new jobs. crushing them. them for theying first time in u.s. history. small businesses cannot handle it. company, youbig can hire all of the voters in the world. s inire all of the lawyer the world. we have to lift the weight off of the small businesses. >> you were talking tough up there. you are going to call the supreme leader of iran on day one. i will call the supreme leader of iran. not receive it, but he

will get the message. the united states of america will make it as difficult as possible for you to move money around. we can do that. can say to every bank in the world, if you do business with iran, you will not do business with the united states. >> i am going to break the rules. i wanted to ask you, because i am the father of two daughters. if you were to become president, what would you do to be a role model for their futures? , very much, i hope that i am a role model every day full top i hope my parents taught me integrity and hard work as the

foundation for a good life. people will realize that is not that women are better .han men full to women are 53% of this mode, half of the nation. they have as much to contribute as men do. we need to be a country where everyone, regardless of their gender, can contribute. we do not have that nation today and that is what drives me crazy. >> i can't keep you long. otherwise they are going to throw me out of here. to keepina: i need doing what i have been doing. i will get up there and talk to as many people as possible. as people get to know me and

hear what i have to say, and how i willapproach problems, keep introducing myself to more and more voters. >> there is one more question. i lied. you have -- do you have a favorite food? ms. fiorina: this is the first bite i have had, that so far, it is iowa sweetcorn, for sure! you won the bet. i will donate to your campaign. ms. fiorina: good job. >> thank you.

[indiscernible] ms. fiorina: you can help. you can talk. >> that works. >> thank you. [indiscernible]

>> jeb bush appears on friday. he talks about how young people are affected by government. ms. fiorina: there you go. yay! thank you so much. get a picture. get a picture.

my granddaughter goes to iowa state. what are you going to do to target the younger generations? they are very, very liberal. ms. fiorina: they are all here! to go where they are and use the media they use. we have to use them, and have them help us. do you have a card or something? of course it is.

how are you doing? man?re you, young did your dad drag you here? ld you rather be doing right now? [indiscernible] have fun.a: do you want a picture? >> thank you.

[indiscernible] >> uh oh! our road to the white house coverage continues, live from the iowa state fair on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. as the candidates week at the senatortuesday morning, marco rubio and governor john kasich. on wednesday, rick perry will speak at 11:00. on friday afternoon, it is senator ted cruz. and on saturday it is bobby

jindal and chris christie at 1:00. 2016, takingaign you on the road to the white house. >> 10 years ago, hurricane katrina hit the gulf coast, forcing millions of people from their homes. members of the recovery team recoveryiefing on the efforts over the last 10 years. that is live, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. we look at u.s. policy in the arctic. 1:30 p.m.e at eastern, also on c-span 2. andouth carolina senator candidate lindsey graham spoke at the soap box at the i was

state fair. return ifroops would he was made president. he speaks for 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. welcome to the des moines register political soapbox. our next speaker is u.s. senator lindsey graham, who is seeking the republican nomination for the presidency. officefirst elected to as a state representative in south carolina when he was

elected to the u.s. house. he was elected senator in 2002, and has been reelected twice for that office. he has served active duty in the air force reserves. 33was in the reserves for years, retiring just a couple months ago. he will get a special introduction today from his sister, darlene. [applause] darline: it is my honor to introduce you to someone very special today. my brother, lindsey graham. lindsay and i grew up in a small awn in southern carolina in not one bedroom,

but one realm in the back of our parents home, liquor store, and a bar. eight -- and ate everything in that room. our parents worked long and hard hours and instilled a strong work ethic and values in both of us. as we got older, our mother got sick. he stayed by her side. now that i am the age that she was, i realize how sick she was. she was scared and worried about her children. wasow that lindsey constantly reassuring her, so she could have a little piece. -- a little peace. he has doneing that for me throughout the years, he

has never let me down. he has always been by my side. i truly believe, that if elected president, he will work harder and be more dedicated to this country than anyone else. he knows what it is like to struggle and overcome diversity -- overcome adversity. and i truly believe he will never let this country down. just like he never let me down. dsey, i am truly proud of you and you mean the world to me. it is truly my honor to introduce somebody that means the world to me. my brother, lindsey graham. [applause] senator graham: we have the wrong graham running. how about a round of applause for my sister, darlene. [applause] like she said,

we grew up in a pool hall, a bar, and a liquor store. i am eminently qualified to be president of the united states. i ran at the pool room as a kid. a bunch of liars running the pool room. i know the iranians are liars. darlene means the world to me. when i was 21, my mom passed. when i was 22, my dad passed. we moved in with our aunt and uncle. i do not know what we would have done without my family, and friends, and faith. i am so proud of my sister. she has two daughters. a guy from new jersey. nobody is perfect. my parents proud, we got a social security check up about

$300. that meant the world to our family. darlene was a minor and was able to get a check. i know what it is like to need social security. anybody on social security? anybody need their check? i am 60 and i am not married, and i do not have any kids. ofi have to give up some mine, i would. mosteople who need it the are not going to have it if we do not make decisions in our country pretty quick. i want to talk to you about three things. terrorists, too much de too few jobs. as to the terrorists, if i am president of the united states, we are going to go back to iraq and we are going to pound these guys to the ground.

and we are not going to leave until the job is done. [applause] senator graham: and if you think you can defend this nation without some soldiers going back to get it right this time, i do not know what movie you are looking at. we left iraq way too soon. i know it has been 10 years, but it is hard. it is hard to build people up who have never known anything but heartache and hatred. president obama was told by his military commanders we need to leave a force behind. he said no and the rest is history. bush made mistakes. obama made mistakes. i made mistakes. the biggest mistake we could make is let them get stronger over there. they are coming here. 3500 soldiers is not enough. we need 10,000. we need to take the fight to isil. aviation couple of battalions and trainers. we are going to need air controllers to drop bombs on the right people. and then, you have to go to syria.

if we do not hit them there, they are coming here. i don't know how to destroy issa isil without some american ground component. this is not working from the air. here is what i would do as president. i would send more troops back to iraq. i would go to the arabs and the -- in the region and say we are going to use your armies and we -- and you're going to pay for this war because we paid for the last two. we go to the turks and the egyptians and the jordanians and the saudis. we would put together a regional force and we would be about 10% of it. kill going into syria and every one of these guys we can find and hold the territory. [applause] when it comes to radical islam, whatever it takes as long as it takes. i have been to iraq and

afghanistan 35 times. i have been in the military for 33 years. if we do not do the things i have described, the second 9/11 is coming our way. there are more terrorists and more safe havens and more weapons than at any time before 9/11. i don't know how to defend the nation with all of us sitting over here. thisnot know how to defend nation by destroying our military. anybody in the army? >> one. senator graham: thank you. we have the smallest army since 1940. does that make sense to you? >> no. senator graham: we have the smallest navy since 1915. if i am commander-in-chief we will rebuild the army. [applause] senator graham: if you do not understand that we need ground forces to go in on the ground in iraq and syria to destroy isil, you are not ready for this job.

as to the iranians, i will get you a better deal. how many of you believe they have been trying to build a power plant, and not a bomb? well, good. you were all right. how many think he has been trying to build a bomb? how many think he might actually use it? what are we doing? ?hat are we doing as a nation if you believe that the radical ayatollah would use a bomb if he had it, why would you give him a pathway to it? we are giving him a pathway and the money to do it. this is nuts. this is the biggest miscalculation sense hitler. it is not between a lousy deal and a war, it is between a lousy deal and a better deal. we need a commander in chief that they will respect. the problem is, nobody respects the current commander in chief. you know how you got a bad deal?

you elected somebody president who has never run a lemonade stand or bought a car. we to reengage in the middle east. better deal.u a i will go to iran and say, if you want a nuclear power plant, you can have it. but it is going to be small for peaceful purposes. you will not get a penny of money for another bullet -- or another bullet until you stop destabilizing the region and trying to kill our friends and israel. [applause] senator graham: and if you want a war, you are going to lose. it is up to you. i do not want a war with anybody, but i am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch our country be walked over and walked over and walked over. i am not going to be a commander in chief that allows the enemies of our nation, like iran, to have the weapons to kill millions of us one day. last time the

u.s. won a war? senator graham: when was the last time we won a war? iraq in 2009. >> that was not a war. senator graham: at the end of the day we were at war. >> that was not a declared war! senator graham: do you believe we are at war? i think we're at war. with radical islam. presbyterians here? >> yeah. senator graham: you were predestined to be here. thanks for coming. [laughter] senator graham: how many of you believe that we are in a religious war? i do. what more do they have to do before you believe what they say? make new york a mentor in chief, and we will keep them from coming back here again. -- make mee commander-in-chief and i will have the back of the 1% that are doing the fighting for the rest of us.

make me be commander in chief and our nation will be respected again. make me commander-in-chief because we need one that knows what the hell they are doing. the second thing that we need to do is get the nation out of debt. does that make sense? we are on the road to greece. we are $18 trillion in debt. how do you get that? bipartisanship. both parties spend more than you are giving them to spend. do you know what drives the debt? the baby boomer retirement. anybody born from 1946 to 1964? anybody born after 1964? we want our money. [laughter] senator graham: 80 million of us are going to retire in at the next 25 years and we are going to wipe out medicare and social security. remember ronald reagan? ronald reagan rebuilt our military and put our enemies on notice and we were respected

again. but he sat down with tip o'neill and he adjusted the retirement age to save social security from bankruptcy. that needs to be done again. i will be the ronald reagan, if you can find me a tip bone meal -- o'neill. i want to work with democrats. i am running to be the republican nominee, but i want to be the president of all of us. tell me how you can save this country without the parties working together? tell me how you can fix medicare and social security without anybody on the other side helping you? you cannot. ronald reagan and tip o'neill had a drink every night. when i am president we will drink more. [applause] senator graham: and after a couple drinks, we are going to stop the bs and we are going to work together. if you are president of the united states, you should openly embrace the other side if they will work with you. folks, we are running out of time. the american dream is going to die on our watch, if we do not do something about it. the enemies of our nation are getting stronger as i speak. there is no problem without a

solution, but let me tell you the commonality. then i will take questions. some of us have to sacrifice to save the nation. fighting the war, you have to be willing to go back. i know you will. what more sacrifice can you make to go over there, so they do not have to come here? as to the rest of us, are we willing to sacrifice a little bit for our country? >> yes. senator graham: i am. i make $175,000 a year. i will take less from social security because i can afford it and give it to people who need it the most. i'm willing to sit down with democrats and fix immigration, instead of feeling about it all the damn time. once you secure the border and

control who gets a job, with the 11 million, let's be practical. nobody wants the crooks. the rest can stay but you have to learn our language. pay taxes and get in the back of the line and keep your nose clean. the reason i want to be your president is that this country has been incredibly good to me. as a young man, i was bitter. why was my life turned upside down? ng myas i affected by losi parents when i was 22? the older i got, the more i understood that it was not about what i lost. it is what i had. i had both arabs who loved me. how many people miss country have one parent, maybe? i have family. how many people have nobody? friends and was loved and was taken care of. i am a republican. i believe in limited government, wreckst of us are one car away from needing somebody to

help you. so, if i get to be your president, we're going to do the hard things, and we are going to do them together because we are all in this together. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for being here today. you said in the past that it is important to give girls a chance in other parts of the world to create a better life for themselves. senator graham: right. if elected president, would you create a presidential initiative to focus on global early childhood development and nutrition? he asked aham: question about helping other people. when you are $18 trillion in debt, you cannot be everything to everybody. does that make sense? but you are not going to save this country and defeat radical islam by dropping bombs alone. do you want to part radical islam? wantu want to get -- you

to give these guys a real punch in the gut? let a young girl go to school. let a mother have a say about her children. if i am president, we're going to kill those guys. we are going to do something else as well. we're going to build up other people. i have been there 35 times. i know there are plenty of people over there who want the things that you want. when i am the president of the united states we will build up others. a small schoolhouse educating a poor girl will do more damage to radical islam than anything that i can think of. this is a generational struggle. let me tell you how it ends. we win and they lose, but it will take a lot. [indiscernible] senator graham: he said, why do

we need a bigger navy because the terrorists have no ships. do you know why we need a bigger maybe? we need a bigger navy if we are going to pivot to asia. -- what do you pivot with? a rowboat? more going to be spending on our national defense than any time, central were true. the reason i want a bigger navy is to be sure that china knows that we still exist. weiss china doing what they are doing? building islands over resource rich territory held by others? because they can. when obama drew a redline against the side, he crossed it, and nothing happened. putin and china took that as weakness. i want to rebuild a

larger navy? i want putin to know. i want to rebuild our defenses like ronald reagan, get us out of debt, balance the budget, and take the fight not only to isolate, but let putin know you are not going to walk all over our friends. remember when we signed the deal with the ukraine to give up nuclear weapons? we guaranteed their sovereignty. putin stepped all over that. we are to take natural gas and sell it to our friends in europe to undercut his monopoly. we are to give weapons to the defend so they can themselves. we are going to rebuild nato so that he knows that america is back. that is why we need a bigger navy. right here. >> [indiscernible] senator graham: alzheimer's, yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] .y wife died senator graham: ok, i got it.

many of you are willing to spend more money on alzheimer's research? how many of you are willing to spend more money on education? that if of you realize we do not reform entitlements, we are not going to have money to spend on anything? i am all for helping alzheimer's because it is a big cause. it is a terrible disease that can maybe be cared, at least liked it. i lost my uncle. here's what i want to tell you. are there any farmers here? we do not have any money left if we do not deal with the retirement of the baby boomers. money1, all of the collected from taxes goes to pay medicare, medicaid, and to pay the debt. if you do not adjust the age of retirement, there is no money left to help anybody do anything else.

there is no money left for the department of defense. have you heard of simpson bowles? it is a bipartisan plan where you clean up the tax code and eliminate deductions, and use the money to pay down the debt. to agree for have younger people to work longer, because we all live longer. if we do not as people at my income level to give up benefits, then we are going to lose the system for the people who need it most. there is no way to balance the budget, and less you go to where the money is being spent. two thirds of the federal government is on autopilot. if republicans and democrats do not do what ronald reagan and 'neill did soon, we are going to become grace. we are going to lose our way of life. nation.become a debtor but here's the good news.

we are one big deal away from saving america. here is the bad news. nobody in this campaign is talking about it. would i do revenue? would i put revenue on the table, if the democrats would adjust the age of retirement, and the means test benefits? yes. i am not going to raise taxes but i would eliminate a deduction to pay down debt. how do we have money for alzheimer's research and everything else outside of medicare and social security? you have got to reform the system won't we lose the ability -- we have to reform the system, or we lose the ability to defend ourselves and care for one another. last question. >> [indiscernible] senator graham: ok. this is a republican, democrat thing. how many of you believe both parties are failing you? >> everybody here. senator graham: how many of you believe that what is wrong with washington is that we do too much to gather? i am going to leave you with a thought. tell me how you save medicare and social security from

bankruptcy without a democrat working with a republican. i am dying to hear. let me tell you how to defend i am dying to hear. what is missing in washington is the desire to put the country ahead of the party. what is missing in this country's leadership. leadership telling you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. i am a republican as well. hispanics. we are driving them away. we are driving them away because of the way we are talking about fixing a hard problem like immigration. i will grow this party when i am president. young women, welcome to the republican party. young people, you have the biggest losers under obama. the american dream used to be to own your own home. now it is to get your kids out

out of your home. 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. withody has to defeat them a plant that will allow us to be safe at home and protect our friends abroad. i have the background, judgment, experience -- and experience to take the fight to the enemy in a smart and successful way. i lost my parents at 22. i have been knocked down. therefore, i think i have the heart for this job. what's your president needs more than anything else is 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 my experience, but i want to give you my heart. here's the only way i know to pay you back as a nation.

it is to do everything i can to save the american dream that has been there for me and darlene. there is nothing i won't do to get this country back on track, including being yelled at by my own party. thank you very much. [applause] c-span, the on discussion on the american news coverage and freedom of speech. wrote to the's white house joins the 2016 presidential candidates at the iowa state fair. by, scott walker, followed carly fiorina. >> coming up on the next "wash onton journal," a discussion education reform. our guest is campbell brown. then, environmental activist

erin brockovich. "washington journal" is live on c-span. you can join the discussion with your comments on facebook and twitter. the new orleans mayor was present on the anniversary of hurricane katrina. we have it live at 1:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> with the senate and its august break, we will feature 2.k tv programming on c-span for the weekend, here are book tv special programs. on saturday, we are live in jackson mississippi for the annual mississippi book festival. will be discussions on

harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. on saturday, september 5, we are live on the nation's capital for the book festival. lady andormer second lynn cheney. for it on book tv, on c-span 2. state of domestic and international news coverage. marty baron, executive director -- executive editor of the "washington post" and elizabeth who miller, editor of the "new times," talked about american media coverage of the u.s. global power and how the internet and financial constraints have impacted their industry. admit this is a

special treat for me. in addition to being a news junkie, i am a former newspaper reporter. i truly value great journalism. in this age of disruptive digital communication, it is we still haveknow some fascinating fabulous newspapers like "the washington times," andew york the "washington journal." the honored to introduce first speaker. marty baron has been a newspaperman. the "los angeles , the," the new york times "theon globe" and

post."ton as the editor for some of these wonpapers, his team have 10 the pulitzer prizes for excellence in journalism. themost recent one at "washington post" earlier this spoke abouts team the secret service and the united states. marty is a fine journalist and has a keen interest in art. he collects art. altogether, i am very proud to present one of the best

newspaper editors in the nation. marty baron. [applause] marty: thank you very much for that kind introduction. i am delighted to speak with you all here today. i am especially pleased to share the stage with elizabeth to miller. we began our careers together in the late 1970's. it is wonderful to be with her here today. the subject i want to discuss today is close to my heart. it is critical to my profession, and i 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

proponents was john milton. his ideas helped set the course for our own principles today. this.4, he wrote if maybe 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 right telling you recent encounters of mine. in january of last year, ice with the leading figure in the governance of the internet. bytalked about surveillance the national security agency. we talked about how the agency has passed so graciously into internet data network. this is a subject we covered in tensely at "the washington post." won a pulitzer prize in great

britain in 2014. i was interested in what this can get official was hearing as he traveled the world in the aftermath of disclosures that originated from edward snowden. his massively of highly classified documents had revealed some of the nation's most sensitive national security secrets. much of the worldwide reaction, until that point, had followed into the category of outrage. activists and government officials had defined the u.s. government aggression into the privacy of citizens of other countries. foreign governments protested that even the privacy of presidents and prime ministers and countries that were our allies had been breached. the nsa had listed in -- had listened in on their phone conversations. as this engine at official traveled, outrage was not what he heard. what did he here?

jealousy. leaders told him we have excellent computer scientists. why have we not been able to do monitorey aspire to their own citizens as skillfully as the u.s. government had. that is number one. now story number two. visitedis summer, i was and washington by the owners, editors, and legal counsel of a leading newspaper in ecuador. they thought to bring attention to waste the government of ecuador was strangling the press. they were dictating what it prints, threatening find, pressuring media outlets in hope it would become docile, deferential, pliant. june, the newspaper was fined $350,000 by the government on the grounds that it failed to satisfy all requirements are publishing in response by the government to one of its stories.

two-year-old communications law provided that individuals who feel that dignity or honor has been damaged by eight media reports have the right to respond. in this case, the newspaper published a story about ecuador's health-care system $1.7 the headline, " billion in federal debt in pairs health-care system." paper thought an interview with health care system officials prior to the publication, evening sending a list of questions. that went unanswered. but it was published, it sharply criticized -- it was sharply criticized by the ecuador president. then the president's secretary of communications ordered the newspaper to publish a rebuttal

which it did. the rebuttal did not carry a summary written by the secretary of communications. it did not carry a headline crafted by the secretary that accompanied its rebuttal. the secretary ordered it summary published and it ordered its headline published, and the newspaper then complied. the headline then read, "the health-care system has made progress and will improve even more in the coming years." newspaperthat, the had to pay a fine for allegedly noncompliance. the fine was 10% of its average revenue in the previous quarter. $350,000.otal was with each of fence, a fine is doubled and it can continue doubling without limit. defined and pressure are having

the intended effect. in 2015, four media outlets closed as a result of this organic communications law. dork, the press will either buckle to the government, or the government will break it. the newspaper called these legal expropriationping and rightly so. stories i have told show something about free expression. it can be threatened from many directions, and that is what is happening. not long ago, the world hoped for better. we were entering a new era of expression brought about by the internet, social media, and smartphones. some concluded that communications with florist in a way that was previously unimaginable. the government would be denied the control that kept them in

power. this idea took from root during tail end of 2010 with detainees of revolution. that spread through the air of world. egypt againstin the regime, the worlds marveled at the impact of social media. how it could be used to organize and facilitate free expression. how would might overcome repression. it was a hopeful time for those who believed in the liberating power of technology, over the traditional, too often tyrannical powers of government. truth is faster than lies and propaganda becomes flexible. not only is the network more powerful than the hierarchy, but the ad hoc network has become easier to inform -- to form.

"democracy'sitled, fourth wave, the digital wave ad the arab spring," 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 internet altered the capacity of citizens and civil society actors to affect domestic politics. to be fair, hopeful this 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. in ansor howard noted interview that authoritarian regimes had come to value digital media as well. services in iran, 70 arabia, and syria observed how

democracy advocates were using social media in egypt and tunisia. just the other week in the washington post, we published a series on press freedom and journalists worldwide. reporters documented how the security establishment of the arab world can now exploit sophisticated technology to suppress dissent. , egypt is up lamenting a social network project that allows for keyword of searching and trend analysis on facebook, ,witter, instagram, linkedin google, and other sites. at any time, a minimum of 30 analysts will monitor huge streams of data in classical and according

to a 2014 interior ministry request for proposals. the question is this. it is a big one. will prevail in a competition that has each side two point technology as tools and weapons? will it be ordinary citizens and activist waiting to circumvent, undermined, and outwit autocratic governments? or will it be the governments that possess the capacity to monitor communications as never before? in their outstanding book, "the new digital age," they lean toward optimism. at that -- authoritarian governments they wrote, will find their newly connected populations more difficult to control, repressed, and influence. well it democratic states will be forced to include many more voices. individuals, organizations, and companies in their affairs. and yet, they noted how often authoritarian governments will have powerful weapons of their

own. derived, from their position as gatekeeper in a world of conductivity. states have enormous power over the mechanics of the internet in their own countries. states have power over the physical infrastructure that conductivity requires. the transmission towers. the routers. the switches. exitcontrol the entrance, points of data. it can limit content. they can even create separate internets. regimes may compromise devices 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 enormous pressure. schmidt and cohen noted that states will be able to set up random checkpoints to search

people's devices for encryption. the precedents of which could earn them find, jail time, or a spot on a government database of offenders. anyone who is known to have downloaded a circumvention measure will find life more difficult. thatraised the prospect country that will create their countries -- that will create scare own domain name system. if the government succeeds in doing so, it would effectively unplug its population from the global internet. sales more journalists ,han 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. at the ideas, a company unit exists to support free the government attempts to censor the internet into three categories. one, what they call server-side censorship. two, censorship on the wire. this consists of national firewalls that block access to content.le foreign this can also included states, leveraging their control over internet servers and providers that try to hide content. if you countries are doing this right now. plant site censorship. phishncludes fishing --

ing and malware attacks. popularbecoming a very 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. , a visiting year law professor at ucla, late at the issue in the "torch town law journal." georgetown law journal." two competing visions of cyberspace have emerged so far. russia and china advocate a sovereignty based model of cyber governments. they prioritize 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 shouldt, its creators --

not be governed by states alone, i should say. in the early days, it's advocates, protectors, and many users argued 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 foundation, issued a declaration of the independence of cyberspace. governments of the industrial world, he proclaims, you weary giants of flesh and steel, i come from cyberspace, the new home of minds. on behalf of the future, i ask you of the past to leave us alone. you are not welcome among us. you have no sovereignty where we gather. the vision collided with

inconvenient physical facts. this is noted by some legal academics. this is included in the book, "who controls the internet." they took on the notion of the internet as a place of its own. underneath it all, they wrote is a physical transport infrastructure. copper wires, fiber-optic cables, and the switches that direct information from place to place. governments do regulate the internet and we are now faced with the question of how far they will go in asserting control. regarded internet be like other domains that fall outside national boundaries? such is the high seas, after space, and antarctica.

should the internet the noted as a global commons, subject to globally agreed upon norms. instead, should be viewed as every nation's own airspace. that would put the internet under each nation's individual total control. in the abscess of consensus, some countries are not waiting for one. russia and china are the leaders in treating the internet more as an internal system that is theirs to rule. of what hasematic become a free expression in those countries. if there was once the spark of freedom, and there was once fact, it is now being snuffed out. most russians get their information from state-controlled broadcasters. they spread propaganda, conspiracy, in ways big and small.

one example. the shootdown of the malaysian airliner in ukraine. intelligence pointed to rebel source thate took the lives of 298 people. alternateliferated explanations. russian media claimed that the ukrainians shot down the plane. they claimed the cia provided help. the asserted that the plane might have been mistaken or vladimir putin's making it a target. they claimed bodies on the ground were planted there. the editor in chief said this, as state tv, our mission is to support the interests of the state. opinions are determinative of our channel.

intelligent stations and newspapers is one thing. but the internet in russia had 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. almost immediately, opposition websites were blocked. by the summer of last year, speech on the internet was constrained even further. required anyone with a daily online audience of more than 3000 people to register with russia's internet oversight agency. they needed names and contact details. bloggers were held liable for anything deemed misinformation. comments from members of the public. late last year, a new russian is required that the data

stored on computer servers within the country. that way, russia has easy access to information about the the russian government already theyn arsenal of laws could use against those speaking freely. the new rules created additional risks. more likely to muzzle themselves fearing fines and criminal prosecution. vague ande laws are confusing but ambiguity is often a weapon and that is the case in russia today. putin has vladimir been masterful at 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 differences. until this point, i have only talked 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. his fate made horrifyingly clear. the risks that journalists now face in telling the world what they see. this year, islamists slaughtered staffers at charlie hebdo. in reaction to caricatures of mohammed. then there is what happens behind walls. unseen.

deliberately hidden from public view. i think now of the washington post correspondent in tehran, jason resign. 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 to endure a sham 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

journalist is killed every week. in places like 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. rarely are the killers found and prosecuted. in much of the world, they are 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. their 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 correspondents 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. the next speaker 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, and 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 period after 9/11, also covering the pentagon. she became the washington editor of the new york times in february of this year. where she organizes and directs coverage from 30 or so reporters in the washington bureau of the times. while doing all of this, she has also managed to write some books. in india for example, she wrote 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. and then in tokyo, she managed 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 hundred sons.

this is wonderful to be here. it is a beautiful place to spend a day or two. it has been great to share the stage with marty. we crossed paths at the new york times, not the washington post. but you can see how small this fraternity is of journalists in this country. a little more than 30 years ago, 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 than europe. i remember stepping out of the door of the plane, long before the completion of the modern indira 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. in our house, i 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. the government -- which ran documentaries on fertilizer plants. i assure you it was completely

unwatchable. the new york times arrived by mail. india was not the economic powerhouse and forth in asia that it is now. in the united states, india was often an afterthought. there were a lot of americans covering it. the 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 magazine, as well as ap. we wrote about the new prime minister, politics, and culture. today in new delhi, the situation is quite different. india has emerged as a major player on the world stage, a rival with china and a bigger story than it has ever been. and yet, many newspapers are all 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. in 2010, the last time they did the survey, that number had fallen to 234 full-time correspondents. ajr also found that since 1998, 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 reach of the internet, the times has many viewers a month.

it ensures 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 in india, 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. then there is the hottest new program on the scene, vice. it interviewed president obama when he visited the prison in oklahoma. they have been highly praised for their reporting in ukraine. as well as for their reporting on isis. buzz feed and the huffington post have also begun to do for an coverage. to my mind, the reports of the 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. let us look at these news organizations that do cover the world. specifically, how they cover america's projection of power around the world. i do not 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. obama's secret wars. chapter two is called -- afghanistan. 30,000 additional troops to be sent to afghanistan. he had already sent in march, a 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 david's chapter says it all which is how obama's afghan policy came to be known inside the government as afghan good enough. the administration would do what it had to and no more. general stanley mcchrystal, the top american commander in afghanistan, had wanted many more troops. as many as 80,000. there was no projection of american power here especially since 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. the marines sent a small groups 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 afghan women which was off-limits to american men. overt two weeks in may, i was 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. i would next ask you to look at another chapter in the book about condoleezza rice. this is what she said after she exercised in the morning, in

january 2006, news going on, said in the wake of hamas victories, the palestinian resigned. this was not what they expected. she decided it was wrong. 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

occurred in the elections, for the governing party to consolidate power. as a symbol of the new stirrings of democracy, they had not expected the wrong party to win. a year later, she talked again about that election and how it reflected a certain limitation of american power. i think that there are plenty of things, 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. that brings me to some of the 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. in the same way, looking at cooper's story from march about american strategy in iraq increasingly relies on iran. the lead in the story says it all. at a time when president obama is under political pressure from congressional republicans over negotiations to reign in our runs nuclear efforts, a paradox ea merged. -- emerged. 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 stick with it strategy is by implicitly assuming that the iranians would carry most of the weight in winning battles on the ground. i cite these 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. as robert hagan says, every 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. to be sure, chinese economy is on the rise and could overtake the u.s. economy in the next two decades. the idea that we now have less power in the world has been around for decades.

look at the sphere of the united states versus the writing soviet union in the 1950's. the rise of 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. marty mentioned -- looking at the times and dexter's work in iraq. chris shivers, john burns. great correspondence all facing astonishing dangerous. i think we do a less good job at the deeper stories that show long-term, systemic change that indirectly reflects american values and influence. we do, in fact, do those stories. look at how much coverage there

has been in the improvement of women in iraq in the last 25 years your look at the pulitzer prize-winning coverage of ebola in africa and the obama administration's response to it. some of those stories were written by cooper who was part 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 back to her own country and having to see it through american eyes. look at our coverage of kosovo 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. the result 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 are going to sit on these chairs, and start the process. 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. i will outline the secrecy form

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 major series, as i mentioned, about the threats 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