i will tell you this and then i will quietly go. there is no problem that cannot be solved, but it takes leadership. radical islam is not going to surrender. somebody has to defeat them with a plan that will allow us to be safe at home and protect our have the background, judgment, and experience it it takes to take the fight to the enemy in a smart and successful way. i lost my parents at 22, i have been knocked down, i have the heart for this job. what your president needs more than anything else is a heart. a heart for his country, or her country. without a heart, it is all talk. i want to give you not only my background, and experience, but i want to give you my heart. here is the only way i know to pay you back as a nation. can too everything i

save the american dream that has been there for me and darlene. there is nothing i will not do to get this country back on track. including being yelled that i my own party. thank you very much. >> coming up on c-span, a discussion on american news coverage and freedom of beach. then a look at the major economic issues of campaign 2016. later, c-span's route to the white house joins the candidates at the iowa state fair. first, wisconsin governor scott walker. ceo ford -- then former hp carly fiorina. our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues, live it from the iowa state fair on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. at the candidates of walk the fairgrounds and speak at the soapbox.

tuesday morning, republican senator marco rubio at 11:30 a.m. and governor john kasich at 5:00 p.m. on wednesday, rick perry will speak at 11:00 a.m., on friday, senator ted cruz. saturday, chris christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1:00 p.m. join the twitter conversation at #der soapbox. taking you to the white house. next, the state of domestic and international news coverage. marty baron, executive editor of the washington post and elizabeth bumiller, washington editor of the new york times, talks about american media coverage of the u.s. global power, and how the internet and financial constraints have impacted their industry. dartmouth college in hanover, new hampshire. it is about two hours.

marty: i have to admit this is a special treat for me today. because, in addition to being a news junkie, i am a former newspaper reporter and i truly value great journalism. disruptive,of digital communication, it is gratifying to know that we still have some fascinating, fabulous newspapers, like the washington post, the new york times, the wall street journal, the valley news, among others. honored to introduce our first speaker. marty baron grew up in miami. graduated from lehigh, since then he has been a newspaper man. he has worked at the miami herald, the los angeles times, the new york times, the boston

globe, and since 2012, he has been the executive editor of the washington post. editor of some of these newspapers, particularly the miami herald, and the boston globe, and the washington post, his team at these newspapers prizes for pulitzer x once interim -- for excellence in journalism. the most recent one at the washington post was earlier this year when he and his team won the pulitzer for this series on the service lapses in protecting the president of the united states. a great series of stories. marty is a fine journalist. interest ina keen art, art museums, and he collects art.

altogether, i am very proud to be able to present one of the best newspaper editors in the nation. marty baron. [applause] elizabeth bumiller thank you marty: thank you very much for that kind introduction and i am delighted to be able to speak with you today. i am especially pleased to be able to share the stage with elizabeth bumiller. we started our careers to rather in the late 1970's at the miami herald as reporters there. it is wonderful to be with her today. the subject i want to discuss today is a subject that is close to my heart. iitical to my profession, and believe, vital for democracy, human dignity, and personal liberty. the subject is freedom of expression.

the case for freedom of expression was made long ago. among the most eloquent proponent was john milton and his ideas helped set the course for our own principles today. --1644, milton wrote this give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to concepts. above all liberties. today, in much of the world, that liberty is either nonexistent or in jeopardy. let me start by telling you about two recent encounters of mine. in january of last year, i spoke with the leading figure in the governance of the internet. we talked about surveillance by the national security agency. passed soency had voraciously into internet data networks. this is a subject that we covered intensely at the washington post and for which we

and the guardian in great britain had one people at surprising 2014. i was interested in what this internet official was hearing as he traveled the world in the aftermath of disclosures that originated with edward snowden. snowden's massive leak of highly classified documents had revealed some of this nation's most sensitive national security secrets. reaction,e worldwide until that point, had fallen into the category of outrage. activists and government officials had defined the u.s. government's aggression into the privacy of citizens of other countries. foreign governments protested that even the privacy of presidents and prime ministers in countries that were our allies had been breached. the nsa had listened in on their phone conversations. as this internet official traveled asia, outrage was not what he heard. what did he hear?

jealousy. havers told him -- we excellent computer scientist. why have we not been able to do this? they aspired to monitor their own citizens as skillfully as the u.s. government had. that story is number one and now story number two. early this summer, i was visited in washington by the owners, editors, and legal counsel of a looting -- a leading newspaper in ecuador. dictating what it prints. threatening fines. pressuring media outlets in hopes they would become docile, deferential, compliance. this june, the newspaper was fined $350,000 by the government on the grounds that it failed to

satisfy all requirements for publishing a response by the government to one of its stories. indications law provided that individuals who feel that dignity or honor had been damaged by a media report have the right to respond. the newspaper had published a story about ecuador's health care system under the headline -- $1.7 billion in federal debt impairs health care system. the paper had thought an interview with health care system officials prior to the publication, even sending a list of questions. the request went unanswered. when the story was published, it was sharply criticized by ecuador's president. theven questioned statistics. statistics that as it turned out, came directly from the health care system itself. the president's secretary

of communications ordered the newspaper to publish a rebuttal which it did. -- rebuttal did not it did not carry a headline crafted by the secretary that accompanied its rebuttal. the secretariat ordered its summary published and it ordered its headline published in the newspaper then complied. the headline then read -- the health care system has made progress and will improve even more in the coming years. that, the newspaper now had to pay a fine for alleged noncompliance with a lot regarding rebuttal. the final public to 10% of its average revenue in the previous quarter. $350,000.otal with each of fence, a fine is doubled. it can continue doubling without

limit. pressure are having the intended effect. 2014, four media outlets closed. largely as a result of this so-called organic indications law. pressrt, in ecuador, the will either buckle to the government, or the government will break it. the newspaper calls these legal maneuvers creeping expert -- expropriation. told showories i something about free expression. it can be threatened from many directions. that is what is happening. not long ago, the world hoped for better. a newmed to be entering era of free expression brought about by the internet, social media, and smart with -- and smart phones. believed communications

with floors in ways that were previously unimagined. root duringok firm the arab spring which began at the tail end of 2010 with the tunisian revolution. and then spread through the arab world. with protests in egypt against the regime, the world marveled at the impact of social media. how it could be used to organize and facilitate free expression. how it might overcome repression. it was a hopeful time for those in believed in liberating -- the liberating power of technology over the traditional, tyrannical powers of government. truth moves faster than lies and propaganda becomes flexible. not only is the network more powerful than a hierarchy, but the ad hoc network has become

easier to form. in a book entitled -- democracies fourth wave, the digital wave and the arab spring, a professor at the university of washington and a doctoral student noted, that social media alone did not cause of people in north africa, but information technologies including mobile phones and the ofernet altered the capacity citizens and civil society actors to affect domestic politics. to be fair, hopefulness came with caution. the authors of those commentaries recognized that the technology also gave government the opportunity to monitor citizens and ultimately extinguish their voices and their movements. professor howard noted in one interview that authoritarian regimes had come to value digital media also. security services in iran, saudi arabia, and syria observed how

democracy advocates were using social media in egypt and tunisia and develop counterinsurgency strategies that allowed for them to surveillance, and entrap protesters. just the other week in the washington post, we published a series on press freedom and journalists worldwide. reporters documented how the security establishments of the arab world can now exploit sophisticated technology to suppress dissent. that egypt is implementing a social network project that allows for keyword onrching and trend analysis facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin, google and other sites. at any time, a minimum of 30 endless will monitor huge streams of data in classical and arabic according to a 2014 interior ministry request for proposals leak to the egyptian media.

-- andstion now is this it is a big one. who will prevail in a competition that has each side to point technology as tools and weapons. will it be ordinary citizens and activist waiting to circumvent, undermined, and outwit autocratic governments? the governments that possess the capacity to monitor communications as never before? in their outstanding book, the new digital age, they lean towards optimism. authoritarian governments they wrote, will find their newly connected populations more difficult to control, repress, and influence while democratic state will be forced to include many more voices. individuals, organizations, and companies in their affairs. noted, how often authoritarian governments will

have powerful weapons of their own. they broke, from their position as gatekeeper in a world of conductivity. and outave an enormous power over the mechanics of the internet in their own countries. states have power over the physical infrastructure conductivity requires. the transmission powers. the routers. the switches. exitcontrol the entrance, points of data. they can limit content. they can even create separate internets. devicesmay compromised before they are ever sold. individuals who use encryption software to avoid censorship or surveillance or simply to protect their most private information will become objects of suspicion. authoritarian governments can apply the norm is pressure. they noted that states will be

able to set up a random checkpoints to search people's devices were encryption and software. the presence of which could earn them fines, jail time, or a spot on a government database of offenders. anyone who is known to have downloaded a circumvention measure could suddenly find life more difficult. they believe that governments will create their own to name -- domain name system. if the government succeeds in doing so, it would effectively unplug its population from the global internet and instead offer only a close to, national internet. way failsch by the more journalists than any other country, already put filters onto sites. turkey has blocked thousands of sites and its prime minister once ordered twitter shut down.

youtube has been locked in pakistan and the government there has demanded many of hundreds of times that facebook removed content. ideas, the company unit that exist to support free expression, government attempts to censor the internet are seen as falling into three categories. service --hey call server-side censorship. two knock-- inconvenient voices off-line. censorship on the wire is never two. it consists of national firewalls to block access to undesirable for an content. face,an also include leveraging their control of internet servers and providers which try to hide content. in relatively few countries are doing this right now. third, plant site

censorship. this increasingly includes phishing and malware attacks to monitor independent journalists and activists. this is becoming a very popular technique for national governments. at the core of the battle over the internet, is a philosophical and legal dispute over who has dominion over the internet. and thus, who should govern it and how. visiting lawyear, professor at ucla, laid out the issue in the georgetown law journal. two competing visions of cyberspace has emerged so far. china advocate a sovereignty based model of cyber governments. that prioritizes state control. the united states, united kingdom, and their allies, they argue that cyberspace should be governed by states alone.

in the early days of the internet, its creators advocates, protectors, and many of its users argued with no small measure of her bottle that the internet had superseded governments. the internet belonged only to its users they insisted and governments had no role. 1996, john barlow, cofounder of the electronic freedom organization, issued a declaration of the independent -- independence of cyberspace. government's of the industrial world he proclaimed, the weary giants of flesh and steel, i come from cyberspace the new home of mine and he -- and on behalf of the future, i ask of you in the past to leave us alone. you are not welcome among us. you have no sovereignty where we gather.

collided with some inconvenient physical facts. this was noted by some legal willmics including timothy -- wu. they took on the notion of the internet as a place of its own. the internet after all relies on some fairly monday and things. underneath it all, they wrote, is an ugly physical transport infrastructure. copper wires, fiber-optic cables, and routers and switches with direct information from place to place. governments do regulate the internet. we are now faced with the question of how far they will go in asserting control. be regardednternet like other domains that fall outside national boundaries, the

high seas, outer space, and the antarctica? words, should the internet be regarded as a global comments, subject to internationally agreed-upon norms. or instead, should it be viewed as every nation's airspace that would put the internet under each nation's individual total control. the absence of consensus, some countries are not waiting for one. in china, they lead in treating the internet as an internal system that is theirs to roll. .- rule that is emblematic of what has become free expression in those countries. if there was once a spark of freedom, and there was at least that, it is now being snuffed out. most russians get their

information from state-controlled broadcast, disseminating propaganda, can be received, -- conspiracy. -- one example, after the malaysian airliner went down in the ukraine, intelligence pointed to the troops. media, alternative explanations proliferated. each one more far-fetched than the next. russian media claimed that the ukrainians shot down the plane. they claimed that the cia provided help. they asserted that the plane might have been mistaken for vladimir putin's making it a target. they claimed bodies on the ground were planted there. chief time, the editor in for russia 24 said this -- as state tv, our mission is to support the interests of the state. the official opinions art

determinative for our programs, for our channel. state control and manipulation of television stations and newspapers is one thing, but the internet in russia has long been largely uncensored. that is no longer the case. early last year, russian authorities were given the power to block websites without any official explanation. russianmmediately, opposition websites were blocked . by the summer of last year, speech on the internet was constrained even further. new rules required anyone with a daily, online audience of more than 3000 people to register with russia's internet oversight agency. names, and contact details were to be provided. and bloggers would be held liable for anything deemed misinformation. including an comments from members of the public.

late last year, a new russian log required that data about russian users be stored on computer servers within the country. that way, russia would have easy access to information about the use of facebook, twitter, google, and other services. government already had an arsenal of lost it could use against those speaking freely. the new rules created additional risks. bloggers were more likely to muzzle themselves for fear of fines and criminal prosecution. many of the rules are considered vague and confusing. ambiguity is often a weapon in the hands of governments and that is the case in russia today. wrote at theker new yorker, in russia, vladimir atin has been masterful creating an atmosphere in which there are no clear rules so that intellectuals and artists,

stifle themselves in order to not run afoul of vague laws and even vaguer social preferences. i only talkednt, about official suppression of free speech and free press. the threats are broader. more menacing than that. nonstate actors can be an even greater danger. two images last year cannot be forgotten. those of the images of james foley, an independent journalist executed by the islamic state. --ir faith made horrifyingly his fate made horrifyingly clear. year, islam is slaughtered staffers at a paris -- eddie satirical -- at

charlie hebdo. then there is what happens behind walls. i think of jason resign. he is held in iran's worst prison, suffering physically and emotionally for more than one year. he has been targeted with phony charges of espionage and other supposed offenses for which there has been no evidence. he has had tor a and/oam trial where evidence and fairness and basic principles of due process clearly do not matter. these are just the publicized incidents. the committee to protect journalists notes that while most coverage and attacks against the press are focused on well-connected journalist, nine of 10 killed our local reporters covering local stories. in the past three years, violence against journalists has

soared to record levels. and average of more than one journalists is killed every week. mexico, reporting on drug cartels, crime syndicates, and corruption is a deadly business. just the week of june 28 this year, three journalists were killed there. are the killers found them prosecuted. much of the world rarely -- in much of the world are they rarely pursued. all of this imposes an obligation on journalists for news organizations in the united states. where, despite our own concerns, we enjoy freedoms unimagined in the rest of the world. we are able to write what our professional colleagues in other countries cannot. lives and those of their families would be at risk.

a longtime china correspondent for the new yorker put it well recently -- in concluding, i will quote him. as correspondence who enjoy the freedom to write what we know, we have a responsibility to do it, not only for the sake of our readers, that for the sake of reporters who do not enjoy the same privileges. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, marty. that was wonderful. thatext speaker is always is also a very distinguished journalist. elizabeth bumiller was born in denmark, grew up in cincinnati, northwestern lumbee's goal of journalism, and went on to a long career as a journalist. -- she has been a

reporter and corresponded for the washington post, was in new delhi, tokyo. she joined the new york times in 1995. she has had many different assignments there. covering the white house, during the. after 9/11, also covering the pentagon. editorame the washington of the new york times in february of this year. where she organizes and directs reportersrom 30 or so in the washington bureau of the times. while doing all of this, she has also managed to write some books. wroteia for example, she a best-selling story about women

having sons. the exact title of it escapes me right now. i wrote it down. you can do it later. managed in tokyo, she to write a book about family life in japan while being the mother of a four-year-old and an infant. that was real juggling on her part. her book about condoleezza rice, the biography, is available in the rear, and elizabeth will be available to sign copies for sale by the bookstore at the break. please join me in welcoming elizabeth bumiller of the new york times. [applause] elizabeth: thank you, tom. the title of my book it -- it is

a long one -- may you be the mother of a 100 cents. -- sons. this is wonderful to be here. it is a beautiful place to spend a day or two. -- to been great to state share the stage with marty. we crossed paths at the new york times, not the washington post. thisou can see how small fraternity as marty is of journalists in this country. ago,tle more than 30 years i think i can read this without my glasses. i arrived in the middle of the night in new delhi with my husband to start our first assignment. i was a reporter with the washington post and my husband had just finished five years as a white house correspondent.

i was 28 years old and had been no further from the united states and europe. of theber stepping out door of the plane, long before the completion of the modern era gandhi airport and being assaulted by the dense fog and the overpowering, smoking sweet smell of burning cow dung fires that people used for cooking and to keep warm. wrote my stories for the washington post on a manual typewriter. because of all of the power failures. when i was done, i took my copy to the local reuters office where it was punched out and sent back to washington. there was no internet in those days, not even cnn. to find out what was going on, we would read a local newspaper, the times of india, the express, and listen to the bbc's world service.

there was one television station back then in india. rangovernment -- which documentaries on fertilizer plants. i assure you it was completely unwatchable. the new york times arrived imail. -- by mail. not the economic powerhouse and forth in asia that it is now. in the united states, india was on often an afterthought. there were a lot of americans covering it. times had a bureau as did the washington post, the wall street journal, the los angeles times, the baltimore sun, the philadelphia inquirer, the time ap.zine, as well as we wrote about the new prime minister, politics, and culture. today in new delhi, the situation is quite different. as a majormerged player on the world stage, a

rival with china and a bigger story than it have -- has ever been. are all many newspapers gone. the larger picture, if you look at traditional newspapers and foreign policy coverage, is worse. in 2003, the american journalism review reported that 10 newspapers and one chain employed 307 full-time correspondents. they didthe last time the survey, that number had fallen to 234 full-time correspondents. 1998,so found that since 20 newspapers had shut their bureaus oversees entirely. international news coverage is now concentrated in the hands of big papers, the times, the wall street journal, but the vast timesof the internet, the

has many viewers a month. that overseas coverage is seen by far more people than we ever imagined back in 1980. the associated press has grown to over 3000 employees working in over 100 countries. many of them are local hires. bloomberg news which did not exist when i was an idiot, has a local staff of more than 2300. national public radio has also really grown and it has 17 overseas bureaus. the new york times has more overseas bureaus, 30, then when i was in india. and about 80 full-time correspondents covering the world. on top of that, there have been new entries to the scene like local post, where james foley worked.

in 2012, the global post won a peabody award for its videos on india, mexico's drug wars, an epidemic of kidnapping in shanghai. hottest news the program on the scene, vice. it interviewed president obama when he visited the prison in oklahoma. highly praised for their reporting in ukraine. reporting for their on isis. buzz feed and the huffington post have also begun to do for an coverage. of theind, the reports death of four news in this country are exaggerated. it comes in a different form. it is not as much in the daily newspaper. it is available in depth and

richness and endless quality if you know where to look for it which is on the internet. these news at organizations that do cover the world. specifically, how they cover america's subjection to power -- of power around the world. expect that you all did the reading because you would be like college students anywhere. but, it is ok if you do not. i will talk about it. first, looking at chapter two. obamas secret wars. chapter two is called -- again\/ afghanistan. 30,000 additional troops to be sent to afghanistan. march, aready sent in

first batch of 17,000 troops to afghanistan. shortly after he took office. he was loath to escalate the war but felt pressure from his military commanders. the white house has come to the realization that the war was being lost. the title of davis chapter says it all which is how obama's afghan policy came to be known inside the government as afghan goodenough. the administration would do what it had to and no more. , theal stanley mcchrystal top american commander in afghanistan, had wanted many more troops. as many as 80,000. projection of american power here especially -- e obama said the idea was that the afghans would be better trained by the united states in the meantime and they would have to learn how to defend their country on their own. i had my own small part in the search and saw firsthand that in

2010, the potential and great limits the american power in the world. in the spring and fall of 2010 when i was still a pentagon reporter, i embedded with a group of marines in southern afghanistan. women were not allowed in combat in the marines, but an experiment that year skirted the regulations. groupsines sent a small of women come no more than two or three at a time out with all mail infantry for patrol into remote and dangerous occupied areas. back then, the united states was still engaged in what was called a counterinsurgency strategy, trying to win over the local population by protecting them, building schools and clinics and growth, meeting with village elders. the thought was that if you at some women on the ground, female marines, they could engage with which wasen

off-limits to american men. in may, i wass there with the marines. as we sat over endless cups of tea, and also ran a lot of dangerous book for trust, and talked about what the marines could do for various villages. a school, and health care center, a job. it was the ultimate projection of america's soft power and it was well-meaning. i am certain that some afghan women ended up with some very good feelings about marines. but it was a drop in the bucket. bringing the population to the united states was going to take a long time. decades that obama did not have. ask you to look at another chapter in the book about condoleezza rice. she is what she said after

exercised in the morning, in on,ary 2006, news going said in the wake of hamas victories, the palestinian resigned. this was not what they expected. she decided it was run. does -- she called the state department. she recalled what happened next. she said -- i asked the state department what happened in the palestinian elections. they said that hamas won. i thought oh my goodness. with that, she got back on her elliptical trainer and i thought i might as well finish exercising because it is going to be a really long day. that was a correct project , forred in the elections the governing party to consolidate power.

as a symbol of the new stirrings they had not expected the wrong party to win. talked again she about that election and how it reflected a certain limitation of american power. i think that there are plenty of , but not every problem is amenable to a u.s. solution. that is one of the first things that you have to realize. that everything that goes wrong is america's fault. some of theme to new york times's stories i include in the bibliography. in a story about saudi arabia's air against rebels in yemen, airstrikes that were killing hundreds of civilians. it shows the limitations of american strategy. the obama administration has chosen to work with and help allies in west africa to the middle east rather than putting large numbers of american troops

on the ground in crises. most americans would say that is a very good idea but when one of your allies, in this case saudi arabia, uses airstrikes as a cudgel, you do not have a lot of control over them. atthe same way, looking cooper's story from march about american strategy in iraq increasingly relies on iran. the lead in the story says it all. when president obama is under political pressure from congressional republicans over negotiations to reign in our runs nuclear efforts, a paradox a merged. mr. obama is becoming dependent on iranian fighters as he tries to contain isis in iraq and syria without committing u.s. ground troops. the only way in which the obama administration can credibly is bywith it strategy implicitly assuming that the iranians would carry most of the weight in winning battles on the ground. examples, about

whether american power is in decline or ascendant. i cite these examples not as evidence of an american retreat, that as an example for the purposes of journalism. the people have often asked me when i talk about political reporting if i think the press is biased. i replied that the press is biased, towards conflict in trouble. we focus on what is wrong, what needs fixing. that is our responsibility, our job, to expose problems. this year alone, you read in the new york times, about the exploitation of the workers in new york, the lack of oversight, the shocking lawlessness on the high seas. i think our foreign-policy coverage and overseas coverage is much the same. to be sure, we do pursue the big successes.

we ran multiple stories when the iranian deal with announced in vienna. since then, we focused on the resistance that the deal is meeting in congress and how obama is deciding how to win democrats. , everyrt hagan says failure of the united states to get its way in the world tends to reinforce the impressions of a nation in decline. arabs and israelis refuse to make peace. isis is on the rise. china hacks into the office of personnel management and exposes millions of personnel records of federal workers. look at the numbers. the u.s. is still the richest economy in the world and has unmatched military strength. i know this from covering the pentagon could this year's pentagon budget is $600 billion. more than that of all of the great powers combined.

chinese economy is on the rise and could overtake the u.s. economy in the next two decades. we now have less power in the world has been around for decades. look at the sphere of the united versus the writing soviet union in the 1950's. the iranian hostage crisis are the late 1980's, the incredible economic boom in japan which was going to take over the war at the expense of the united states. remember? i lived in tokyo at the time and i was there when president bush came over with three american automakers to convince the japanese to buy american cars. instead, he ended up getting sick in the lap of the japanese prime minister. a terrible metaphor. at the japanese made fun of our cars and told me that the americans were lazy.

we did not work as hard as the japanese according to them. every correspondent in tokyo had days and days of stories out of that disastrous trip. in conclusion, i think the media including the proliferation of the media has done a good job of covering the day today crises in complex that reflect the state of america's power overseas. often it is dangerous, awe-inspiring work. -- looking atd work ins and dexter's iraq. chris shivers, john burns. all facingspondence astonishing dangerous. i think we do a less good job at the deeper stories that show thatterm, systemic change indirectly reflects american values and influence. , in fact, do those stories.

look at how much coverage there has been in the improvement of women in iraq in the last 25 pulitzerr look at the prize-winning coverage of ebola in africa and the obama administration's response to it. some of those stories were parten by cooper who was of the pulitzer team this year. she went back to her native liberia and it astonishing stories. she is now the pentagon correspondent for the times. i hope you have read some of them. she did very brave, courageous work in liberia. she also had the stress of going and to her own country having to see it through american eyes. kosovo our coverage of in the late 1990's. i was there as well. kosovo qualifies as an american success story. looking at the bigger picture.

you can say that the rise of the asian economy in the last 25 years means that america has a smaller relative peace of this economic pie. today, the u.s. economy is 19% of the world economy compared to 25% 25 years ago. of the rise of the asian economy and latin america, means that millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. it is not enough, but that is a lot of people. i do not see how that does not benefit the united states. and yet, it is a stories do not read about quite so often, because it is harder to get a handle on and cover than the war that you might be right in the middle of. to conclude, it is important to step back and go beyond our imperative, the first chaotic draft of history. and put the conflict and revolution in context in a way that reflects as much as it is

possible in real-time, which is what we work in, america's larger place in the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, elizabeth. that was wonderful. we will take an early break now. do not forget to submit your questions and when you return, we going to sit on these tears -- chairs, and start the process. what happened to their? -- what happened there? looks like russian hacking. enjoy your break. do not forget elizabeth about condoleezza rice. it is in the atrium for sale and signing. thank you. >> ok, i think we are ready to

start. what i propose to do is to ask each of the speakers a question. we had so many questions here it will take us until 3:00 to get finished. but i will ask each one of them there may bed then some questions that both of them can respond to. the first one to elizabeth. you have covered the white house. is it true the obama administration is the most secretive administration in recent history? and the most manipulative of the press? [laughter] elizabeth: i can tell you that our previous editor said that it was the most secretive in history. she is no longer with us. >> they got rid of her. elizabeth: i do think there are special challenges in covering -- >> there is a problem with the sound.

ok, todd. over to you. what she said was that -- yes, and she quoted jill abramson, the former executive editor as saying that about the obama administration. elizabeth: is this any better? that the obama administration resents a lot of challenges. at --isy, if you look this better? at the nsa, it --llance that was -- if you look at the drone program.

administration increased the number of drones -- drones and pakistan [indiscernible] recently wrote a story about -- they made the decision to name the senior officers who were running the cia drone program. was a great deal of controversy and criticism at the time about that. they felt very shortly that since the pentagon program is public, and the officers who run it are public, and since this

was a huge part of american power in foreign policy, that the officers should be named. the cia was very angry. the point is that there is a great deal of secrecy in this administration. it is a challenge to cover. in terms of the white house, we have four white house correspondents, peter baker is the chief. they will tell you how difficult .t is the problem i had with the bush administration also. i will outline the secrecy for you in one way. the other problem is getting access to their thinking. and the debate inside the white house about policy decisions. that is really hard to get at in real time. of getting inem to see someone and then you get talking points. conversationreal

about why they were debating certain points. they do not want you to to write it as conflict. access to their thinking is really important and that is what is hard to get. it is getting easier now in the last 18 months. like any administration, they are loosening up because they see the end in sight. the president himself has been much more open about his thinking. i guess that is a long way of answering to say yes, there are serious challenges in covering any white house, and certainly this one. >> marty do you have any observations? marty: i think elizabeth covered it. >> here's a question for you, marty. manyave been an editor of important newspapers. can you give us some insight into what it is like to be an editor under jeff these oh, the head of amazon, the new owner of the washington post? marty: sure.

over 1.5s bought us years ago. it is an unusual purchase for a news organization like ours. it was wholly unexpected. no one knew he had any interest in our field. familyexpected that the would sell the washington post which it had owned for such a long. of time. and a revered family like that. it has actually been a good experience. brings to the post some things that we need. he brings questions about the way we do things, and a different way of thinking about it. certainly, some hard questions about how we approach our work, he also brings ideas on new things we can do. and an openness to our ideas but he also brings his own ideas.

we need fresh ideas in our field. we need some people outside -- from outside the industry that understand technology and the way that information is dedicated and shared. thirdly, he brings capital. he is one of the wealthiest people in the world. he has been willing to invest. that has been great because we are in a. where we have to make a a transition from a print era to a digital era. we need to fund experiments and he has been willing to fund all sorts of experiments with us so that we can try and see if they work. he is also providing a runway through this. where we can try things before we take off. we're not supposed to land. only take off on this runway. no landing allowed. and so, it has been a very good

experience. we have grown rapidly. we are growing more rapidly than anyone among our peer sets. from that standpoint, it has been terrific. >> can you give a specific example of an experiment that has worked in one that has failed? marty: we don't talk about failures. especially since this is being televised and there are hundreds of people here. i will talk about successes. we have had a couple. a number of them actually. we have an overnight crew that produces a show called morning mix. they work from 10 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. all over the world, all over the internet for stories that can be done. they develop those stories in their own distinct way. and those stories are listed by 5:00 a.m. in the morning or earlier. they get a lot of fresh content for us in the morning.

written in a way that is particularly suited for the web which is different from the way you would write for a newspaper. that has been quite successful. called started something post-everything which is our answer to the huntington post. we invite outside answers -- writers to write for us. a lot of ordinary individuals writing about their personal experiences. personal experiences. pieces.e popular they have done extremely well. probably our most popular -- one was the headline was, what happened when i drove my mercedes down to pick up my food stamps? [laughter] piece.very, very popular it was widely shared. >> this is a question for both of you. how do you explain the success of fox news, and related to that

feeling aboutur the future of print journalism? liz gets all the good questions. elisabeth: you can answer, too. i think fox attracts people who believe in the fox news point of view. it's not a surprise. know, it's lively. it's engaging. it has a very strong point of view, and i think it confirms a lot of people's political beliefs to watch it. it is not a surprise. cnn is doing something very different, which is being a straight news organization. what was the rest of the question? the future of print journalism. yes. a aboutw -- i can tell you

the times in print journalism. i cannot predict how many more years or if this is ever going to go away, but right now the prince edition of the new york -- the print edition of the new york times, the daily circulation is something like 700,000. our digital lonely subscribers is close to a million now. you can see what is happening area -- that is what is happening. that is the pay wall. people are paying for those digital only subscriptions. for now, most of the revenue comes from advertising. there is an increase in -- from print advertising. there is an increase in digital advertising. we are so committed to the newspaper. a huge amount of focus is on the web, especially on mobile and phones. the readership is

really, really going. i think -- as the senior editors at the times like to say, we don't care how you get your news, how you get your "new york times" every morning. we just want you to get it. this --n talk about there is a huge push in the newsroom to get our stories out in front of people. all sorts of audience growth editors who push out our stories . getting the stories out in front of the right people. i think there's a lot of energy. there's a lot of optimism in the newsroom. print, i don't know. what do you think? tom: marty? the future of journalism, broadly, i think is good. there are things we can do now with storytelling we could not do before. we are reaching more people. allre reaching more people over the world. they can reach information

instantaneously like we could not before. you name it. there are a lot of things we can do. it will be challenging. challenging.cally there is no question. as far as print is concerned -- i have said this publicly in speeches -- we have to move beyond the idea that print will be a big part of what we do for a very long time. i do not know what the end date will be. i do not think it will be a big part of what news organizations like ours do for a lot longer. it is a digital world we live in, whether you like it or not. it's actually more than a digital world. it's a mobile world. at "themount of traffic traffic, ises," our

coming from mobile devices. and it's not coming directly to us, but from facebook and social media platforms, but primarily facebook. you have a younger audience, millennial audience that is reading the news on facebook, getting the facebook feed, and linking out to a story that might come from the post, "the new york times," another news organization as well. it's a very different way of getting your news. that is an and citation the news should find us. and what they are interested in will somehow magically appear in front of them. share itfriends will with him. but there is not an expectation they go to a destination and there they find the information of interest to them. tom: thanks. i wonder if i can follow up with a question about the economics of it. where is the revenue stream for that kind of journalism? if facebook is the prime window,

where does "the washington post" get revenue from that business model? marty: right. we are still trying to provide the answer to that. we obviously get digital revenue and their resources of digital revenue just as there were two primary sources of print revenue, and that is advertising and subscription. that is the same model we had before, of enough. with the advertising model is the rates are lower than they were before. we used to think we were in a competitive news town, but now we are competing with everybody. we compete with cnn, fox, both feed -- buzzfeed. withdvertising, we compete facebook, google. we compete with twitter. we compete with these behemoths that are much larger than we

are, these large organizations, so the amount of inventory online could be infinite. the more you have, the lower the advertising rate, typically. it's a hugely challenging environment. we are all struggling with what is a sustainable economic model? beenhe times, it has digital subscriptions. they have been better at it than anybody else. a millions instructions and that's great. on the other hand, it has pretty , i think, andut that is a challenge for them. how do you generate growth if your subscriptions have plateaued? as a result of that, there is a push for foreign subscriptions. there's a big push to see how many english speakers we can get overseas and just grow the international audience. there's also a chinese language

mission. experimentst of going on with translated versions. -- there are know a lot of english speakers of over the world, and the times likes to think of them as potential readers and subscribers. elisabeth, this is a question about the times coverage of hillary clinton. margaret sullivan took the times of the for its coverage alleged criminal action by hillary and the use of e-mails. -- she said that "the post" the blog she posted on about this got more attention than anything she has ever written. do you have any views on the way "the times" has covered clinton on the issue of the e-mails? the post ran hillary

clinton's story this morning on e-mails, so you might want to ask marty. [laughter] tom: come on, marty. elisabeth: i'm not going to go beyond what our executive editor -- marty: i have turned off my smartphone. elisabeth: i am not going to go beyond what my executive editor said in a long column about this. just that this is a difficult question for me to answer with this large crowd. , just want to say, you know the sourcing on that story is deemed good. sources acrossel multiple layers of government, and they told us the wrong thing. were still telling us the wrong thing the next morning. so, you can say, we should have

held these great. we should have held the story. well, the toll is the one thing the next morning. the wrong thing the next morning. we did break this story. and the clinton administration -- i mean, the clinton campaign has pushed back very strongly. i think that is all i want to say about it. i think marty can talk about there's rate this morning -- there story this morning which broke some ground. also, sometimes people do for you -- margaret sullivan is a public editor. she is not an editor at the "new york times." although she is in the newsroom, she's an outside person hired to pass judgment on what the editors and reporters at the "new york times" do. it's not internal criticism. she's an outside source. people sometimes get that confused, and understandably.

if she criticizes a reporter -- the reporter was criticized by the "new york times" senior editors. this is not the case with margaret sullivan. she is an outside person hired to critique "the times" every day basically. tom: marty, a question for you regarding the journalist ellen iran. should the united states pay a ransom to free capture journalists? and should that issue have been much more of an explicit condition for the recently negotiated iran nuclear treaty? well, you know the administration has not been pay ransom. that's not really relevant to this situation. that issue has come up with respect to other hostages, whether they happen to be journalists are other people, and whether the families

themselves should pay a ransom and whether the united states should prohibit the paying of ransom, as it has done in the past. that policy has been loosened now. i'm not going to take a position on that. i am responsible for the news and features coverage of "the post," so my job is to make sure that we approach things and objective way. i do not take a position on all of the issues in front of people, including what should've been the terms of the nuclear deal the admin is ration arrived -- the administration arrived at. should be that jason released immediately, that he did absolutely nothing wrong. whether it is part of the nuclear deal or not, the reality engage in not espionage, there is no evidence he engaged in espionage, there is no evidence he committed any other offense, and there's absolutely no reason for him to have been arrested in the first place and there is no reason for

him to have been in the worst prison in iran now for a year. that is independent of the nuclear agreement. tom: ok, turning to this country, what, if any, threats fate ofwo see to the journalism and reporting in the united states? you know,elisabeth: the freedom of journalism reporting -- well, financial. financial difficulties have hit a lot of medium-sized newspapers really hard and they have cut way back on staff. they have cut back on local coverage, state house reporting. all of those stories you used to see about corruption it houses , there'slegislators less of that.

i do not see any kind of repression -- maybe marty can come up with something -- but in washington it's the usual problem of background stores is -- sources. it is hard to name sources, with national security reporting in particular. i do not see any repression in this country. you have the white house, the obama administration will strenuously object to some stories, but no one orders us to stop publishing. i think the concern in washington is primarily round -- responses to freedom requests,tion act non-responses to freedom of information act request. documents when finally released are heavily redacted. that he waited years for. those kinds of things. haveeak investigations

taken place which the "new york times" has been central to that. jim faced prison for not revealing his source. the number of people in government who sort of feel they .hould not speak to the press they feel that they would become objects of suspicion because there is evidence that they communicated with a journalist. why give a background briefing if you are not disclosing classified information if at some point you think that reporter might get access to classified information and you would become an object of the russian and subject to --estigation, have to hire an object of suspicion and investigation and have to hire a lawyer. in washington, that is a serious concern. there are people who simply do not respond. they send you back an e-mail, a

copy of the press operation and say, don't e-mail me. don't contact me ever again. here is the press contact. and that's the end of it. at other levels, you know, i think the issue of a records statet is serious at the and local level as well. i think you are seeing a certain resistance -- a strong resistance on the part of state and local governments to do what they are required to under law. i think the greatest threat to the press in the night as states comes from the press itself, and that is sometimes just a lakh of kurt -- in the united states comes from the press itself, and that is sometimes just a lack of courage. just what the impact might be on the financial circumstances of their organization where they are financially challenged. that is something that we ourselves have to deal with and we have to overcome any concerns with that and show the courage to publish what the facts are. tom: this is a question about

in-depth coverage. can in-depth coverage be provided best buy a daily oh weekly --sus the provided best by a daily newspaper versus a weekly one like "the economist"? no.y: -- elisabeth: seal team six, the lawlessness, the shocking events on the high 8000, 9000, 10 thousand words. people read them on their smartphones, believe it or not. i think there is a real place ar that kind of coverage and daily newspaper, daily media organization like the "new york times," because those stories run. it's much more available when you look on the web. i do not think we would at all

nevert, and "the times" has. we are completely committed to what we call longform journalism, multipart series. a huge amount of commitment, .uge amount of resources reporters and editors in travel and graphic designers. no. we are to that kind of journalism. very: we, too, are committed to that. i think you can find that kind of in-depth reporting and all of the major news organizations today. we spent in a norm is amount of resources under -- and in norm rmous amount of resources understanding the refugee crisis. we have looked in-depth at isis. we have had a major series looking at why the internet is so vulnerable, how it became

that way. rmous expenditure of resources, looking back at the creation of the internet and if they thought about security. the answer is the only kind of security they thought about was a nuclear bomb. embarked on a major series, as i mentioned, about the threa around the world. we have many others as well, but we do it all the time. tom: does the citizens united ruling support or impede freedom of expression for most americans? who wants to take a crack at that? elisabeth: one of the issues with these questions -- i think i will speak for marty. we do not want to take a with the stories we

ran over the weekend, the last couple days about the amount of money that has poured into these campaigns from a very small number of extremely rich people, fredis not exactly what had in mind many years ago with campaign-finance reform. we are covering it closely. you look at -- you guys can tell us what you think about a handful of extremely rich individuals financing, being the main financers of many of these campaigns, particularly the republican campaigns. ted cruz has how many? just a handful of people. -- you can seee partly what it has done, it has created a field of 17 republican candidates. if you get a lot of money from a handful of people, you're on that stage tomorrow night. so, that's my answer. beth.: i agree with elisa i do not want to express a point of view and i supreme court decision.

ordinary people can come to a conclusion on their own without my counsel. that, whatlated to is your view on the donald trump phenomenon? [laughter] tom: frank bruni in the "new sunday suggested the media is largely to blame , what hephenomena called "the perversion of politics by vacuous stagecraft." [laughter] he is a columnist because he has opinions. i can't imagine not covering donald trump right now. he is ahead in the polls. but i will tell you what you have heard everywhere. is certainlyump reaching into a very disaffected, angry group of americans who are tired of washington, tired of talking points from politicians. that infind it amazing

his income disclosures, he said he was richer than perhaps he is. politics,heard of and -- i and politics. he is breaking all the rules. look, it's still really early. he has not been tested. severely and a serious policy debate. we shall see. right now, it is the summer before the campaign, the real summer of the campaign. to a, he does appeal certain part of the united the poll showed this morning a wide range of people. of got to look at that more closely. anyway, i think he made the clinton campaign very happy. i think you made the jeb bush campaign very happy. any view, marty?

elisabeth: i have not -- marty: i have not read his column. i have been tempted to start a hashtag on twitter, #blamethemedia. obviously if we win away, everything would be fine. it gets a little silly. is concerned,p the only lesson we should draw from this is we have to be very skeptical of political pundits early on, including people who specialize now -- these data specialists who are looking at the campaigns and saying who is a serious candidate and who is not. maintained, look, we don't decide who the candidates are. we should not reject to -- predict who is going to be a serious candidate. we should take them all seriously. and the voters get to decide. i think there is clear evidence that the pundits do not always know what they are talking

about. goingan't predict two is to be the serious candidate. no one would predict -- in fact, no one did predict, as far as i know, we have not unearthed someone who predicted donald trump would be the leader at this stage, and look what happened. ok, just what your comment, cany -- although elisabeth talk about this as well -- how will freedoms of expression outside the -- how can restrictions on freedoms of its fresh and outside the united states impact american freedom, if at all? elisabeth: obviously, the problems that "the times" is facing in china are quite real. with getting correspondence into beijing because of the

coverage. that is the big problem. lockingese are not only the correspondence out. there is the policy of attrition against to be correspondence in china. that is a problem. do you want me to go on? you go ahead. [laughter] marty: this was not part of it. the blocking of access to information -- the united states has generally level ofd the information will accrue to its benefit. he will see how people are living. they will see how society is functioning. accurate information will make its way into the information ecosystem. and to the extent countries can control their internets or block access, then that. begins to fall apart.

and these countries have even greater control over what thatens see, and i think should probably make it more difficult for the united states to exercise its will in the world. people think that is a good thing for us to do. -- i have tos imagine that would be the case. and for americans, it has become an extremely difficult to do their job in these countries. they can be arrested. they can be harassed. they can be prohibited, as the "new york times" has not been able to receive visas for its journalist to go into china. they have been denied visas because the chinese government is upset about very good reporting about corruption there. and that is true in other countries as well. thereof been several

questions about the fine line between reporting the news -- there have been several questions about the fine line between reporting the news and shaping the news. when it comes to questions about american power abroad, fox news and msnbc tell different stories. they seem to be trying to shape people's perceptions. is this right? well, yeah. it's not whether it is right or wrong. it is what they see as their audience. msnbc on the left and fox on the right. you can just see it -- on msnbc you can see it with rachel maddow, especially in the evening, all of the host to have a very liberal bents. hosts who have a very liberal bents. msnbc has always felt that it works for them, especially during political campaigns. i can't speak for them. at it

certainly works as you go into the political campaign, and again, to watch programs that reinforce your beliefs, make you feel good. right in the middle and sometimes it struggles with an obvious, although it is doing much better now because it presents itself as straight on reporting. that is the calculation. the senior people at both of those -- that is the calculation the senior people of both of those networks have made about the segments of their audience. whether it is right or wrong, it works for them. tom: marty? have: i do not think they thought about whether it is right or wrong. i think they have thought about whether it is their business model. it is the case that many people, if not most people are drawn to news organizations that affirm their existing points of view. they feel comfortable with it. they feel their views are validated.

and they believe that others are just wrong. it's not our business model, for the two of us appear or the organizations we represent. that's not who we want to be, and we think people come to us for different reasons. tom: related to that is a question about journalists, prominent journalists invited to go on to talk shows. on one hand, that helps the brand of the "the washington and the "new york times," but on the other, you have opinions being formed. do you have around rules that you tell your -- do you have ground rules that you tell your reporters, going into the situations with george will and all of these opinions. how do you tread that line between reporting and opinion when your byline appears in these newspapers? elisabeth: i used to go on

television a lot when i was covering the white house. now that in inside the office all day, quite a bit less so. do notes are, you express opinions and you do not predict. you do not say so-and-so is going to win or whatever. we are also kind of boring. like today. -- i mean, marty and i have both said things that were taken out of -- you know, were just taken and people ran with them. so, you are very careful. it is an issue. you are on the shows because of your suppose it -- supposed expertise. i would say this is what my reporting has told me, and yes on the one hand, democrats say this, but of course, republicans say that. i try to be measured. it's an issue when you're on those shows and you have people like george well, opinion people, expressing strong