close communication with

fort lee and i stand ready to assist the leadership of fort lee and surrounding communities as the investigation begins. we will bring you any other updates on c-span it works better later today, former vice chair of the federal reserve talks about progress in implementing health care law in seven southern states speech will be joined by a health care scholar with the heritage foundation and an editor with an online news network. that will be at one: 30 eastern time. later, a bbc debate over whether scotland should be independent ahead of the independence referendum on such of her 18th it we spoke earlier with the reporter for a closer look. scottish voters go to the polls soon to decide whether to remain part of the u.k. correspondentand joins us. give us a background on some of the major players and some of the arguments. guest: the major players effectively are two governments

and control in scotland, the scottish government which has control over domestic policy in ,cotland through the parliament led by alex hammond, and opposing him and opposing the smp is the u.k. government, a coalition of the conservative party and the liberal democrats that run the u.k. government from london. clustered around both the governments are other parties that have a major or perhaps minor say in the way scotland and the u.k. are run. the u.k. party is based on the number of people that vote, the largest party in scotland, is aligned with the u.k. government and opposing independence. alongside are some smaller center-left, scottish green party, couple of socialist parties, and also a number of individuals who might vote for the liberal party or even some democrats who are coming on

board with the pro-independence campaign because they believe it would be far better for scott -- for scotland. host: what aspects have you been focusing on in some of your articles about this referendum? guest: the major issues for the referendum campaigns and for voters are the strengths and future of the economy in scotland. one of the very significant allied issues is the currency that independent scotland might use. there are issues like the future valley of the north sea oil and gas reserves which are in very large part in scottish waters, even though they are part of the of.'s wealth and balance trade. if scotland were to become independent, scotland would control approximately 90% of the and guessoil reserves. there is another question which hinges on all of the issues, and that is whether scotland would suffer or prosper from being part of a margin -- a much

larger state in the future. it is the case, or sometimes in scotland, scotland would be ruled are part of a greater . ey only got 12 out of 59 m.p.'s even though they commanded hundreds of thousands of votes. the tax resentment policy and the defense system and whether we go to war can be decided in london by a government which doesn't necessarily have the consent of the scottish people. >> we are going to join you for a debate today at 3:30. that's going to be between the rst minister of scotland and

also alex who is in charge of this campaign. what can we expect to hear in this debate this snanch >> what you'll expect to hear is the issues i've just raised. there is one thing i haven't mentioned that is the main area of dispute at the moment which is the yes cam poin and the anti-independents is over the direction of welfare policy. the future of the national health service, issues in the u.k. are central to most political arguments. we expect alex to really be much more aggressive, much more negative when they talk. because when he last met on the 5th of august for a debate, the view is that he lost that debate and the problem for him, of course, is that the yes campaign

is still 14% hipped in the polls on average. -- behind in the polls on average. so he has an opportunity to engage with a huge audience to try and put a much more coherent case in favor of independence. so the pressure is on him to win. most say if it's a draw, if they come out even, that's a good result for the no campaign because all they have to do is just defend their lead in the polls. the task is for alex to make the best of this he possibly can. >> do most voters have their minds made up already or will this debate have a sway either way? >> that's a good question. actually the view is that most voters have made their mind up. there is this contest at the moment for the hundreds of thousands of scots who may not yet have decided.

trying to establish how many that is is quite difficult. you have to work out how you would judge whether somebody is undecided. but we can estimate that approximately half a million scottish voters which is approximately 20% of the electorate are either genuinely undecide or are swithering. they may think they are going to vote yes or no but are not entirely convinced about the yes campaign or no campaign's arguments. they are the people for whom this debate could be one of the most significant events. there is skepticism about how important these debates are. unlike in the united states where you have a presidential debate and it is decided, the person that is going to lead the country. the presidential thing is about individuals, about personalities. this referendum isn't. it's a much broader issue than that. it's about the future of the

country, the future of the economy. it's about where people feel most comfortable and where they thing the long term future of the country is. ministerd be the first of scotland but he could be voted out in 2016. when people go to the polling booths they aren't going to be thinking about him, they are going to think about what is best thr them and their children and their country and the place they work. >> we appreciate your time. for those who want to follow your tweets during the debate severin ind you at carrell. thanks for the insight. >> no problem. thank you. >> and today's debate with the leader of the scottish national party and the head of the better campaign at 3:30 eastern here on

c-span. >> this week special prime time programming on the c-span networks. tonight on c-span a debate over scottish independence. then on tuesday spotlight on i.r.s. targeting of conservive roups. tonight at 30830 eastern a discussion about school choice. tuesday night at 8:00 how the poor can save capitalism and a buy ogfi 8:00 about neil armstrong. and on friday ron paul.

on c-span 3. tonight the reconstruction era and civil rights. on tuesday the end of world war i and the atomic bomb. find our television schedule one week in advance at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> former arkansas governor mike huckabee joined the christian leadership conference in support of higher u.s. academic

standards particularly for students of color. his is about half an hour. >> it's not the calendar i sense in terms of tifmente it's fall break or this time of year with labor day looming, it's not the start of arkansas football. it's back to school. for back to school, i think 15 years ago when i'd been b standing in front of a classroom of students.

there are a couple of trends that impact of the classroom then that are relevant to our discussion now as well. i noticed students come into the classroom are part of what was later dubbed the browning of america. they had beautiful skin. i noticed another trend. this is much more disturbing. the students were not prepared for what i was attempting to teach them. they had come to the classroom less and less prepared. there were these moments in the classroom they would look at me and i would think the same thing they were. part of me as a christian, i felt the lord was impressing on me. these are your children. if they are going to love me with their mind, it is your

responsibility make sure that they are successful. that is the spirit and the heart of what raising the standards is about. that is the initiative we're ere to talk about. we believe it is raising the standards as one of a initiative that can help not just those students but those of the coming oday and tomorrow. if we fast-forward 15 years, a collective minority will be larger than the white population in classrooms today. this is the first time in u.s. history. we have seen some progress among hispanic students in terms of high school graduation. in terms of college going. the second half of that story isn't so terrific. they're not completing college

at the same rate. it is 50% lower than their white counterparts. we believe that today is a day of action. we're are here to announce an initiative that will. our national hispanic education sunday. a every sunday in september we lift up education and pulpits across the country. some of the pastors represented here today will be tearing down these false walls of separated faith and education for too long. raising new rigorous standards in our homes and schools and say no longer will we dumb down standards and socially promote students of any background. we will hold all students accountable. pastors and principles should meet. parents and professors should meet.

we no longer have a false dichotomy that keep us apart. we believe that in addition to that we have started a faith and education website. we are going to send hispanic parents to get resources to assist their children and assist them to be more successful. these are all part of raising the standards initiatives. the next person of the podium embodies what happens when we expect more. we hear about an achievement gap for hispanic and other minority students. we don't think that is accurate. we think it is an opportunity gap. as someone who works for the nhs clc, her story and her confidence as a young woman

success story will be inspiring. >> good morning. as a daughter of first-generation generation immigrants, my education was a high priority. their understanding of the language and the system was limited. they prayed for and dream for the same things for me that my schoolmates has one of their children. a good education, strong faith, solid family values and a future of opportunity in this great nation they called home. we lived in dallas where ethnic diversity was the norm that high educational standards in neighborhood schools were not. i was with you to apply and get accepted to a magnet high school.

it expected us to graduate not just from high school from college as well. my friends and extended family at the high school in the neighborhood were not so fortunate. they were not held to rigorous academic standards and were not prepared for college-level work. thanks to the high expectations of my parents and teachers, i was motivated and prepared to earn a bachelors degree and then a masters degree. today, i work here on national education initiatives. next year, i will answer the program. i am living proof that high educational expectations and amily support empower students from the most this vintage neighborhoods to not just graduate, but to impact the next generation.

as the fastest-growing segment in schools, we must seize the opportunity set high goals. they are a national resource and national treasure with the potential to lead americans to discovery and creativity. hispanic students and the nhclc welcome the support of national leaders committing to raise her in the standards for public education. we can ensure that hispanic families are encouraged to pursue the american dream of freedom, opportunity, and a better life for their children. thank you. >> she inspires me with that every time. our featured speaker today we are blessed to have. e has a record for educational reform and supporting my nordic

students as the former governor of arkansas. this is a man who also has a background in the church and understands the intersection of faith and education. he understands this intersection between common sense and conservatism from our perspective. he is one of the leading voices for conservatives and christians. please help me welcome governor mike huckabee. thank you. so you're looking at the scene and saying what is wrong with this picture. you have two hispanic leaders and eight obvious white guy in the middle. i care because america is a better country when all of its children are well-educated. when every student in this country has equal access to an excellent education and there is

no such thing as a student who s required or somehow destined to go to an underperforming school. that should not be tolerated. it does not matter if ace to do is black, white, brown. it matters not. there is no such thing as a disposable child. every student in this country is an integral part of making us everything we can be. the reason i stand here today is raising academic standards is not simply the role of the school and it is certainly not he role of the government.

students are not dry-cleaning. parents can drop them off of the morning and pick them up in the afternoon spot free. what we have to do is remind parents that it is a biblical mandate for the parents to raise the children. they need to accept the responsibility for the outcome of their students. it goes back to the proverbs. train up a child in the way that he should go and he will not epart from it. it is as fundamental as life itself. it it was never acceptable for us to say we will give the responsibility of the education to the government and hope for the best. it will not end well. it does not matter who a person may be. it is the leadership of 40,000 hispanic churches across the country who decided that on education sunday they are going to use the power of their pulpits talking to millions of their constituents and remind them of their pivotal responsibility to take charge of the educational opportunities or their children.

this is wonderful opportunity for america. if we turn this over to congress, their approval rating is 9%. we want to turn it over to the government. we don't see the government top really doing a great deal. t would be against our own biblical convictions to ever turn over to caesar that which is god's. part of the challenge to the pastors is that they will remind the parents that it is your responsibility to make sure that they are getting the best education they are able to receive. if that means they can't get into the school they are assigned to, they need to push for school choice.

or they choose to homeschool or whatever decision is best for the student. education decisions ought to be about what is best for the student and not best for the government or the tax base or the people who are running the schools. i had a department of education director that was a real partner in reform. we work hard in our own state. one of the things we used to say it was there are two kinds of people, school people and their arcade people. school people are about the institution. that is not why we are there. it is about the children. we need to be kid people and focused on how the students are being prepared for life. i just want to mention that if we even thought tv time for parents to challenge your students and challenge yourself. e could not be as effective as

to see these pastors go into 40,000 churches. they will reach more people that unday than on any television show we could buy time on. there would be more people sitting in those pews. imagine what happens when they heed that message. that is why i salute the leaders who will be joining together on that momentous day. i really believe that from my time when i was chairman of the education commission, the one organization that brings together all of the major players in state policy. a study discovered that the most important predictors of academic achievement outcome is every student would be exposed to a broad and challenging curriculum. i we cannot accept anything less than a very widespread curricula touches all of the talents of every student and one that challenges them to be their very

best. t refuses to accept anything less than high standards for excellence. we are delighted to be here. am thrilled to be part of the event. i believe we will entertain some questions. >> thank you, governor. we have times for a few questions.

>> hi. i want to differentiate between what is new and what you have done before. >> there are a couple of new initiatives. this idea that we are asking churches to take a love offering for every child that will be baptized or christened and deliver to them a college scholarship. this can be set up for $25. it doesn't have to be something huge. every child to be present with a bible and a college scholarship. we believe that this parallel between faith and education is widening. it should be an intersection. another quick one would be the report card prayer initiative. we are asking parents to make

copies of their report cards and turn them in the offering goes around. we believe those are offerings. we want the congregation to pray over them and children see this intersection of faith and study. we will have educational liaisons that help churches and parents improve the educational success of their students. they can be contacted. it is a strategic move on our part. those are a couple of new initiatives. the faith and education education -- website is new. we are emphasizing that we are not pushing public education

away any longer. we are supporting it. this is the first time in the history of evangelicalism that we are not embracing secularism if it exists, 95% of our students are educated in public schools. this is our system. we want to embrace public education and let them know that we are here to support you. how can we help? can pastors offer their churches for afterschool programs? thank you for the question. thank you. >> i am caitlin from olitico. i know governor huckabee is in some poorly common core. i am wondering if you're still behind the common core? ? howdy raise standards in schools -- how do you raise standards in schools?

>> raising the standards is about having standards like the common core standards state to state. we know the implications of a student in chicago being raised in a home and then going to a school where the standards are different or lower than they would be elsewhere. we believe that while there is a lot of political -- politicization of common core, go to the standards. have you read the standards? don't read the political things. go to the standards themselves. how can knowing how to round numbers off or understanding: no meals, how can it be political? that is a standard that every third-grade student should know. we believe they are redeemable. we think that is the core of what it is all about.

we believe that as a state led initiative. that is why states like connecticut are represented here today. states will join this. i want you to graduate from my english class, i am not going to change the standards for any ther motive because i care about you. i'm not going to speak for the governor, these are redeemable and he stands behind high

standards. >> i salute the efforts in the college scholarships in the churches for every baptism and christening. i don't like the idea turning in the report cards. i am thinking back to my own student days. i want to address the common core question. i think it has become toxic and radioactive. it is a controversial topic on both the left and right. you have equal disregard or repulsion from people on the left and right when it comes to common core. i don't want to fight over program. i want to fight for students. the fight is not about what it is called. it is making sure that we elevate to the highest level challenging academic standards for students. if we are going to divide ourselves over common core, let's stop that. let's not stop the fight whether we you are on the right or left for saying we want our students to achieve to the highest level they're capable of. they can't do that if we dumb down the schools. i don't know any conservative who wants to dumb down america schools.

if a student moves, the expectations of what they are going to experience academically in one state is comparable to the other. it is no different than would -- when we play basketball. if you are playing in california and then play a team in kentucky, a kentucky team will probably beat you. you want to make sure the goal is still 10 feet off the floor and the ball is inflated to the same level and the dimensions of the court of the same. let's say in california lower the goal down to six feet and they make sure everybody can slamdunk the ball, have they created a better team? they have artificially lowered

standards to make it appear they are successful. i want those kids to be able to succeed in any state. they won't be so far had their board or so far behind that they give up and quit because they can't catch up. that is what i will fight for. i'm not going to fight over rogram that has so many sticky notes put all over it about things or never a part of common core which is a very simple thing you. the controversies over data collection and curriculum and specifics. stop the fight. let's not make this something we are going to shed blood for no particular value to the students. he students first. >> we have time for one more question.

make it good. >> i am jeffrey scott with the christian post. are there plans in the initiative to ramp up cholarships for hispanic going to a discussion about implementing the affordable care act in the south. >> today's forum examines implementation of the affordable care act in the south. first, we're going to hear an overview of state responses to the a.c.a. and then from individual states. finally we're going to have a wide ranging discussion on what these state experiences mean to national health reform. the reports and the forum come out of a 35 state study. the a.c.a. implementation

network. this network is coordinated by hree institutions. i'd like to thank staff for their help in organizing this forum. i'd also like to thank the governing institute and west virginia university for their assist innocence organizing this event. and finally, i'd like to thank c-span for broadcasting today's forum and all those in washington who are not making news so that c-span stays with us. we have a lot to cover today. to save time i'm going to skip trying to summarize the biographies of our speakers. they are all impressive people. but if you want more information about it -- about any one of them, we put a nice summary in the materials you have you got

outside of the room. also they are -- biographies are . our website you will be able to find that there as well. you will find on our website, d.o.t. rock ins.org. >> when you do want to ask a question raise your hand and wait for the microphone to come to you. also and most importantly this is a great time to power down your cell phones. finally for media representatives each of our presenters will be available for interviews at the end of the program. enough for the housekeeping stuff. let's get into the discussion of

the a.c.a. as many of you know the affordable care act created a complicated sharing of functioning between the states and federal government. while the federal government enforces the mandate and establishes foors for benefits, the law also assigns many functions to the states such as creating health insurance exchanges, regulating insurance plans and operating medicaid. what happens in the state is essential to the performance of the a.c.a. and the region we're focusing on today is especially important. depending on how you define the south between 41 and 46% of the people without health insurance in the united states live in the southern states. if the a.c.a. is to achieve its purpose of expanding access to quality healthcare it has to work in the south. to she had light on what is happening in the southern states, we are issuing reports

from a network of sclars across the country. a couple of months ago we released reports out of the western states. today we are releetsing reports on alabama , florida, south carolina, kentucky, mayor and west virginia plus an overview report on the region. next month we're going to publish reports on the north and midwestern states. the researchers who produced these reports come from a ariety of disciplines. all of them have a deep understanding of the states they are studying typically because they flive these states and have studied these states for many years. they also share a deep understanding in documenting the changes produced by the a.c.a. manner. ective

we've organized research networks that have studied jobs programs, welfare reform, medicaid and many other national incentives. these studies vary a lot but a few basic elements are found in all of them. first they focus on implementation. second, they recognize the importance of federalism on how federal and state governments cooperate or fail to cooperate with each other. third, they tend to be inductive. the reports cover a lot of ground and draw from many sources in part because we want to be open minded about how the new law looks from the new perspective of each state. finally the studies rely on a network to really understand whether and how a federal initiative produced real change. it's critical to draw on a

network of sclars located in the states they are studying and can monitor developments as they unfold sometimes over several years. this tradition of field work studies began when my predecessor came to lead the institute in 1989. dick nathan invented the field network approach in the 1970's. dick has been the driving force in putting together this study on the affordable care act. i'd like to thank dick for all the hard work he's done in building the study and this impressive network. i'd like to thank the people who have contributed much to this effort, especially alice and lane and john. today's report looks like only an early stage in what will be a long-term research process. this network is here for the long hall. the next step after we release all the state reports in september will be a conference

to plan analysis of key cross studying issues. enough background about the study. let's turn to the researchers and their findings. first call on christopher who can be distinguished by having been working with the institute for almost two decades now eginning back in 1996 with our welfare reform network. chris of west virginia university wrote the overview report and he will summarize it over the next short period of time. thank you. go ahead chris. > thank you very much. good afternoon. like so many federal laws and programs that have gone before, the states are shaping the form and the function of the affordable care act.

as tom pointed out, our research network is focusing on state experiences and the implementation of a.c.a. and as is true to form in american politics implementation provide another staple for shaping public policy. our baseline reports are helping to illustrate how this is happening and sets the stage for future research. the research network is looking at the individual states but as tom eluded to, we're also interested in the regional dimension. today we're focusing on the south. the united states census bureau defines the south as 16 states as well as the district of columbia. it's a broader definition than what some might use. it includes kentucky, oklahoma, maryland, delaware and west virginia. to date much of the attention on state responses has focused on the south. why? because many of these states

policy actions have been taken that have been interpreted to be in opposition to the a.c.a. framed through the optics of politics, the prevailing characterization is that position is resolute, dritch bipartisanship and often shortsighted. given that most of a.c.a. provisions are beneficial to states, limited access to health services and high levels of chronic disease essentially a profile of much of the south, it would seem these states would embrace the new law. instead they have not done so or done so with reservations. opposition can be characterized running a spectrum of hands off proaches to tactics aimed at avoiding success. an example of the latter might be a state that takes actions to

thwart the role of navigators helping folks get connected to insurance. there is more to the story. southern states have on thed to expand med -- opted to expand medicaid. others are going through the private option. a few have established their own exchanges. decisions by other states to expand medicaid expansion may be the product of more than just politics. past policy history and current issues relating to capacity in need should be take -- taken into account. so too should be market and demographic factors. there are counter currents of support in opposition to the a.c.a. where opposition is present some of the resistance is absolute.

but the opposition is often contingent and conditional and likely to be accommodated with policy change and adjustments that come through experience. but the opposition is often contingent and conditional. we want to look at some of the key factors involved. first, let's consider the partisan dimension. the most convenient explanation for the south's opposition to a.c.a. is found in electoral partisanship. s the dominated by red states as reflected in voting patterns, elected state offices and majorities in state legislatures. the riege season a hot bed of tea party activism. in some states where the tide is running from blue to red, it can be difficult to differentiate republican from democratic candidates. s the complex. and we find opposition various in degree as well as rationale

and motive. the south is not as solid as it might seem in its opposition. as the state reports illustrate, differences in opinion are present within the states themselves. not only between proponents and opponents of a.c.a. but amongst those who have reservations about a.c.a. our field reports provide excellent examples of this network. both florida and texas have gained significant attention as a result of actions taken by key elected officials. as the reports discuss in rich detail opponents to a.c.a. in these states have not always seen eye to eye in responding to the new law. they have also had differing iews on how to move forward. for example, conservative governors and legislators may have different views on how to move forward with medicaid expansion options. analysis suggest that key

economic interest representing the business community as well as healthcare providers may have a moderating influence which tamps down partisan passions. for example, hospital associations and insurance companies were key forces in mobilizing from medicaid expansion in the state of west virginia. in the state of kept kent they were important allies in medicaid expansion and establishing a state exchange. those who study politics know well that policy logic can be trumped bipartisan passion. over time extreme positions be they on the left or the right will likely be tempered by the moderating influence of prevailing private interest. ideological position are rarely persistent when they are exposed to the practical real tiss of a pluralistic society and market economy. the a.c.a. involves the interest of many well established

players. we may expect more turbulence in the months to come as economics are more actively considered and accommodated. let's look at another dimension and that is the dimension of state government capacity and history. we believe that one of the most important attributes of our study is our ability to look closely at the landscape of past and current policy and administrative arrangements in each of the states. in the study of federal policy implementation it is inadvisable to assume that all states start from the same relative position when implementing new law. apart from political considerations past and contemporary policy experiences shape the terrain of implementation. while there are various aspects of the a.c.a. which bear this out, the clearest illustrations can be found in state responses to medicaid expansion opportunities. on the surface it would appear expanding medicaid would be a no

brainer and state refuseles to expand medicaid are acts of truck lance. while not discounting the partisan dimension there is more to the story. for some it is seen as a big step while in other states it's a smaller step. in state capitols medicaid is known as a budget buster even with it's generous federal matches. medicaid is a prom that vexes state planning and obligations. most states can point to times of crisis herb associated with the program. for some it's an incrementle step that further expands gonch to low income populations. states like maryland and delaware have had per misive guidelines reaching much of the target population from medicaid expansion. in sort it's a smaller step for those who have liberalized eligibility in the past.

the same cannot be said for southern states where eligibility for adults has been more restrictive. concerns about long term physical and program obligations even with generous federal funding appear to be genuine. in short it's seen as a big step in these states. now what is quite interesting is that in some of the conservative southern states the big steps are being made nonetheless. this includes west virginia and kentucky which have expanded their medicaid programs. it includes arkansas which has developed a private option that allows the newly eligible to enter the insurance market to use medicaid dollars to cover premium cost. states within and without the south are trying to find a third way to address some of the likets involved in medicaid expansion. approaches modeled along the arkansas model provide political cover but they also provide some

reassurance that states will not overextended creating new systems or in scrambling to find providers accepting payments that might be lower. beyond partisanship and politics, state opposition or reluctens to embrace the a.c.a. may be rooted in preexisting circumstances related to past policy practices and experiences. this is evident in the case of medicaid expansion. to be risk averse is not tantamount to be an obstruction nist. states with restricted medicaid in the past may be cautious about expanding the program. with time we are seeing oppositional stances modified as state leaders search for alternative mechanisms such as a private options. let's talk about markets and

demographics, another factor influences state responses to a.c.a. just as the issue of medicaid expansion reflect issues. state experiences also tell us there is more to the equags than just politics. what is notable in our field research is how market and demographic forces have shaped state level deliberations and action. when the a.c.a. was signed into law, a number of states signaled their intonet create their own state operated exchanges. it is safe to say that the conventional wisdom held that the federal exchange would be a fallback rather than a default choice and the states would actively pursue exchanges. we know this has not come to pass. as our field research con firms, much of this was for partisan reasons. there were other factors at stake that proved to be a real world test for this new policy design.

for some states like west virginia which was one of the first states to authorize planning, analysis and the challenges of developing an i.t. system suggested that aon themy was not worth the cost. and there was a realsization the markets were impaired and this raised warning flags of concern. it is significant in a number of southern states, especially those with substantial rural populations, the individual insurance market is less than ideal. the relatively poor health provile is unattractive to insurers so too is limited health care delivery capacity. low income and aging populations result in much of the payer mix being dominated by medicaid or medicare. in such circumstances insurers have relatively little leverage in negotiating pricing with providers who are motivated to off set the low reimbursement rates associated with publicly

funded insurance programs. faced with these prospects some states were weary about taking on the responsibility of weak markets. to do otherwise could be perceived as a recipe for disaster leaving some state officials accountable for the failure of a new federal law. from our current vantage point we recognize the operation of exchanges is not without their difficulties. states participating in federal or partnership arrangements have been able to indem fie themselves for the future. interestingingly we have two southern states that illustrate both the opportunities and challenges involved in establishing insurance exchanges. these are kentucky and mayor. one is held as a model of considerable success, that would be kentucky and another struggles and that would be maryland. some healthcare reform is more than politics. it's about fundamental economics

that affect insurers, consumers and taxpayers. market conditions and demographic realities can help account for some of the turbulence that has emerged in the southern states. the ability of states to effectively manage exchanges may be contributing to opposition. in conclusion a preliminary review of the south reveals that the opposition to the a.c.a. is the turbulent. there are different reasons and motives for opposition. partisan and political factors have influences action and reaction. so too have underlying factors related to past policies, administrative capacity and existing demographic and market forces. while looking at the past will help us understand the current situation, perhaps the most interesting paths are those focused on the future as we track the experiences of the states. given the complicated responses to a.c.a. across the country,

the lessons of the south are likely applicable beyond the region. through this review it was my intention to provide broad context and perspective on our research efforts. we can learn more about the detail from our colleagues present today in the panel discussion that will shortly get under way. i thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, chris. now let's get our panelist up .ere at the table so we have our experts here. they include michael from the university of alabama at birmingham. and michael will be the first

speaker. for florida we have robert from florida state university. for kentucky julia from the university of kentucky and texas david warner from the university of texas at austin. for maryland jocelyn and for west virginia more of christopher. so we're going to start off with michael. go ahead mike ling. >> thank you. alabama is probably best categorized as a state of passive resistance to the affordable care act and its many provisions. the state is not a rich state as i'm sure most of you are aware and it's basically made the decision that it's not spending money either to support or really to oppose the legislation. and certainly much of the opposition is philosophical but as was pointed out, much of the opposition really comes down to

the nuts and bolts of how to play all of this out in a state that doesn't have a lot of revenue. first of all, it's clear alabama did not expand its medicaid program, even though there were strong economic incentives to do so. but as it turns out, the states are on the hook for ultimately 10% of the additional healthcare cost. in a state like alabama , much of the revenue is earmarked so it's more heavy lifting than simply shifting the budget arrangements from one category to another. you have to negotiate moving moneys out of what are often long established trust funds to be able to make the sorts of expansions that medicaid would imply. with respect to an ultimate expansion, i suspect in alabama to the extent that its likely to happen and the governor has said he's not prepared to expand

medicaid in its current form, but the use of medicaid managed care as an introductory way to change the dynamic and perhaps consideration of the arkansas model as a private option. that in alabama would playoff of the expansion of the children's health insurance plan that was very successful in the 1990's. having said that as well, i suspect alabama is likely to khang it's stance on medicaid but only following states like texas and louisiana. with respect to the default exchange programs, alabama , as you know, is one of those default states. i think that came about and originally the governor and legislature were in favor of establishing a state based exchange. but as this played out, there was lack of guidance from the federal government and the states are on the hook for the administrative cost in 2015 fa

going forward. that provides a lot of financial risk to any state and certainly a state that is low in revenues. and having said that the federal default exchange is the sort of exchange the state was considering in the first place. it seems unlikely to me that alabama will move away from the federal default. and finally alabama is a state with very few insurers and indeed as the affordable care act played out, only one, blue cross, blue shield was present in all of the markets. another is present nonl three counties. we expect some expansion over time. small insurers have been reluctant to enter the market. and united healthcare has at least filed to be willing and ble to provide coverage in

2015. but as an overview that is alabama. >> in contrast to alabama , florida has been opposed aggressively to the affordable care act. the current governor spent $5 million of his own money to oppose the passage of the affordable care act. you're all aware i think that the florida attorney general was the first person to file suit against the constitutionality of the act. the governor and the legislature have made it difficult to implement the act after passage. there is a continuation of opposition in the face of i think 983,000 people who have enrolled through the exchange and i expect this kind of opposition to continue because it's been largely philosophical and political.

there were two or three things that were striking to me in the opposition of the affordable care act. one was the willingness of the governing party to abandon commitment to a core teach feature of this philosophy when these were associated favorably with the affordable care act. secondly, the extent to which the governor and the legislature fought implementation of the affordable care act with tactics and strategies that have been widely used in the state in other areas of public policy. thirdly, the willingness of the legislature to deny the expansion of medicare -- medicaid to citizens when some of its leaders had used these benefits in their own family. a couple of examples, you're all aware a big part of the governing philosophy of the republican party is competition will produce public policies

more cleeply and more effectively. marco rubio, when he was speaker of the house supported this policy and even suggested an exchange similar to the affordable care act for medical care in the state of florida. this was timely adopted in 2013 in the same year they opposed the exchange in the affordable care act. secondly, when florida failed to don't an exchange and tried to put into place the federal exchange, they began to use the navigators the federal funds supported. navigators had been used in fla for years to proet mote education -- promote education about particular public policy. they tried to oppose their use with regard to the affordable

care act. the legislature put on pretty extensive licensingings restrictions on the navigators. the governor tried to close the to navigators. several bigger counties rebelled claimed that county health documents are not they continue but the county se and healthy agencies tried to governor's the actions were like southern yore who stood in prevent of schools to public integration. finally, the expansion of argued against by the then speaker of the house, who suggested that people who that kind of coverage should