what it was before. the average age is well over 50. the average age of if you were on msnbc is 62 years old. on fox it is 68 years old. the bell curve stops at 35. at 35. no one over 35 watches any of this stuff. facts [inaudible] [laughter] >> the truth of the matter is that all of this stuff, the evening route -- evening news, still the biggest way of getting the news out, is disappearing. we are in the big first quarter. for this problem of controlling messages, it's only going to get more difficult as people get

their news in different ways. believe me, if something is on the front page of "the new york the l a times," or one of the three big networks, it's still a big story, but not as will -- big as it used to be. in 15 years that may not be true anymore. >> one of the most fascinating things to track overtimes in the white house is the seating and how it's changed. there is a new seating chart. consider that we would legacy media. newspapers that don't even exist anymore, sitting in the living room. this morning they added buzz feed and yahoo!. >> i wanted to ask one more question before turning it over to the audience. we started off talking about how to communicate internally and

then externally the message. that ie of the things think that people don't understand. it's not as if the word manipulation has not come up. lying in, if you are concealing important evidence, that is one thing. one of the things that i discovered back in city hall, you had to be a policy meetings. thing that someone in the meeting, how would we feel it decision was somewhere in the daily news. you can talk about the way in which the pr people are not simply implementers of a strategy.

ron: one of the offices that you have not heard of is the office of the staff secretary in the white house. largely out of public view, largely unknown is one of the most powerful in the white house, the staff secretary feels with all the paper flow that comes to and from the president. let's suppose the you have briefed the president in the oval office. howard dean, of course you would not say howard dean, but howard dean, i've articulated what i need to get the tax cut through in 2001. every head of office will look at the governor's memo and say -- this looks good to me. or they will say, paragraph three, i don't agree. before something gets to the president every single major department head has to sign off on that document and say that the president and the senior staff have seen this, we have

gone to the necessary cabinet agencies, this articulates your policy position. how that relates to you getting into the oval office related to the pr apparatus, in our policy breathing for the last three years i cannot think of a time in oval office that we did not , scottther ari fleischer mcclellan, or someone from the communications office sitting there. her presence was not as a policy role, but if they could not communicate what the policy , then we were off message. discipline andt making sure that we are on the same page. for us to stay on the same page that meant that the communicators and policy geeks had to find a way to work together. the policy people were saying -- here is exactly the president's

policy. communicators of course want to find a sex year way of -- sexier way of putting it out there. it doesn't work in a soundbite, we have a strong relationship between the press and the communicators. if they could not articulate the president's policy, it did not matter what the president was trying to convey. to thinkimportant not that pr -- and i completely agree with the premise, the press secretary always has to know it's happening. public policy, in no i have been in, you don't make decisions to do good pr. you have to sell your policy decisions. peoplet majority of around the administration's do what they think is in the best interest of the country. but then you have to sell it. obviously these things are difficult to sell and there is always a counterpoint. one of the difficulties of the , reporters go out

to do their own thing. homeland security, on the tragic crash in the alps, as with something else, you're always fighting to make sure that whatever your best plan is that you can go out. i think the key thing that we have to understand here, one of the things occurring today that never has before, as the rest of them understand american pr and they tell their story effectively as chopping off a man's head, or a man, setting them on fire, people say my god, so outrageous, that is what terrorism is about. suddenly you have a guy being beheaded on network television that night and the message of the day from the white house is probably diminished -- diminished dramatically and they to whateverrespond

that may be. hard and there are a lot of conflicts on the messaging side of it. julie: bush always call the press the filter. he always said it like that. he thought that the filter distorted his words. that they put it through a sieve of darkness. he started and president obama i believe has perfected a system of state run media. when we covered bush we thought he was terrible. no access, no accountability. compared to obama bush is like the most open, giving, sharing person you could america that you could imagine. his press shop is much more open than the current administration.

of course they want to come out and tell their good, positive up story. they have their own pr operation, that's not what we want to do. they control through denial. which was great at taking , to thes on the fly detriment of the message of the day area he would sit there until you are done and take whatever? that was on your mind. that way the administration was able to move through stories quickly. now you see the president holding back, we won't hear from him for months and it is like this firehose. reporters are finally asking 12 part questions. there is so much to ask him because the cycle just moves on and on.

when i talk about state run media talking about photo releases. instead of a routine signing of note, which the president -- which president bush would do, now we don't have that. we get a photo taken by a white house photographer that is handed out, which is no different from them writing out a press release and expecting that to go in the paper without any scrutiny or accountability. this president doesn't like the press. bush didn't like what the press did, but he understood and respected the role that the press played. accessible in a casual way, like those oval office encounters with reporters just lobbying quest that lobbing questions. president obama doesn't do it. throw both administrations reporters found the most useful information comes from outside the administration.

hill are gold, also in the talk. diplomatic corps and the agencies, but you don't go to the briefing to get your news. dean: i will share with you some of the tricks of the trade. we would go out on the road to do small paper interviews. they were thrilled. they would usually write it the way that i wanted it to write it. bigger papers without do that. in defense of the big papers, they are not going to write the same story every day, but you have to give the saints each every day five times per day because that is what you do on a campaign to stay on message. i could do it for the 25th time on a friday and the big papers will not write that, they will find something else.

they will delve into some opposition research, this kind of stuff. it is of course in my interest to limit that. in defense of president obama, the reason he does not do many bill signings is because the house is not pass many bills. julie: i was just using that as an example. howard: if you had been hillary clinton, would you have wanted it is else there? julie: just a system where the next has -- next president, ted cruz, will bring it to the next level. [laughter] moderator: you heard it here first. peoplegot a couple of here with microphones. student questions first if we can.

right there. yes? student: david schreck. this question is for mr. christie. i was wondering, what was the message being communicated after the week of 9/11? it was -- it was a tough day for the country. it was a tough day to be in the white house. a tough day for me to advise the vice president of the united states. our entire focus went from what tocall domestic priorities working on a tax-cut to domestic consequences. we grounded all civil aviation. we closed most of the maritime

ports in the country. a few days later the president had a national prayer celebration. in the days after the celebration the focus went to prayer and remembrance. who brought the opportunity to heal as a country. what our message was, president bush tried to reassure the country that every agency and every entity was doing everything that they could to prevent an attack on the country again and that we needed to move forward and heal and that the terrorists would win if we succumbed and set around and felt sorry for ourselves. was very difficult for us as a country and very difficult in the white house, but ultimately -- julie mentioned this earlier, you notice that his approval ratings went up into the 90's because in the early messaging

people felt that he was doing everything that he could to protect the country. observer, there was a memorial at the national cathedral. there have been lots of stories about the president, what was going on in the white house, the president reading to young kids and what have you. no one was sure who was going to ben charge. we had this extraordinary and billylevised graham gave this extraordinary speech. one of the great religious leaders of this country. the president followed him and said -- i said to myself having worked for several presidents, if there's ever a time to hit a home run, it's now. he did. he gave an extraordinary speech. he went right from there, he came to new york, you got a great photograph with the firefighters.

a firefighter came on the stage. those two events, it was more powerful than the message. the message was -- we are not going to beat us, we are in charge. activity, the , that wase on katrina a foolish effort on the part of the white house to show that the president was not in charge and the white house picture was not a deliberate effort. but the president's activities are sometimes more powerful than anything else. i think that that was the message, that he was back in charge, they were not going to get to us. that was the president at his finest because it was him and he is a man with real integrity, a man who was always underestimated and basically job drinkrew in a very difficult times. can can we do -- moderator: we do the question two rows in

front? thank you. >> this is for any of the panelists. i was wondering if you could talk about the effects of new technology and modern media, the state that modern media has had on speechwriting. is the era of a great memorable speech over? can it be adapted to fit within 140 characters? >> i don't think that it is over. there will always be a role for that. a couple of things haven't set appeared that i think are incredibly important to remember. the first is that the president has a role and everyone looks to the president at a time of great crisis. goingt time everyone is to focus on that and anyone who does not is not paying attention . you're right, there is a lot about recipes on a day when something like that going on, fine, good luck read that is focusing on. .nother thing that ed said

the visual is always just more important than what we say. if i want to find out how effective it is, i will turn the sound off. it does not matter what you say, it is how you say it. if you look confident, like a leader, like a president, you have done well. it almost doesn't matter unless you say something absolutely outrageous, which some of us on the stage have done from time to time. [laughter] ed: you are not allowed, howard. -- not alone, howard. howard: but there is always that moment of central crisis. the visual of george bush standing there with a bullhorn, he could have said that he was having spaghetti for dinner and

forceful and was he meant it, he would have gotten great credit. i traveled with ronald reagan every day for six years and he asked -- how long be think i can hold an audience? i don't he was one of the greatest speech makers in the world. he said -- watch the audience. the first five minutes is adulation, it does not matter what you say. he said 220, you coast through the middle and kick in the end. he said -- watch the audience for 20 to 23 minutes. why do you think that television shows are 23 minutes, 27 with commercials? have theis, you cannot bill clinton speeches that go on for an hour and a half and keep

adding points. you have to think in terms of in the future getting your message across in 25 minutes, making it count, making it memorable with some lines in there. i started my life as a speechwriter and richard nixon, a guy viewed not so much as a great speech maker but a guy with great writers around him. he used to make them underlined the soundbite a lot. nine times out of 10 once you did the drill, that would be the soundbite because that is all the soundbite be. 8, 10, 12 seconds. now you have to put together a string of eight to 10 soundbites. but you have to weed that together. it is more difficult to write speeches today. some of the great speed rager -- speechwriter's --

like taking in. they write for the history books. she understood spoken word while reagan, having been the communicator, built movies and commentary and what have you. he understood the spoken word was different from the written word. writing for the written word, you hear it differently than visually, is very important in this day and age. >> other questions? >> down there? >> thank you. building off the previous , howion, i wondered quickly will the innovation of technology affect policymaking in the future? >> you mean policymaking directly about technology or in

the broadest sense? >> technology in the hands of civilians but also from a military and point. relatively speaking it tends to be slower. it in terms of the bush administration to the modern day we have seen rapid leaps and bounds in the types of technology available all around us. managingdering how policymaking, what are the changes we will be seeing? >> in terms of the technology itself, you are seeing huge battles over things that most americans do not understand. like net neutrality. if you ask down in the subway this afternoon, anyone over 40 would have no idea what you are talking about, chances are. those are huge battlegrounds. i think that they are not well people makingthe

the policies, because most of them are over 40. there are long-term implications by people who well understand it. this morning mica gave a terrific talk about the balance between listening in and how many people you could listen in on. a few people, all of the things that you needed to do, security threats to the country, 300 million people coloring things electronically. clearly. you cannot do it any other way. since you do not have a nationstate that is a danger to us as much as a diffuse movement of individuals, anyone of home could harm people. you have to have this huge catch.

security policy will change erratically and is already changing dramatically. finally, of course, we go back to what we have been talking about, the nature of technology changing, changing the way in inch you talk about policy the way that you talk about policy having to change, the way you formulate privacy having to change. one of the things that we notice in washington is that laws and regulations up with technology area the patriot act and nsa surveillance, keeping up with how fast technology grows. also, members of congress are not always that tech savvy. lindsey graham saying that he has never sent an e-mail, these are u.s. senators. ed: well, it is not a requirement to be a twitter expert to be a senator. [laughter] ron: i was not a great student

-- ed: i was not a great student. i was in the upper two thirds of my graduating class because i'm sure the bottom floor. i was always a leader. i read six newspapers per day. i knew every point of view, from the liberal kennedy democrat to thisight of most people in room, probably. at the end of the day i think one of the things that bothered me in the technology question was people were very narrow in what they wanted to read. he would say -- i'm not going to read this conservative junk. i'm going to read this so that i know it's happening. my sense is that that is dangerous long-term as it ,einforces the point of view there is no flexibility. what i have said repeatedly here

to my students and to people around the country, all the issues that we deal with today as americans, all of these issues are all very complex. if there were easy answers, it would be done. they would fix education in new york city with his dedication based on other things. if it were easy -- it's not. he doesn't want another run at it. at the end of the day i just hope that you young people, when you think in terms of policy you have to have a broader scope. the thing that scares me the most about technology -- i have my ipad, i basically do everything i can for those who watch fox news, who appear on fox news with the other 4 million people, we have this running -- he has 200,000 people watching him on msnbc and he brags about that all the time and i write about 4 million.

that's what howard says every day. [laughter] i think the most telling thing to me as a statistic, 96 million jobs will be eliminated in the next 10 years by technology. that is a very significant number. we basically have to think in terms of policy questions. technology is great. how do we create 96 million jobs in other areas? societies, a man, theh, a medical blacksmith was every bit as valuable back then. today the difference between the most educated, many of you here, and those who are not educated, who cannot deal with technology, it's not just the economic cap, it's the ability to deal in the next new world that scares and frightens me that we need to deal with. take a minute to

relate to the question of policymaking and the bush white house. . remember when president bush left sarasota and flew across the country? nottechnology was sufficient enough for him to be able to communicate with his advisers. was spotty communication. sometimes there would be a signal, sometimes it would go out. all of the times across the country they had to tune in to local news stations on air force one because they did not have the technology to communicate through more secure communications. for us, with the vice president being often gone, we had to communicate with him through secure satellite feeds. out.imes those would go the white house situation room had to be traumatically upgraded at the same time when he conducted those meetings.

the obama administration has really benefited from the advancement of technology. i can tell you, on september 11, 2001, it showed how inadequate that was so that he could .ormulate these policies at the backrator: of the room, there? >> my question is directed towards ed rollins. you said that the message should be controlled, but over the last 50 years clearly the people had to resign. you should try to work through the clutter. it should be not just try to stay in the same position so that you can get your message straight across?

when i say controlled, i'm talking in terms of a message. basically on the governor of the state, i want to talk about the things that are important to the country. i need support from the country to get something passed the congress or what have you. the obama care debate the president needed to control the agenda to get people across the country to support his program. if i stood up and said -- let's talk about 50 other things, i'm talking about the element of how you do your messaging. any of you that are going to get into communications, you have to understand, it's not negative, it's positive. if you want to have a conversation with someone and you have a point of view, you don't want to talk about 55,000 things. like the guy in the country club who six net to the one in the bard says -- i love sports. this guy proceeds for the next

40 minutes to talk about golf. i walk out and i'm bored to death and i go to my wife and she asks about the conversation and i say terrible. you have got to ask that second question. football, baseball. my point is that as a president does not do good for the president, i'm not going to be able to articulate my message. my message is this. obama care is the important thing for me this week. the iran contra deal is the important thing for me this week. i have to use the media as my vehicle to the country. it's not manipulated. iran contra, we would much rather not have had it. that had nothing to do with messaging. monica lewinsky was something the president would rather have not debated. is how youre

communicate with the country. the country wants to know what the government and the leader is doing. more questions there at the very back? >> thank you. i would like to complement your panelists for living history. you are part of this great american story. now i have a futuristic question. i would like to ask you all to bushnt -- do you see jeb as the next president, or his good friend hillary clinton as the next president? ed: maybe. [laughter] i think that jeb bush is an extraordinary man. he was always the bush that was assumed to someday be the president. we have got a very crowded field on our side. probably the best field of candidates