programs from omaha all day on c-span2 book tv and american history tv on c-span3. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings, and news conferences bringing you the events that shape public policy. every morning "washington journal" with elected officials, policymakers journalists and/or comments by phone facebook, twitter. c-span -- brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> first lady michelle obama spoke this week about achievements in career and technical education, part of her reach higher initiative which encourages students to further their education beyond high school. she was introduced by jacob smith, vice president of finance or the family career and

community leaders of america. this is about 15 minutes. [applause] >> on the national vice president of finance for a family career and community they does of america. it's a great honor for me and the rest of the youth representative organizations to be here celebrating the innovations in career technical education. current technical education has influenced my life and my high school career. i entered into two pathways, culinary arts in business management. they went beyond teaching me to technical skills but also, indeed taught life skills. how to make a hollandaise sauce creme brulee, computer programming. but i was given the foundations i needed to determine my career

interests and prepare me for managing and expecting life challenges. april last year i was selected as a taxes national officer candidate, a huge honor and a great achievement. i was involved in a major traffic crash when a distracted driver hit our school vehicle head on. i suffered critical injuries including a traumatic brain injury but through it all, i persevered and i was able to never give up and strive for success. after missing the rest of my junior year and attending inpatient and outpatient therapy, i persevered through what some thought would be difficult. beyond the odds and people thinking i would never be up to walk again, i was elected to serve as the national officer for fccla

circumstances do not define our future but rather our attitudes. my story is a prime example of what the higher initiative is to do, to prepare all students to reach a higher education. i could have easily graduated later or dropped out of school but i wanted more so i did what was necessary to recover, get back to school, graduate from white house high school and now i will be going to john noble's university with a full tuition scholarship. [applause] one individual who has indeed inspired youth like me to reach i are, a lawyer, a writer, and the wife of president barack obama, a strong advocate for higher education and healthy living. please join me in welcoming first lady michelle obama. [applause]

mrs. obama: hello, everyone! how are you all doing? please rest yourselves. let me start by thanking jacob for that wonderful introduction and for sharing your story. it is amazing. it's inspiring. it is the reason why we do what we do. just hearing how you persevered and now you've on to great life lessons like hollandaise sauce and bearnaise sauce. [laughter] and i thought i was happy to have malia make some scrambled eggs. but we're so proud of you and we're so glad that you're the leader that you are. so let's give jacob another round of applause. [applause] i also want to thank the educators, the philanthropists the public and private sector leaders that are here today. hello to all of you. welcome.

but most of all, i want to thank all the students that are here. let me see our students -- where are you? i can sort of tell. [applause] and the young man who stood up i like that in you. it's like, here i am. can we get a picture later? now, that's leadership. [laughter] but not just the students in this room, but there are thousands of young people who are joining us remotely from national conferences for the technology students association as well as the future business leaders of america. so hi out there to all of you as well. [applause] and really it's the students across the country who are studying and learning and dreaming big -- you all are really the reason why we're here today. we're here because we believe in

you. we do. absolutely we believe in you. we're here because we want to make sure that you get all the skills and the tools that you need to reach your dreams. and those dreams are amazing and they're big and they're huge, so you need all the support you can get. we're here because we know that one of the best ways to do that is through career and technical education -- cte. and i don't know how many people know about cte, but more people should, because in today's world, a high school diploma just isn't enough. i can't say that enough. a high school diploma is not enough to be able to compete in today's globalizing economy. if you want to learn cutting-edge skills, if you want to prepare yourself for college and a good career, if you want to go into the culinary arts like jacob, or start your own business, or work in a hospital, or go into 3d printing -- whatever it is, it's important for students to realize that a

four-year university is not your only option. it is not your only option. we talk about four-year universities all the time, but when we talk about reach higher, we talk about completing high school and going beyond in whatever way, shape or form, and it's not always a four-year university. in fact, for many young people and their families, cte can be the best option because you can get all the professional skills you need for a good job in a high-demand field and you can do it at a fraction of the time and, more importantly, a fraction of the cost as compared to a four-year university. more importantly, these are high-quality programs that push students academically and challenge students to sharpen their critical thinking, their problem-solving, their communication skills -- as we can see with jacob, who had all that going on all at once. and increasingly -- and this is very important -- there's often a job at the end of it, a

paycheck waiting for you right there when you graduate. and not a lot of college graduates can often say that. so career and tech programs make a whole lot of sense. and that's why across the country, schools and businesses are working together to develop curricula, which is exciting, so that students can get tailor-made courses for the positions that companies actually need to fill. this is why high schools are partnering up with community colleges so that young people can earn college credit and sometimes even leave high school with professional credentials in hand. and i speak at high school graduations all around the country, and i'm always impressed when students come up and say that they're already ready to launch into their field. it's quite impressive.

and every day, students are getting hands-on experience through these opportunities at hospitals and businesses schools and just about everywhere else. my staff tells me that somebody is getting experience on a 65-foot research vessel out in the ocean -- that's happening somewhere. you guys know about this? it's pretty cool, pretty cool. and these kinds of opportunities are leading to a wave of innovation from our young people. here at the innovation fair today, i understand that we're going to see a four-inch cube satellite that will be launched into orbit to help us study and analyze our atmosphere and soil. pretty cool. there's a system of laser sensors that detect a baseball strike zone -- for all you baseball fans, i'm sure that's very exciting. and a 3d printer that creates chocolate sculptures -- yes, everybody likes that one. [laughter] everybody can connect with that. so cte programs like these are good for students because they can learn new skills and find their passion. they're good for businesses

because they can tap into a pipeline of skilled talent. and they're good for our country because these programs help us grow our economy, compete with other countries, and unleash the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. and that's why, earlier this year, my husband expanded the united states presidential scholars program to honor some of our best and brightest students in career and technical education. and later this summer, we're going to be launching the reach higher career app challenge because we want to make it easier for students across the country to find a cte program that fits with their passions and with their goals. so i know we've got some folks here today from our biggest tech companies, and i want to challenge all of you and people across the country -- educators, career counselors, our business leaders, everyone out there, i

want you to put your heads together and think about ways to design a new app so that we'll help students connect with the programs and the jobs they need to realize their dreams. i want you to help our students see which jobs are in high demand in their communities. i want you to help them see which programs give them the skills that they need. and i also want you to help them figure out how much all of this costs and what their future earning power might be in that given field. i mean, you can imagine for a kid who may not be motivated, if they see a job title and a salary, they can understand the purpose of it all -- which we're always trying to do with our young people.

so imagine if all that could happen through an app. there are so many things an app might do for our young people and we want to see what all of you will come up with. this challenge officially launches in a couple of weeks, but right now you can go to edprizes.com to sign up for updates and to get more information. so i hope you all take up the challenge and see what we can come up with. but to all of the young people here, i want you all to know that we're doing everything that we can to help you fill your potential, whether that's making it easier for you to find career pathways just by using your smartphone whether it's everything my husband is doing to bring down the cost of higher education and ultimately make two-year community colleges free for responsible students. [applause] we're also, in addition to all that we're doing, we're depending on you as the students to do your part as well. and that means for all of you here, i know you're already doing it, but i can't say it enough -- we need you all to just get it together. to study as hard as you can.

to put everything into your studies that you can do. reach higher for yourselves every single day. there has to be a hunger that you all have that no one can fund for you. there can be no policy written to make you find your -- to prioritize your education. it's on you guys. and every day you have to come in with that hunger. you got to be ready. you got to be studying. you got to be in class.

if you're online, you got to be there. you got to do those assignments, make it all happen. so you've got to finish the job. no one can do that for you. not the president, not the first lady. so we want you to complete your education. that is a must. there is no alternative. finish your education. whether you do it through one of these fantastic cte programs, or whether you go on to a community college, four-year college -- whatever you do, you've got to finish your education. but you've got to get something. you've got to get a degree, a certificate -- something you've got to have. and if you do that, you'll have the tools that you'll need to fulfill your dreams. and as you work to get your education -- i want to close with what i said at the outset -- just know that we believe in you. we do all of this because we know you have the raw material that it takes to do whatever is in your heart to do. barrack and i know this because we stand where we are today because we had a lot of support and we had something in our hearts and minds that told us that we could do it. so we believe in you -- all right? if you don't walk away from this with any other message, is that you've got a whole lot of folks

who think you can be great, and you've got a country who actually needs you to be great. we're counting on you to be that next generation to take over all that we're doing. so you got to be trained, you got to be ready, you got to be hungry, and you got to take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. so keep up the great work. i hope you have a phenomenal time here at the white house. ask a lot of questions. be impressive. don't be shy. [laughter] i don't have to tell that to you. and just know that we are going to keep working as hard as we can -- not just here in the white house, but beyond. mentoring you and raising the next generation up to be great is something -- it's a personal goal for me and my husband. so we're only getting started. so we're hoping that you'll be ready to partner with us when we

get out of here. okay? so i look forward to everything you all will do in the years ahead. enjoy the conference. you all, thank you so much for being here on behalf of our young people. put your heads together; let's figure out what more we can do to keep these kids moving in the right direction. thank you all. [applause] >> on this weekend's newsmakers our guest is american conservative union chair matt s chlapp. his own thoughts on the republican presidential candidates including recent comments made by is this man donald trump on immigration. >> i actually heard on the radio

today him saying what he was talking about was illegal immigrants and that's an important distinction to draw. his tone and the words you chose were different than what i would choose but when you have a broken immigration system, it's hard to characterize the nation of the illegal immigrants who come into our country. that being said, i, for one, believe immigration is a wonderful part of our history. it's part of our history that i am brace and it's part of our economy that we really have to get right and right now it's broken. what president obama has done with these executive orders have actually made the system worse. we destroyed the ability to get some sort of bipartisan compromise on the steps we need to take. i think it's easy for people to attack donald trump over what he said. they are to listen to what he's saying. i actually know donald trump. he's not a racist. he trying to care rise the fact

that a broken immigration system can lead to a lot of problems like crime. the challenge i would get back to his critics is do we actually know everything about this population that we know? this illegal population? we ought to know. we are to embrace all of those who can make america stronger, better help row our economy. that's the kind of filter i put it through. >> watch the entire interview tomorrow at 10 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> lucy hayes was the first first lady to earn a college degree and during the civil war, soldiers called her the mother of the regiment. opposing slavery, she influence her husband rutherford b. hayes to switch from the wig party to the anti-slavery republican party. she hosted the first annual white house easter egg roll. the sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "first ladies --

influence and image." looking at their influence on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time. like presidents and first ladies, a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that hears inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women, inspiring stories of women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hardcover or an e-book. three your favorite bookstore or online bookseller.

tonight on c-span, a look at how the "new york times" is adapting to the digital age with the publisher and editor. a discussion on the future of television with industry leaders. later, first lady michelle obama on the importance of higher education. now, "the new york times" discusses the times future in the digital age. about half of the newspapers subscription are now solely for digital content, a major shift for the organization that began offering digital only subscriptions just four years ago. this is one hour 25 minutes. jennifer: good evening. i have the great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution, hunter college. a great pleasure to welcome you

to the future of "the new york times." this event is hosted by the roosevelt house public policy institute. thanks to the arthur sulzberger, jr. and dean baquet and jack rosenthal, more people rsvp'd than roosevelt house public policy institute could handle. the roosevelts had a long, complex relationship with the new york times. when he was in the white house franklin roosevelt begin each day by reading five newspapers and the first one is usually picked out was "the new york times." franklin roosevelt begin each day by reading five newspapers and the first one is usually picked out was "the new york times." the times islam some supportive of his programs especially in the early years and endorsed him in 1932 1936.

the times consider pro-business policies. the this irritated fdr since "the times" financial pages were showing strong economic growth. that prompted him his only public criticism of the paper. he said "wouldn't it be nice if the editorial writers of "the new york times" could get acquainted with their own experts?" public criticism of the paper. he said "what it be nice if the editorial writers of "the new york times" could get acquainted with their own experts?" "the times" returned to fdr when he ran for a fourth time. it offered the" assessment -- in the eloquent assessment of the new deal "these measures were aimed at correcting abuses and extravagances by the depression ." and in establishing a country a larger degree of social justice. fdr was of course one of the

lowlight a president who had their ups and downs with "the new york times" from abraham lincoln to the current incumbent. this extraordinary history makes discussion on the paper's future in revolutionary change and a media in general and newspapers in particular such a powerful draw. i want to express deep gratitude to -- the underwriters of this is some in a roosevelt house's. while we are expressing gratitude, a special order. moderator jack rosenthal,, was done a particularly superb job in the past year as the interim director of roosevelt house. this evening's program is special for jack because he spent 40 years at "the new york times" wednesday pulitzer prize among his many roles for in 1980 71 arthur sulzberger, jr. was a deputy holistic -- in 1981 when arthur sulzberger, jr. was a

deputy jack's report could be something -- give the readers the time any form they want great it was announced by print managers who dismiss digital as a passing fad. to the door credit, arthur sulzberger, jr. resisted and took the advice and pressed the times to this as long online as an print. arthur's colleagues realized it is not print or digital. it is what it has always been, did we get the story and did we get a right? the platforms may change but the times is dedicated to those gold, it has won wall. prices. -- has won wall full of prizes.

our motto is --the care of the future is mine. we are trying to see what is around the corner and prepare the next generation of leaders for it. fortunately, it cannot be a better team to lead to the time then arthur and dean. we're introduced -- we are interested in their success and we know our nation cannot be successful without a strong and active press. our gratitude to you, arthur and dean, for being that this discussion in all you're doing to protect america's democracy. a very hearty thank you for your leadership and roosevelt house and putting together this wonderful program. welcome jack, arthur, and dean. [applause]

jack megane let me thank you both for accepting -- jack: let me thank you both for accepting this invitation. not quite as eloquent but nice. [laughter] jack: i want to recall late one night probably around 1980 when i encountered arthur and "the times" lobby wearing a leather jacket and carrying a lunch pail. he was cheerfully headed downstairs on his way to work. in the press room as a fourth-generation member of the sulzberger family, he do not necessarily have to work his way up the ladder but he worked every turn. his first job was in the washington bureau in 1978. later, he sold ads and worked at the metro desk and became deputy publisher and then publisher and

then chairman of the times company in 1997. in that time, as jennifer mentioned, he was determined to make the digital times as as long as it had been in print for more than a century. our audience tonight reflect that public concern for excellence. this program sold out overnight. dean baquet, the executive editor of the times did work his way of the latter t -- ladder twice. after winning a pulitzer in chicago, he came to the times is reporter and became deputy metro editor, national editor and then hired away by the los angeles times where he served as managing editor and as the editor. dean came back to "the new york times" is washington bureau chief, managing editor, and in

may of last year, executive editor. that means he is the number one among 1200 jobs in the newsroom where is known for his approachability and personal interest and staff members. our topic tonight is the future of "the new york times." for many in a this audience, i think there's concern about the future of "the times" in print. let's start with the basic facts. how does circulation breakdown between digital and print? how much revenue now comes from advertising and how much from circulation? am i right to believe that print subscriptions are dropping 4% or 5% per year? is that is right, how long will the print continue? that is yours.

arthur: thank you. first of all, thank you, jack for having us here. a pleasure to be in this auditorium and thank you for starting golf was such a nice, easy quite -- starting off with such a nice, easy question. so -- let me take those in pieces. i will start what i think is the most interesting. jack, when you and i were in our positions in earlier life as the editorial page editor and deputy publisher and that period of time, roughly the revenue breakdown for the new york times was 90% advertising, 10% circulation. now, because of both print and digital, it is more 60%, 40%. 60% circulation 40% on

advertising. and that is actually a story. i know it sounds like it is not. the strength is the stability of the circulation in revenue. it gives us a firmer footing on which to build our future than many of our traditional and even nontraditional competitors have. so few of them have had a digital subscription plan that has succeeded to the degree we have. and when i say succeeded, we are at somewhere around 950,000 digital pages since -- paid subscribers. jack: compared to what in print? arthur: i am struggling with the numbers. i say around 800 print -- around 800,000 a daily.

that sounds about right. more on the weekends. what is interesting, you see circulation declines, all printed declines, all newspapers have. where most of it has really been hit is on street sales. not home delivery. home delivery -- what we have seen over the past 10 15, 20 years, home sales are shockingly stable. if you have to your subscribers or more. getting people to 2 years to subscribe to print "the times" and weekend and weekday. find that people stay first. they really are -- more or less for life. that is a great debates. the digital revolution continues. people are moving -- hopefully,

they moved to the website, to the screen -- no no, the homepage. [laughter] arthur: i am struggling. they moved from the desktop is what i'm trying to say and now increasingly from the desktop to mobile. what we are seeing more and more is people come to a variety of devices over different periods of time. people will see us on the smartphone first thing in the morning and see us on the desktop at lunchtime. they will see us on their ipad later at night. and print is woven into all of that. people are across multiple platforms and that is the future. jack: their raise a question for dean. with such a large proportion of younger readers especially

online can the times display is traditional high quality onto the tiny screen of the smartphone without dumbing down? dean: yes. can i back of one second? at the heart of the question which is a question i have been asked a level four is how long was the lifespan of the print "new york times?" i think the question of print versus digital has become such a distraction from the real fundamental question about journalism. i think the fundamental question about journalism is what the great journalistic institutions will survive? how will they survive? i guess i do not buy at all that the phone means readers of "the new york times" want to read

something lesser or dumber. all the evidence is people read long series on their phones. all evidence is people read -- we have more -- almost, if the goal of a newsroom and a leader of a newsroom is to be read which has got to be my fundamental goal, vendor number of readers we have in the digital era is astounding unimaginable. take a series like the story we did on the conditions at nelson lund across the country, across the -- nell salons -- nail salons across the country, 5 million people read it. go to the print era where you have to readers of the print paper, that would've been unimaginable. my view, people want to read smart, sophisticated stories in every format. my job as the editor of "the new york times" is to figure out ways to make stories in every

format as smart as all full and hard-hitting as possible. all evidence is we can do that. jack: arthur, a year ago you received report of your innovations committee. called for many changes. a main point was stop being so complacent about your readership. for decades, "the times" has worked provides a highest quality coverage. but that is no longer good enough in the internet era. the innovations report encourage what he called "audience development." find a variety of ways to reaching out to potential readers. how have you responded? arthur: a great question. in the business and newsroom. i want to go back to the earlier.

when i gave the 800,000, i forgot, i can clear it up. it is 1.1 million print subscribers when you included the weekend. i want to get the number of back to where it belongs on the weekend, sunday paper. the innovation report was a wonderful wake-up call. as you might recall, it it was written on behest of dean and jill abramson, then the executive editor and empower 18 of some of our best journalists to look deep it ourselves. and then it was leaked. it was never written to be linked. at first, without it was awful. only a few days later that we realize the power of what had happened. people around the world embraced the fact that "the times" had to be c -- the courage to do a deep journalistic dive on its self

and really say what is what we are done right and what we must improve on. and i've got to say within a month, i cannot tell you how many calls i received from other newspaper publishers around the world asking for too common meet with the people who did the innovation report. it really was a wonderful wake-up call. when dean became executive editor at the same time, one of his first steps was to reach to our business side and take out and make for a mass executive in charge of audience development. as you noted, one of the great findings was the journalists must take greater responsibility for building their audience. welcome to the world of social media. fewer people come to our home page and more to want to engage

with our journalism on facebook and other platforms. how do we get people to engage in that way? and -- i dare you to name the last business side person who became a head executive on the other side. there isn't any. it was a really bold move. it has worked extremely well. well done subsequent work to say here is what we're door right and what we need to push -- what we are doing right and what we need to push harder. as soon as you catch up, the digital universe shifts. you have to start saying, it is not as much about the search as he used to be. it is now more about social. how do we adapt? jack: of the audience all the new york times has risen by 25%

-- dean: the audience of the new york times has risen by 20 fibers that. i am an editor who wants the journalism of "the new york times" to have impact. i do not want to do big, lush investigative services -- stories and have them going to vacuum were nobody reads it down. we have tools to make sure more people read. that is terrific. just bang when you look at the times globally, almost 75 million users. arthur: let me head back to the relationship with business and new side. jennifer spoke about trust in the times. traditionally the time to try to maintain the trust by scrupulously maintaining a chinese wall between new side and business side. now, they are not just two

sides, there are the resize print news, business, and technology. -- there are three sides. an example was the wonderful work on nail salon workers. in my day, "the times when "the times" launched a series, it would be a splash on page one on sunday. this one was launched online and on thursday. it led some print subscribe that why are we getting the scales the on sunday print -- stale stuff on sunday. jet -- arthur: to be clear, very few complained. we are learning and adapting. if you do not have the courage to try new things and grow, you are going to fail. thatis the reality of the world we are in.

i applaud what the dean and his colleagues did which is to increase -- increasingly say let's put the story out when the story is ready. there are some people who are going to read it then and others will read it later on a different -- in print. not about the device. when i say device, i mean print as well. as you so eloquently stated from decades ago, we must of the platform agnostic. go to where the people are. and increasingly that means mobile. and as you probably know, we are doing a test right now at "the new york times." >> -- dean: there is a myth, is remarkable to me as much as people look at journalism and journalists and newspaper so closely how a group we are of

the history -- how ignorant we are of the history. act as l.a. times if i had a big project that was going to run about orange county government that was the giant plate next to l.a., next to a life and death competition. if i had a big story that was going to run about orange county i would go to the circulation director and say please tell me which today you will have the most papers distributed in orange county. if they said to me, monday, i would run it on monday. to me, the question i asked myself i want a story to be read. i wanted to have impact. i am fundamentally an idealist about journalism and the idea i want as many people to read it. i want it to have impact. i wanted things to change as

result of hard-hitting stuff. the only way you could do it is to be widely read. this permits arthur is referring to is to make sure everybody in the building knows how many of our readers are on the phone. we made it so if you type onto your laptop, it takes you to the phone app. jack: which side of the chinese wall is audience development lie on? dean: my view is it lies, part on my side. probably a little bit in advertising. can i back of one thing? the chinese wall has never been in newspapers between newsrooms and the entire business side. that was never the case. there is always been promotion. the wall of existence between newsrooms and advertising. not a newsrooms and technology. not newsrooms and circulation. not newsrooms and promotion.

that has always been the case. jack: talking about audience development, what new forums lie ahead? i would be interested in your experiments with instant articles on facebook and apple's new news app. dead what kind of stories are we doing -- dean: what kind of stories are we doing? jack: i can make a complicated question. risking a lot when you give these articles out for free. arthur: -- dean: here to me is the risk. i keep going back to wanting to be read. the biggest risk is not the goal where your readers are area the biggest risk is to not to go to

places where there are millions and millions of people who want to read. the biggest risk is to stay out of that world. that is why we felt we had to experiment with people like facebook and apple. jack: if the spirit is not making any money? -- if the experiment is not making good morning -- any money? arthur: that is not the case. if you do not risk knowing you were not fail, you will fail automatically. you know the famous case. umm --what was the? i am blessed without the next. the titanic fallacy. the titanic fallacy is the question, what was the fatal flaw of the titanic?

some people will say you know, the captain trying to set a world's speed record. some people note they do not have enough lifeboats. some they do not build the walls high a note to ensure it was "unsinkable." the answer is none of that. even if the tide has safely made it to new york harbor, it was still doomed. because a few years earlier two brothers had invented the airplane. so, we are in the world where we must shift -- the industry is great and it is there and we have boats for all of you. we must become an airplane company, too. that means trying things testing, having the courage to invest and not just financially. and say, that work on how do we

build on it? and that did not work, next. that's what we're trying to do. the key point, you have to increasingly go where the audience is. that does not mean our journalism is going to change but our presentation may change. the way we scroll on the small devices is totally different experience than on a laptop. we have to adapt. jack: let me ask dean a question. a lot of airplanes in the air now and they are faster and more -- more nimble -- dean: but they are not a better. jack: the tradition of careful editing, going way into late-night deadlines. a lot of nimble startup sites

including welcome honestly be called parasites. [laughter] jack: how do you compete? dean: whenever there's a big news story, if you want to use the example of the plane crash in the alps. people go to "the new york times " by the millions. first, we break the story is pretty secondly, we do not make mistakes. certainly because -- i will get to those. we are indeed a human enterprise. we do make mistakes. let's keep going. anyway, the new york times is is fully edited as it was in print. people still come to us for news. if you ask me, who my biggest competitors are, largely the

same competitors we had in the pre-digital era. the news organizations, and some european papers. "the party and -- "the guardian," "the wall street journal," they keep me up at night and they kept me up and i 20 years ago. >> i want to go back to mistakes. i've said, we make mistakes. what the dean is saying it's really important in this sense. we are both seen the being such a critical element in digital age more so than earlier print era. everyone wants to be first. all of a sudden, oops.

turns out they were not the boston bombers. they were innocent kids. people were saying the supreme court has ruled on the health care bill. and then, going out with the wrong ruling. we -- what dean is trying to say is we pride accuracy so much that we are prepared -- we are not prepared to be first and wrong. we are prepared to be fourth fifth and right. that is a core value. dean: let me inject some humility into my answer. here is what we try to do -- i'm not -- the supreme court issues its ruling on the obama administration's health care plan. we knew it would be this huge, complicated ruling. we knew if we tried to assess it

quickly in real-time we would get it wrong. we wrote a memo on our website and said that. please indulge us. give us time to read it. what other organizations did they read the first half -- the ruling flipped in the middle. we did not. we waited as adam said there was enough time to write it. we work really hard not to make mistakes. we don't let speed -- i understand that the greatest currency we have is that we work hard to be accurate, edited and truthful as possible. i understand i cannot squander that. jack: i've talked to some talented tech people who said they left "the times" >> acknowledging that i talked to tech people who said they left "the times" because they were patronized as service

assistants rather than recognizing them as innovative partners. is that a fair criticism? >> i bet you that's a fair criticism. i bet you that there was a period i mean, i'm going to hope that the assessments would be different now but i bet you people would have said for a long time in the life of the "new york times" that we didn't quite understand how much the technology people in the news in the whole of the "new york times" had to offer. that wouldn't surprise me. >> and i think dean made another important hire in kinsy wilson. so dean hired a new head of digital. >> right. >> used to be at npr before that and a variety of other places. and kinsy came to the times it seems only a nanosecond ago but what interestingly happened is

that after he settled himself into the newsroom, as the head of the digital our new c.e.o. mark thompson, not so new anymore, recognized, yes. that's who we need on the business side as well. so now he's a joint report to dean and to our c.e.o. mark thompson with technology reporting to him across those. that's critical because what we need to do is be faster and we need to be hor nimble. we need to make decisions less complex. i don't have to have seven bosses each of whom have three and so that is, that speeds to market issue is a critical one and to your point of your, of the critic who you spoke with, it does empower our digital teams on news and business to

feel equal. >> you mentioned two different people. you mentioned allister and kinsy. what is the relationship and do they have revenue obligations? >> alex does not have revenue, direct revenue obligations. hopefully if you increase the size of your audience you increase the number of subscribers and if you increase the size of your audience you get more advertisers. kinzie does because he oversees technology and also oversees product. product is the part of the business side largely though the newsroom has a window into it that tries to design stuff for the future. in the world of print, product would have been a group of people who would have created the food section. but now we're likely to try to create essentially products out of the journalism we produce. he has a revenue

responsibility. >> and to the point of the creation of the food section let's not pretend when arthur started to rethink the paper back in the 1970's that there wasn't fundamental need for revenue that they recognized they had to meet. >> sure. >> they did. so this is not unique. this is just transferring that to a digital era. >> what papers do you read in the morning? >> he's the editor. >> i read, i start out by looking at the "new york times" on the phone partly to find out what i missed at night. partly just to get a sense of experience. then i read the "new york times" pretty thoroughly in print. i read "the journal" and i read "the post." i read "the guardian." >> when you say post be more specific. >> "the washington post." >> thank you. >> well, no, no. but then -- but then when i'm

on the subway i read "the new york post." i don't pretend i read every word in all those papers. i spin through some of the sites that have specific stuff. i look at, you know, courts for some business stuff and some media stuff. if there's a big -- a lot depends on what the big news story of the day is. >> would you routinely look at westby or other sites? >> no. i look at facebook pretty regularly. which also gives me a glimpse into a whole nother realm. in fact, i look at facebook -- >> do you tweet? >> i have tweeted once. i don't tweet. but i post to facebook often. >> arthur, do you tweet? >> no, i don't. >> i write too long to tweet. >> and you remember the famous quote, i think it was from sally wasn't it, scott's wife,

sally, who famously said you can work for "the times" or you can read it. but you can't do both. and i sometimes feel that during the course of -- because i'm like dean. i go to it first on my phone. and that's how i'll catch up on some of the morning reading stuff and nyc now is interesting and engaging. what i've learned is i go to a lot of pieces our journalists suggest we go to. >> right. >> why is digital advertising so cheap when it produces so relatively little revenue compared with print even though it reaches many more readers? >> that's a great question to ask google.

quite frankly, it is cheap for a variety of reasons. first, the cost of producing digital advertising is much less. and distributing. obviously there is no paper. there are no trucks. there's no pressman, mailers, drivers. so the cost of getting digital advertising is significantly less than print. so that's one reason. the second, obviously, is there are so many places to go. and what of course, we're learning over time is how little effect some of those places really have on affecting actual purchasing. but it's a constantly evolving process. many of our advertisers of course recognize the value of both. that there are times you want to be in print because it does have a much greater sale possibility. peam actually focus on it and make a decision and there are times when you're telling a story, digital is a remarkable

tool. one of the great creations of our head of revenue, our chief revenue officer, meredith, is the creation of an in house in effect story telling lab, for advertisers to use. that has been that branded content has really become a great tool for advertisers. that's just not a little popup ad somewhere. that's an immersive experience. what we're seeing is that people really do gravitate to that. so there's lots of new digital tools we're using and getting better at. >> that leads to the ultimate financial question. >> ultimate financial question. >> even assuming -- how is your pension doing? [laughter] >> about the same as yours. that might be the question.

>> even assuming that you succeed in developing a large and larger digital audience, given how cheaply people can buy digital advertising, can you generate the serious revenue? >> yes >> necessary to pay for quality journalism $200 million a year? >> the answer is yes. and the answer is we have to do that. look, the mission of the times has not changed since it was founded in 1851, since it was bought in 1896. and that mission has to be funded. that's to produce the quality journalism that attracts a quality audience that we in turn sell to quality advertisers. but the value of our

subscription plan, the digital subscription plan, has made it such that it's much as much up to getting the readers to engage with us in such a way that they say, yes, this subscription is worth it, as it is to build that advertising base. both are critical. but as we go back to those original numbers the subscription value of the value of a lifetime subscriber, print or digital, is one of the core that's going to give us the ability to support that journalism that dean and his colleagues are doing so extraordinarily well. and again, dean, congratulations on your three pulitzer prizes. >> the short answer then is digital paid digital subscribers. >> and advertising. let's not pretend advertising is not a critical part of the picture. it is. >> understood. >> but it is increasingly a combination of the two.

and the fainl thought i have is as we continue to grow and continue to grow our base of readers that advertising is going to play a deeper and deeper role. it's an evolving -- digital advertising is an evolving picture and it's getting better. >> you know, i want to ask you a question. as a sometime victim >> you or me? >> no, you. how is the public editor's job working out? >> you know, it's interesting. i used to think when i was at "the l.a. times" we had a discussion about whether we should have a public editor and the late john carroll who was the editor and i was the managing editor, we decided not to. i have to say, i think having a public editor is a great thing.

i'm surprised that i feel that way. i think it's a great thing for a bunch of reasons. first off i do think it gives people even though in this digital era many people can criticize, it's not hard to get to us. it does give people a sense that the institution is listening. even though i have no power over her. she can criticize me and she often does, she, i think people feel like there's some place they can go in the institution. i think she's often right when she beats us up. i think even when she's wrong she's reasonable and fair. it's probably not a bad idea for newspapers editors to understand what it's like to be on the other end of criticism and questions. even though there are times when i would like to sort of

lock her in her office and unplug her computer, i think in the long run it's good, she's -- and i'm speaking of margaret largely because she's been the public editor of my paper. it's been helpful for the paper. i support it now. >> let me ask one more question and then we'll turn to you in the audience. critics sometimes cry nepotism about the fact that you and your son and half a dozen other family members -- >> oh, i thought you were going to be attacking my father. >> let me enlarge the question then. the fact is that kind of

criticism has always seemed to me to be really misguided. it ignores the fact that other famous journalism families like the chandlers in los angeles, binghams in louisville, bancrofts at "the wall street journal," it gets into second or let alone third second generation, they get greedy. some members of the family start wanting to sell shares. and the papers consequently lose the determination to put out quality product. how does this family now into a fifth generation manage to assure that the same thing doesn't happen to the "new york times"? >> it is a very good question and one my family has been working on for many, many years.

there was a story in the paper yesterday that noted that only the number of family businesses that are able to move from a third generation to a fourth generation and i'm fourth generation, is 3%. only 3%. >> not just newspapers. >> no. all family businesses. sorry. we're now looking at the transition to a fifth generation of which there are six members of the fifth generation currently working at the "new york times" which is very very exciting. they're working in the newsroom. they're working on the business. and doing amazing work. so the family has a fundamental commitment. we have this wonderful trust created by our great grandfather that lays out the mission of the company. the mission of the company is to protect the quality journalism of the "new york times." the mission makes no mention of

profitability. so there's eight family trustees and then we're responsible as trustees to vote the b shares which control, b shares are simple. they elect the majority of the board of directors. that's it. we meet as a family at least twice a year. once for a two-day meeting at "the times" to learn how the business is going and to engage with andy rosenthal, your successor, editor, dean, and their news and business side colleagues. and here's how -- and to hear how the business is going. then we have a meeting, a family reunion just to remind ourselves we're a family. than we just have a great love for each other. so it's something we've invested an enormous amount of time app effort in and making those connections deeper as the family grows is something we

all take extremely seriously. >> so for another generation? >> no question at all about that. please know that. there is no question about that. >> let's turn to the audience. you'll observe that there are microphones on both sides. let me ask that you number one, keep questions short because there are going to be a lot of people who want questions and, number two, in order to maximize the number of questions, please let's take three questions at once and then we'll answer them successively. on the left side? >> my name is victor houser. i'm a parent and member of the community. i started reading the "new york times" in junior high school when they used to give us discounted copies i'd bring home and you suckered me in. then i started working and started reading "the wall street journal." i was in england for a year. i started reading "the

financial times." i read all three every day. may impression is that every year the "new york times" is doing buyouts. peam are, head count is going down. i know sections have disappeared, style section is gone. met pro folded into the first part. chess is gop. i think bridge is gone. culture seems not as deep as it once was. the journal on the other hand since it's no longer family owned seems to be growing. they've added a new york section. they've added a section my wife likes to read when i come home from work. it seems some of the names i used to read in "the times" are going over there. increasing their coverage. why the difference? >> we're hoding off for three questions. -- we're holding off for three questions. sir? >> jack mckenzie. i used to work for some of you.

i thought i would hear in the course of this discussion some kind of emotional commitment to the print paper. other than the kind of business this and that. like i desperately want to keep a printed paper. now i'm not that wedded to it but i'd like to be assured that the digital paper on the screen at home will look like it does now, like a newspaper on the web. so that the model is the paper. the paper that we started with. >> okay. that's the second. >> i'd lake to know why the "new york times" signed an agreement with peter schweitz the right winger to promote his book and i'd lake to know why

amy chopmack covers hillary clinton. i thought the "new york times" was supposed to be fair and bansd. >> actually that's fox news. but we get to -- that's not accurate. first, amy is not a right winger. she was a reporter who covered media. she worked for the washington journal. that doesn't make her -- >> i detect a right wing bias in her reporting. >> i actually would disagree with you with all due respect. she was a reporter for "the wall street journal" and she was a reporter for the "new york times." we did not sign an agreement. that's been mischaracterized. we took information from him as we take information from many other sources. >> from a crack pot like him? >> i think we take information from all kinds of crack pots.

that's called reporting when i spend my time as an investigate ive reporter you take information, you check it. you use it. and you use what's accurate. i really, really think that is an inaccurate po trail. i think that is an inaccurate portrayal. >> would you like to respond to "the wall street journal" question? >> i would love to. i don't agree with the editorial page but i think the journal is generally speaking a good journalistic institution. i had lunch today with a meeting today with actually with about a dozen of our new hires. three of whom were from the journal originally. they had come to us. at least two. i think maybe three. we lose people sometimes. they go to bloomberg or they go to the journal or they go to elsewhere. remember this is a circle and

we get people from the journal as well as others. the quality of the journalism and their integrity is a critical part of their being hired. yes we have made a lot of adaptations to the times in the last 15 years. we've been forced to. sometimes it's been cuts because of the financial pressure we're under as we adapt to a new era. let's also note that people don't know this, we have more foreign journalists today than ever in our history. all right? we are investing in our journalism to have -- have been cuts? absolutely. have we been hiring back? yes. we have the same number of journalists in the "new york times" today in the newsroom as we had how many years ago, five? 10. >> more than when i was there. >> right. we have more national

correspondents than are in our history. >> how many bureaus? >> 40? >> 18 national bureaus and 30 some -- >> 22 national bureaus. >> so as a time when so many of our competitors which "the washington post" which i love and "the l.a. times" have really cut back on their foreign and national, having people there, we've been investing in that. we've created new sections. we've created teen mag tag more recently men's fashion. we are finding ways but it is a bit of a change and change is sometimes tough. >> and i'm not going to say anything critical of the news coverage of the journal or the "f.t.." those are good, worthy competitors. but i think you'll find to be honest that they've cut, also

had to cut. they've also had to close sections. this is a really difficult time in the life of newspapers. i think the core of what we try to do is hold on to the stuff that defines us and the stuff that i suspect most people in this room care most about and that stuff we haven't cut at all. but i think every news organization has had to rethink how it does business a little bit but where we protect mightily is the core of the coverage of the "new york times." nchingts now if we can go to the print. >> good. >> all right? let's agree that there are many people in this audience who adore print. and it is our responsibility to keep print going. [applause] >> for as long as we can. we're not going to allow, you know not thinking print is going to be going away any time

soon. so please don't walk away thinking that. but obviously the degree to which people subscribe to print and get home delivery really matters. so if you people want to keep print alive, get more of your friends and family to subscribe. home delivery, thank you so much. >> i thought you were going to say the number. 1-800 --. >> ma'am? >> my name is alice and very quickly i'm a former u.s. department of state foreign service. i live in harlem. i'm a home subscriber. for a while i was writing letters to you all about could we get to the five w's in the first paragraph please? >> the who, what when, where, why, just so everyone is clear.

>> so thank you. >> now just two commendations. one is thank you for the nice stories on my law enforcement nypd. secondly thanks for giving me more stories in the travel section on america. thank you. >> thank you. very sweet. ma'am? >> during sweep week i had a conversation with a press representative from the marine corps who would travel through the middle east with secretary gates and he was very candid in saying that the military has and will ask national press to hold stories because of the sensitivity of the u.s. relations with arab countries. and i wondered what kind of criteria the times would apply to holding a story ahn secondly

how high up in the organization does the decision go? >> very good question. can i take that one? >> one more. >> only because i keep forgetting them. >> my name is john. i'm a professor of political theory here in the graduate center. none of the questions so far have really addressed except perhaps the last one the fauch your of journalism at the "new york times." i wondered what your thoughts about that are. that is to say, is the constitution of news going to be different 10 years from now? and what role do you see the times playing in that new constitution? >> a good question. can i take a cut at that one and then maybe --. the way it works is any time anybody from the government wants to ask that a story be held or that anything be taken out of a story it has to come directly to me.

there are some obvious cases in which all news organizations don't publish things and i wonder if that's what your friend was talking about. that is the basic stuff, right, like if you were embedded with a military group because you're covering the war and they're about to do a land invasion on tuesday at 6:00 p.m., nobody is going to put in the newspaper, land invasion expected in three hours. keep an eye out. that's been a basic tenet of journalism for as long as reporters have covered war. i think what you're talking about is when somebody wants to ask about national security it always has to come to me. i would say 95% of the time i say no. i can think of a couple times when i've said yes. in fact, i can think of a -- at least one time i said yes and came to regret it because it was a mistake because i think i

didn't consult enough reporters. there is a very tiny, tiny number of instances in which it is very, very clear it would jeopardize a life and that's pretty much my criteria. i don't buy the argument that it's going to jeopardize relationships with a foreign country, foreign government. in every instance, pretty, you know, in every instance when that's become the reason, i always say no. and the times i've said yes which would have been years ago i've come to regret them. my rule is you really got to make the case that it would put somebody's life in danger. and there are a very small number of cases in which i've said yes as a result. i always insist they come directly to me. they're very, just, i think there is a mythology that somehow the government comes in

and wields its muscle with us. these are really, really difficult decisions. >> would you like to tell stories about being summoned to the white house? >> no, not really. although it has happened. most obviously with president bush. herbert walker. -- not herbert walker. george w. this was the case of internal wiretapping in effect. we held off on that story for a while and for i think good reason but over time we saw the reasons they had given us to hold back on those stories the national security, it's a serious issue. let's not pretend it's not. and those reasons seemed to have less value and as we got to the point where we were ready to finally go with the story, that's when the

president called and we had a good discussion and ran the story. >> that happens on occasion. and it's happen on occasion that we held off on stories. the famous jack kennedy discussion with the publisher in 1961. bay of pigs. we knew about the bay of pigs -- that it was being planned. and the president asked us not to print the story. to be fair, we printed the fact that we were training. that there was a training process going on, but we did not say and by the way we're going to be invading the bay of pigs. we all know that was a terrible failure, and he yelled at for them publisher afterward saying, if only you'd printed that story you would've saved me from this. so occasionally that happens too. >> i want to give a specific example.

this is one of those questions that's is really important especially in the post-9/11 era. i think there's a mythology that's big news organizations like mine sit on stop all the time. let me give you a real example of when we held that later came out. i think it's important understand the context. i lead with you -- wikileaks coverage. me and the new york times and the guardian got together. we worked with julian assange the agreement we had is that the new york times would take the lead in going to the government to show them stuff we thought was sensitive so the government could make their case with there was ever a case to be made that someone could get killed. there was one particular cable that i thought was -- one of the most remarkable cables ever. it was a cable that described muammar gaddafi's visit to the

united states. and it was this richly detailed portraits of what his requirements would be in his hotel. he wanted a tent on the ground. it was very controversial. it was really richly detailed who traveled with. he traveled with free female nurses. how he was in such bad physical shape that the police don't give him a hotel room with stairs because he would get out of breath. really richly detailed. we were about that whole cable in the new york times, the guardian was going to use it julian assange was going to use it area and then government called up and said ok, take a look closely at the cable. to see the names of the bottom that described the people who were accompanying qadhafi who do you think gave us all that information? and what you think is going to happen to them?

when to dock this is that cable and the new york times with a description of how is in horrible shape, is a little bit of a not job etc.. what's going at those people? >> so not only did i agree to all the cable back into later when qadhafi died, julian assange agreed to hold it back and the guardian agreed to hold back. that's the kind of stuff that you wrestle with. just future of journalism question, i think honestly that journalism will look profoundly better 10 years from now than it looks today. i think. if you look at the coverage, i'll use hours are it not be arrogant, but because it's what most intimate with. if you look at the coverage of ebola, and you think about what the coverage of ebola would've looked like in a predigital era it would've been fine. it would been fabulous. we would've a great newspaper stories, you would've a great photography.

you would affect courageous journalists, you would've had all the stuff. but you would not have had the videos on the new york times website that described for instance one young man writing outside of a hospital with his hair and screaming because there was not room for him in the hospital. you would not have had the video and the new york times website produced by us, in which an ambulance driver drove to the streets of monrovia looking for ebola victims whose family didn't want to touch them so he compiled them in the back of his truck and try to find a hospital that would take them. let's put over here the debate over print versus digital. journalism is better today than it ever was, because in many more tools, i grew up in new orleans. i grew up reading afternoon newspapers. i only had access to one newspaper. the same kid who grows up in new

orleans in a working-class family now has access to as many newspapers as you can push a button for area has access to video, and he has access to the whole world area and we should not get so caught up in the debate over the form, and we should not get up -- so caught up in the romantic aspects of journalism which believe me i grew up in, to forget it's better, and is going to be better 10 years from now. [applause] >> let me add a fiesta that. could you talk about the influence on future of journalism of iphone cameras. >> you mean the fact the reporters can take down pictures now? >> anybody can. >> just think. -- i'm sort of to be frank passionate about the future of journalism. , we are now seeing an upheaval in the way police departments are covered. we are seeing cases that we

would never have seen. just imagine if iphone cameras that existed during the civil rights movement. just imagine what we would've seen, how that would change the course of history. this stuff is better for us. it may be hard, it may give me a headache. it may give us all a headache about how we are going to finance it. but this stuff is better for the country and it's better for society. >> so we worry about the times and video? >> i think we turn the corner this year on video. i think a guy named percent loan who is the editor we put in charge of video pulled it off. when video first was introduced into the newsroom, if you go back and look at those videos, they were almost like wayne's world. it was heartbreakingly bad.

-- not because of the videographer, it was because we didn't know what to do with it. we thought, we put to not particularly attractive reporters or editors, i'll include myself in that to sit at a table and just under talk for a little bit clumsily. one of those was david carr, it did work very well. i was speaking of myself. i think we produce the video the video for a bowl of, you are allowed to submit 10 things for a pulitzer. at least two possibly three of the stories we submitted were videos. i think the new york times has cracked the code of journalism and video. not just us, i think the journal and others to great up to area but it's enhanced us, it's made us better. >> and if i can quickly note that our editorial site is also done extraordinary well. with other elements we make use

of now that are also fabulous. the retro report. one of went up today on transgender in history that, it's a really insightful piece that engaging audience. and advertisers also love that experience. that's good for us. >> my name is leticia, i'm a student columbia. going back to the nail salon question, -- story. that story was available in more languages than english, and while that was to target most likely the audience actually affected by the subject matter, i want to know to what extent multilingualism might become a part of the future of the new york times or the international new york times? >> i'm gave sherman. i'm a writer in new york magazine. what rule -- what role do you think your son will play in the future how a succession

different this time around than when your father punch was running the paper. >> were looking further question and maybe a fourth. >> thanks all three of you for your work of your careers. it's a great part of my life. thank you for the new york times. my question is how might you talked about building audience. as you start to have your journalists become social media brands, is there any risk of diluting the brand of the new york times, particularly when they go elsewhere and take their audience with them? >> three good questions. multilingual. we translated that particular story if i'm not mistaken into four languages. korean, did extraordinarily well. it was just remarkable. and we also do a lot of translating and other -- specific stories, you're going to see more and more of that. we obviously have a chinese

liquid website that's an upper number of years. it's been blocked by the chinese government ever since we did an amazing story that one of pulitzer about the wealth and the corruption of chinese leaders families. this is a great opportunity for us. we are already a global news organization. not only digitally, but in print with the international new york times. and the herald to be on -- herald tribune as part of our offering. but global is the next great step for us. it's one that we have news and business colleagues working very diligently on to find the right way to make things happen. that would be that question. >> and one thing to that question. i can detect this is an audience who cares deeply about the public service mission of journalism. as well as the economic mission. part of the reason you translate a story like the nail story and

other languages is because to me, it would be heartbreaking to do a major investigative piece about people who you think were being abused and it wasn't available to them. for my money translating it wasn't just an audience growth effort. it was my god. if we can figure out a way for the people impacted by this to read it too i feel like my obligation is to make that happen. [applause] >> the other question, are promised to members of the family who come and want to work at the new york times and have skills necessary is to give them careers. and it's not to give them any specific job, but to give them careers. and also we created a process -- a very well thought process to

begin thinking about how we build a successful career for individual family members. in such a way that when the time comes to -- for me to announce a successor, which by the way is not tonight so put down your pens, that we've got a process that involves our board of directors, obviously they have a stake in this. the family, because obviously they have a stake in this, the trustees who represent the family in a context like this. and management. because they have a stake in this. and we created a -- a part of our process to do just that and to begin to help build careers and then guide those who wish to take up more senior positions into that process in a more thoughtful way. and the very core of it is process. and that's what perhaps was most missing in the previous

generational shift, was a clearly defined understood laid out process that all of the members of the fifth generation understand and get to work on. -- then there was another question. >> i didn't register, did you? >> branding of your journalists. >> the journalist as social brands. >> by putting our journalism on facebook and others, we're -- do we risk of diluting the brand? >> the journalist is social media brand? our member david carr one speaking to a member about that very subject, do we risk building the brand of the journalist separate from the new york times? so that she or he -- and the

answer is yes. and by the way, was there brand called scotty reston? was there brand called bill safire? -- we've had great journalists who then left and made successful, even greater careers . again, you can't let fear get in the way of moving forward. and yes, we do have journalistic brands like david carr, god bless that wonderful man. who saw that's they were bigger than the times but decided to stay because they were committed to the mission. do we lose talented journalist? of course, but that's been the case for a long time. >> it also works both ways. if friedman writes a best selling book, it lends authority to his columns on the editorial page.

same for paul krugman. same even more so for the kristof and his wife. >> i blog at the huffington post. i think the times, as we all know is the greatest new paper to ever exist. i still applied a lot of your series. i particularly am fond of the justice series in the bronx that was a fabulous series there. but, is that where your audiences? do you always wa go where the audiences? sometimes you have to leave the audience to where they don't want to go, to the bronx. i'm a little nervous about's the emphasis on the video. if the times becoming another form of television? is that a danger, whereas

television lettuce? >> a number of questions there we can pick it up. >> i'm an alumni of hunter college, you talked a lot about the use of technology as a presentation tool. my question is, what is your vision of how to leverage technology as an investigative tool using data science and that's a thing? first of all, thank you for the kind comment. by the way i don't know why you feel that people don't naturally want to go to the bronx, i'm sorry you had that bias. i like the bronx myself. it doesn't matter how many people are going to come to any story we write about the war in afghanistan or the situation in iraq. are we going to cover that? yes. because that's our commitment.

we will not be driven to say, no one really cares anymore. that's not the way to go. there is a commitment we have to the core of journalism that is fundamental. an investigative series, some of them do spectacularly, and quite frankly some of them don't do quite as well. but they are still critical to meeting our mission of quality journalism. that is a commitment that is fundamental to our core purpose. and to our brand identity. if we lose that, then we will lose our reason for being. we will lose the audience that values the times. and that's the end of our ability to translate our financial future. there's a correlation there it's critical. does it mean we also need to have great restaurant reviews? and great fashion coverage? of course, all those things are also true.

but how many people read the rikers island series that we did? i can't tell you the answer to that and i don't care. that was fundamental. imagine the service you? >> i think i would say, if you look that's let's say the last 15 investigative projects the new york times did which would include rikers, which would include the beasley did about three weeks ago about three quarters houses, which would include the nail salon series, this past week the story about the death of your garner, i do think you said something important. that one of our jobs is to show people the world that they might not otherwise have seen. that actually fits perfectly into the mission. what i would say to the question about the commitment to use technology in newsgathering, i don't how many of you follow the upshot, the upshot which i think will go down -- i did not create

it it was one of the creators of the upshot is in the audience. the upshot is largely a journalistic institution i would call it that is built on data journalism. david hurt runs it, and his goal is to look for ways to use data to jump on big stories of the day. >> how many does that -- how many staff does upshot have? 17 people. it's a mix of graphic people, writers, editors, people who are good with data. their role is to come in every day looking for ways to use data to tell stories. >> 538 was its predecessor. 538 which largely flourished in the campaign which was sort of a part of the new york times, i

can't remember the name of the guy who ran it. >> it silver something. >> anyway, he left and he took that with him. so david at the upshot -- the upshot was designed as its predecessor. >> it had something to the makes. it doesn't just to politics. it's done great stuff like a portrait of middle-class america and how people regard themselves as middle-class in different parts of the country. it's used data for a whole range -- gentlemen, thank you so much for coming.

>> perfect timing also a microphone. >> on the next washington journal, the obama administration's plan to expand overtime benefits. more on the 2016 residential raise. when we will also look at the greek and what a reagan -- puerto rican debt crises. roben farzad joins us. plus we will take your calls and comment. washington journal, live every day on these been -- c-span. >> the cities to her is

partnering with our cable affiliates. join us as we learn about the history and literary life of omaha, nebraska. >> omaha had a reputation, where if you came in if you are black, you needed keep your head down. be aware you are not going to be served or stay hotels. when the club again their operation, they use the term social justice. civil rights was not part of the national lexicon at the time. the idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha or the u.s. that they were operating in a vacuum. i liked to say they were

operating without a net. they did not have support groups, the prior experiences of other groups to challenge racial discrimination. >> we look back at the union pacific and how the construction of union station held the economy -- help the economy. >> it is one of the premier companies in america bounded in 1862. it combines several railroad companies. they were charged with building the transcontinental railroad. they started here, moving west. central pacific started in the west and they met up in utah. that is what propelled us further. we become the point of west, moving west, the gateway to the west. >> throughout the day on books

tv. none he's been three. -- and on c-span three. >> three men and the women believed to be part of the puerto rican nationalist gang, opened fire from the visitors gallery of the house of representatives. five congressmen were hit. kenneth roberts of alabama. george fallon of maryland. and another who was series injured. to the gun wielders, a criminal outrage almost unique. grexit it was one of the most violent acts that occurred. there were debates that we could not let this happen again.

to wall off the visitors gallery with bullet glass this could never happen again. the more the members talked about that and thought about it they said, this is a bad idea. this is people's house. they cannot be walled off. >> the capital building is a symbol and that makes it a target. the british are building in 1814. there was a bombing during world war i by a professor who was opposed to american port for the allies read a shooting in 1954. there was a bomb by the weather underground. another on the senate side by a group opposed to president reagan's foreign policy. capital policemen were shot and killed. and yet, the capital has remain as a remarkably open building.

>> senate historian and former house historian on the history of the house and senate, leaders, care or's, and prominent events. >> in just a moment, a discussion on the future of television. and then michelle obama talks about the wharton's of -- importance of higher education. [applause] >> now a discussion on the future of television with a group of industry leaders. michael powell,. gordon smith. and consumer electronics ceo gary's you own -- gary shapiro.

it is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this super panel on the future of television. we have a trio of panelists who lead industries that are vitally interested in that future. it's hard to believe it was 20 years ago in the fall of 1995 that an fcc advisory committee made recommendations to the commission for the world's first all-digital television transmission system. and many of you were involved in that epic process. but we all know that time and technology march on. today we stand on the dawn of a fully new system, one that promises even more flexible

standard, ultra high definition television, and really a marriage between video and the internet. with all this in mind, we ought to turn now and sample the unique perspectives of our super panelists, television system and industry luminaries. because they are so well known and mark has almost already introduced them, i will do it briefly. on my immediate left is michael powell, the president and ceo of the national association of national cable -- you have to use that word cable. cable and telecommunications association. and former fcc chairman. then we have gordon smith, who is the president and ceo of the national association of broadcasters and a former united

states senator, and jerry shapiro, consumer electronics association president ceo and a "new york times" best selling author. i have prepared a number of challenging inquiries for our luminaries. let me begin with a general inquiry to each. what is your vision? gordon, we will start with you. for the future of television and the role your industry is going to play in the future. >> thank you, dick, and my colleagues here. thank you for your leadership over many years. and for being a part of this next phase. i see the future of video and television broadcasting in particular as remaining bright as long as localism, lives

journalism, consumer protections, emergency alerts, as long as those are important parts of public policy, i think broadcast television plays the indispensable role. >> michael? michael: television will be dramatically different. it's going to be much more multidimensional as a consumer experience than it is today. i think consumers are clearly delighting in a range of consumer electronics devices that provide screens, that provide television-like experiences across a myriad of platforms that never existed before. i think that will continue to proliferate as a legacy of steve jobs begins to continue to create magical devices on which quality video can be distributed. i think the nature of content is

going to continue to radically expand. the old adage that life is stranger than fiction is true. a massive amount of consumption will take place merely in the video documentation of real-life . many, many consumers are spending a portion of their video consumption day watching each other. why, i am not sure. but they do. we have to acknowledge that. that creates a kind of community intensity and television watching that is relatively unique. less about eyeballs, more about commonly shared passions around a piece of content. i think we will see that. i think we will see other expansions in form, longer form, binge watching, shorter form clips, and each of those will be optimized on different platform and devices. i think we will have a monetization model will have to transform. advertising will demand the kind of metadata specifics that

internet functionality plays. the cable industry being the leading provider of high-speed internet in the country is going to play a critical role in the way the internet evolved, and as it serves as a platform for a lot of that expansion to take place, not to mention it will continue to be a home for content that is most highly optimized on that kind of proprietary platform, either because of its expense in being produced, because of its critical need for proprietary heavily quality managed experiences that the internet sometimes has trouble delivering. >> how about you, jerry? jerry: i should have negotiated that i do not follow michael powell. [laughter] what you have done for hdtv, an extreme example of leadership that is made a difference for our country and the world. most americans, 85% of americans

have an hdtv set and they like them. i'm very proud of that segment in my life. my tombstone will be 16 by nine aspect ratio. [laughter] it has been terrific. i am shocked that i was invited back. i spoke here several years ago. i am not mitt romney. i'm willing to apologize when i was wrong. i was wrong. in terms of where we are going over the top is coming really fast and it is hitting. we are going to i.t. video very quickly and different forms. we have the prior people, your

predecessors 11 years ago. i went back and looked at what we said. the whole thing was a focus about how we get to the hdtv transition. you are getting an award and use -- prescient and things as well. i listen to what you say. what chairman powell spoke about, it's not justly -- just about the tablets. the things you put in your wrist. there's virtual-reality coming. we are starting to feel the beginning of a lot of these transitions. there are new technologies in the video. some of which you are aware, lcd and things like that. other things have either not been invented or they are in research labs. it's not just about apple. there are a lot of great

companies, like samsung and lg and panasonic, that are doing great things. there's a lot of expansion in the video space and reason for growth. the next several years it is all about ultra hd 4k, which is had a phenomenally successful run. i hear about the sets going off the shelves. the numbers are truly astounding. i am happy to talk more about it. >> because we are working in washington, d.c. i suppose the obligatory question will have to be, what can the government do to help or hinder your industry?

feel free if you want to lay out any concerns you have about the government regulatory issues in that regard. >> when you are in a period that is marked by explosive innovation, that period also involves explosive experimentation. regulation is at its best when markets are mature and well understood. they are at their worst when there is a fomenting fire of change and experimenting. i would look for a category of having the commission be committed to incentives that align with that experimentation paradigm and the importance of not letting there be arbitrary or premature reflexive reactions

to experimentation in flexibility of packaging, new business models, new rules for interactive or consumers, the roll data will play, because all of those things will always have an element of something you might be a little worried about. but if you act on it prematurely, you will distort the market by the consumer. the disincentives you mentioned are just the opposite. doing things you hope they don't do. i hope at some point the combination of the fcc and congress just has to confront the reality they have a myriad of laws based on market and technological predicates that are utterly and completely false . not even kind of false, but clearly demonstratively false. richard: such as?

michael: program access is premised on the cable industry is the only source of distribution of video content and the idea that cable companies vertically own most programming that consumers watch. the reality is, when that law was passed, cable companies owned about 54% of the content carried out on the system. today, that is down to 11% and if you took out comcast, it would collapse almost entirely. yet the rules still exists. now there is directv and dish which are larger distribution companies than cable yet they are not subject to the same set of rules. there's a lot of inequity in the regulatory environment because the market grew up on the rules and nobody has tried to go back and address the efficacy of the rules.

it's not about whether you win or lose. the government owes you accuracy and a regulatory regime that is honestly reflective of the actuality of the market and not the way it was 20 plus years ago. richard: gordon, speaking for the industry with the heaviest regulatory burden, how do you see this question? gary: i was going to suggest to michael that i have some i would like to give him if he would like. michael: you've been trying. [laughter] gordon: obviously, the elephant in our room is our heavy regulatory burden and the upcoming auction. our hope that the fcc will have a successful forward and reverse auction that protects our contours and is mindful of interference. i think there are just so many things that could go wrong with

the auction unrelated to the lawsuit we currently have which we try to expedite because we like the function in the rearview mirror. i was on the commerce committee when we went from analog to digital and i remember how difficult that was and how by comparison, that transition was like kindergarten recess compared to the complexity of the upcoming auction and potential for disruption that poses. but i can name ownership rules and regulations and i could go down a long list. the fcc has not kept pace with the requirement to look at across ownership issues. we are kept as no one else small and that presents its own

sets of challenges. i would hope the fcc would see the enduring value of localism and that it is a video future for all the american people and not just those who can afford pay video. the world we grew up in and the world we should bequeath to our children is one which irrespective of your income, you should be able to have local news, weather, sports, emergency alerts, which so often are the lifeline to rescue. those ought to always be kept in the forefront of the fcc keeping a dedicated band for broadcasting. between the analog transition to looking forward to the auction coming up in 2016, broadcasting will have relinquished two

thirds of its spectrum and there is just simply a limit. if we are going to keep broadcasting in the important place it occupies in telecommunication. richard: we are going to follow through on some of those issues a little later. gary, how about you? gary: i will sit back and say the competitive strength of our nation is innovation and innovation is what we are great at. if you have to go to the government and ask permission before you do something different that's slowing you down. government plays a valuable role and the transmission system. that was the primary role and we agree that we would recommend something at the ftc and that worked out great. but there is a limited amount of

space. so much of what we do is based on that. there's a debate about rich versus poor and some of it is the resentment that somehow people get government monopolies and special treatment and make a ton of money and we have -- a lot of these regulatory things were created so long ago. the way we view it is we want to see a healthy broadcast and healthy cable. we want competition with every type of broadband provider. if there is competition, a lot of the needs go away and eventually our policymakers will get this. what can we do to foster this tremendous competition and broadband?

one thing the fcc has not done right in my view is that have -- they have claimed authority over a huge swath of the internet in a way nobody ever anticipated in the 96 act this is your authority, we want open internet, and this is a good thing. rather than the fcc saying we can do anything we want and could be requiring weight -- you come to us which is not a healthy thing for our country. richard: we are here at atsc and i think we should talk about what hopes and concerns you have for a possible new standard. congratulations on the private role you played on atfc. gary: this is an elegant

standard that does a lot of great things. they are willing to introduce and try things -- and if there is not support in the market , you will see that dry up. if the broadcast industry gets behind it, it will succeed and it can be the last opportunity to expand market share. going back 11 years and reading about your predecessor, talking about how hdtv is the last chance for broadcasters to step up. we worked so hard on it and it we thought the broadcast entered was the end-all, be-all -- when we started the process most of the country relied on over the air antenna.

most of the country does not rely on over the air and on broadcasters started out fast but got slow compared to satellite, fiber and others. it can come back with atsc 3.0. they have created a standard for this. netflix is already streaming but the trendline is there. americans want good-looking pictures. the number of americans with sets over 40 inches is really high. that was not true when we were doing the transition. the research also shows the content is very important.

even without content, it's an experience of people buying it anyhow. richard: after two decades of development, we went through a transition just six years ago, a nationwide transition to digital television. do you foresee this time around that they're going to have another nationwide transition? perhaps market by market and if so, how will that work out? gordon: let me surprise you and say i agree with what gary just said and probably to the irritation of my members. i believe 3.0 is necessary to have the flexibility and incentive to do new things with less spectrum.

i believe it is actually critical, even if you are a broadband provider like michael or the telephone company. i don't think there is enough spectrum to do all video by broadband. it will always be an expensive experience and i believe it is important for more than just a great new picture. it is important for mobility and that becomes critical. if you have a mobile device, you can actually get a broadcast signal. i think broadcasters need to be interoperable. it opens up the world of the future so broadcasters can continue to play its vital role, whether you get it through subscription tv or over the air.

it is probably 60 million americans exclusively over the air. when you add up second or third tvs, it's probably a lot more than that. broadcasting is -- as a matter of public policy needs to be there. richard: we just paid all of that money for the big screen . now we have to go through it all again. gordon: it could be rolled out in stages, but a national deadline worked well and will probably require that again. that's not an easy opposition. -- proposition. i was part of the last transition and i know what it took. this will be just as big and just as important, but i hear chairman wheeler talk a lot about channel sharing.

that becomes possible with 3.0 in a way that it is not possible with 1.0. i hope you all will finish this job. it's good for broadcasting, it's good for telecommunication. it means more than just a pretty picture. it means all kinds of developments, leap of faith such as they made going to hd, but that needs to be done again. richard: what about cable this time around? and you personally played. how do you see it rolling out this time? michael: we are a proud partner and supporter of everyone in this room. people are to be commended but i do think there are circumstances that are meaningfully different

and probably more challenging in terms of a rollout. there's not a second channel to jump to which makes me believe that suggests market by market more clearly than it does nationwide. the government currently has a n infatuation with internet over-the-top video and i don't know if it will be as easy to galvanize around an incremental change in the traditional television experience in the way that it was and we should remember it took a really long time. they political dynamics are even a little more challenging today. one of the most virtuous assistance in the transition is we had a revolutionary

transformation in what a television was. many people need to buy at because of the thinner, lighter -- it became furniture and not so heavy and impressive. it always gets more difficult within a certain band of relativity. it's a little more challenging. not that it isn't worthy, not that it is important, not that there are not consumer benefits, but i see it is likely more challenging than even the hdtv transition would have been. richard: as i recall, when we did the standard the last time we had to get government approval and that took quite a long time even after the advisory committee turned its recommendation after a year.

do you forsee 3.0 is going to require government approval in the whole or in part? gordon: there's a debate about that, but i would hope for their approval. i think it is in the interest of the fcc to be a part of this and help facilitate it. if we say competition, competition, competition, then broadcasting needs to be a part of that and 3.0 helps facilitate some of their goal to get gary moore spectrum in the phone companies more spectrum. my answer is yes. it requires the fcc to be a full partner in this and i think there's a public policy reason congress would agree with that says they should be our partner in approving it.

gary: don't mistake my intense concentration look for a frown. it is something plastic surgery can fix. i was thinking about chairman powell's comments of how this is different. i'd think it's a different transition in the sense that we have a totally different environment in so many ways. i think we should take the best lessons and there are very painful years -- you were the guy running it, you were the chairman of the fcc and you were a senator. the fear mongering and all of these things that happened, vote members of congress out of office because they did not have their tv signal. president obama, his first decision as president-elect was to delay the transition.

we probably did not have to delay the transition because of fears. when it came time to make the transition, i never even heard a complaint. we did not take a position we did not support or oppose the fact we had a coupon programs of people could buy these types of boxes. we don't ask the government for this type of money and hopefully we won't in the future. it does involve the transmission standard and involves spectrum. our goal in the short term is to make sure we go for it in a way that makes sense and we can do things simultaneously. i think we should take the approach that it is a lot that are if it is an industry-led transition rather than a government one, which is what we had last time. everyone is talking about this

fcc, but this will not the the fcc in a year and a half. the odds are overwhelming there will be a new chairman. but we are focused on getting the spectrum lunch down. may i ask one of the panelists a question? richard: no. [laughter] you are going to get one back. gary: chairman wheeler said -- do any of you have any plans to recommend any further delays for modifications? gordon: what we have done because we so object to the modeling they have for the repack is clarification so we preserve our contours and serve the customers we currently have.

we sought an expedited proceeding. gary: so no new studies will be done, no new arguments will be thrown in? no new delays will be sought? gordon: that depends on how this goes. the truth of the matter is it's so much larger than the last transition, the repack will adjust hundreds of thousands of tv stations whether they participate in the auction or not. we hope they come forward with roles that will allow them to go as quickly as possible, we don't want to drag this thing out. we want to know what our spaces is and with 3.0, we hope to do everything we do now and more. gary: sitting outside eating lunch, i sat across from a low power guy in he said he would do everything possible to delay

this until he gets some of congress's special tax credits. he said i want to get mine is this a healthy way to approach a -- a national problem question mark just to delay, delay, delay? gordon: if there is 120 megahertz involved, i can tell you it is woefully short. i don't know who makes up the shortfall. i hope the fcc and congress will. richard: is there a problem that you see if we get the perfect world, that we have a standard in place before we did the auction so there would not be an unfortunate timing incident?

gordon: it could be unfortunate timing and it could be fortuitous timing. if there's only one disruption and not two, so we will step on the accelerator. anything you can do to help us in a timely way helps to make for one disruption, not two. richard: gary, do you see were -- do you see more worldwide commonality than we had the last time around? gary: that's such a softball. do you mean do we have to take any trips to brazil or europe? we tried.

it proven to be the best in the world. i think the good thing here is 3.0 is my understanding, it is going to be a global standard. countries can do whatever they want and they often do for reasons that are not technical and some people like to be different. gordon: but it is so good for telecommunication, i think it will set the standard for the world because it will help us leapfrog the rest of the world and they will be catching up with us. gary: i think there are engineers all around the world working up to that. at least that is what mark has told me and i think that's good. richard: looking at the programming ahead, gary had touted ultra high definition television and everyone wants to see advances. i don't know if it's going to have the same kind of wow factor we all experienced as consumers