the number of identifications. right. >> there is no effort to do any of went to get one more question in, but i do want to give you time to respond. >> it is clearly a modern-day gold tax and i think it is well worth reading. the real issue is if people think it was a real issue, why wouldn't texas do things like oregon, california to do automatic registration? why wouldn't we put more online? i would not we -- i would we show online who voted and who did not vote? i would not go as far as other countries do so you do not vote and you pay a penalty, but it encourages more people to turn up if you believe in democracy and i think all of us do. democracies work better when a

maximum number of people participate. willmay mean some of us not win, but that is ok. i see it from both sides. ran, you doackson not have a lot of people with the career like me, that was a high turnout. what i make it? it?ould i make sets out the should look at it. we should look at other places that may be unique to texas to encourage more people to participate who ought to be embarrassed because so few people are participating in the state. >> we talked about 2016, but i want to talk about 2018 because you know that latinos and minorities turnout in bigger numbers and a presidential year, and that we have the gubernatorial election and turnout is terrible. looking back at 2014, governor abbott, you won the portion of the latino vote but there was a low turnout. what is it going to take to get

latinos to vote in 2018 and any nonpresidential year? joq it take a walking -- aquin or julian castro? >> i think it takes all hands on deck. bottom line, connection to the voters. showed very well in san antonio this week, when they said, i am with hillary, she soy tu hillary. i am your hillary. 32% of the latino vote in texas is between the ages of 13 and 29. it does not matter if they are latino or any other race or ethnicity, that segment is and thehe hardest leading indicator of whether or not they will vote. out and reaching

connecting in the cultural way, a personal way, whether we are at the hillary level or at the [indiscernible] level. i put the burden on all of us who are on the ballot who are putting campaigns and resources together to not overlook the latino vote. i've been involved in so many campaigns where we only have so much money. what is our target universe? 50 over? everybody else, you are on your own, so it has been a cell phone privacy that if the latinos -- self-fulfilling prophecy that at the latinos and outputting, we have not been asked in the. perhaps are getting to a demographic point where you have to spend the resources to reach out to them and we will be thoughtful about connecting with them as personal as possible. >> at an event last like him at this comment was made. it will take less than hispanics, it will take money, some strong candidates, and some

anger. with all respect to donald trump, i think you of the hispanic vote so -- votes out. this is different from when my brother 999 was running. [laughter] he did not have the resources, but in california -- [indiscernible] in california, they did something unique. strong hispanic population and happens to be a democratic state now, but my initial reaction would be against that because i do not want to have to run just for the heck of it, but that helps bring more people out. there is a new experiment in california. the way our districts often gerrymandered, you probably have two democrats in my district, 90% minority now. they were trying to help me. they say, why are you

complaining, your district is 90% minority?? well, i don't want to talk to my if you have two people having to run every time, that might force the greater trial, but you cannot underestimate the significance of money. withannot go to every door 27 million people in texas. if you are in houston, harris county, dallas, the bigger the district, the more significant money becomes. with that supreme court ruling, even a nonpartisan race, people with money get to go in the process. must i then have passed the comprehensive immigration reform. whether the republican or democrat. republican orbe democrat and we can no longer ask hispanics to participate when, on the one hand, some republican candidates are insulting the new americans and

family members, and then asking for votes, or with vocabulary or consulting by saying i will pass immigration reform in my first 100 days, year, summer, and then outputting the political capital into passing immigration reform. both parties have failed. say, hispanics are interested in a polls show they are interested in jobs and economy and education, like the rest of us. nonsense. of course we are interested in votes. they are important issues, but the filter is my familia. how you are treating those who are the new immigrants and americans. democrats can spend the capital and set up telling me they will spend it, because we do remember that the last immigration report was done by republicans, or

republicans need to get their act together to pass it and we will have all kinds of wonderful relationships with the hispanics. >> me go back to juan's earlier point, we get voters out with interesting candidates. in 2018, you're looking at two good be interesting. jeb bush, not truly hispanic but everybody identifies them as hispanic. another person more interesting, this person is doing this over the course of the last few years, and she is simply the future of the party. [laughter] guzman, a supreme court justice. she is -- has a fascinating story, latina, she comes from the mexicano community, articulate, smart, she says the right things, and she is conservative associated defies of conservatives. that is a trueblue latina.

or read, as she would say. i think you put those individuals at the top of the ticket. if there were openings, i think in that instance, you do young hispanic vote and people who had never voted before to say this person is interesting to me, shares my heritage, shares my identity, and i'm going to get out there. like obama did for the african-american community. the african-american community has been voting strongly but when obama came on the screen, they grew because he was a person the african-american community identified with, to be proud of, and really energized. we need our obama. a hispanic obama. issue.nt to point to an with all due respect, you can looks like me,

but if they do not think the issues that matter to people, you do not have a hispanic candidates who speak to issues that matter to latinos, in my judgment. at the end of the day, people tend to vote to that interest. >> that is at the debate lies. you idea of what resonates with the hispanic human date might be different than my idea. i believe that self-reliance and making sure we have a good ecosystem, economic ecosystem for more jobs, universal health care and i disagree with that and you disagree with what i say. that is the debate that we would have, but we do not have the voice to give a voice to the argument. >> that i am saying is regardless of someone's ethnicity, color, gender, orientation, by and large at the end of the day, early on in terms of entertainment, i like trump, as an example. one factor, but at the end of

the day when the issues are clear, people tend to vote on issues. >> i guess my point is, an elderly anglo individual would not likely have the kind of credibility in the latino community as the young latina female who comes from the community. it is just given more credibility and may listen to the message. i think the message, once again to that point, does resume. unless we have got the voice to get that message, it is a nonstarter. so if it is someone from a given community that speaks to issues that resonate with our community -- >> absolutely. we agree. honorary latino. >> we may be focusing too much on the messenger and not the message. running and cameron as a republican was somewhat unique, and it was because there was a message there. i prefaced earlier in our discussion. i think there is validity to what all of you all are saying.

you have to resonate with that candidate. you do not have to be hispanic or an african-american to generate and promote a good message that will resonate with a voter. is it possible for an african-american to win in an hispanic neighborhood? if the message resonates with the voters, i think it is. >> in dallas fort worth. >> yes, if you have an hispanic women in in a group environment, if it is the message, yes. -- if you have an hispanic win in an anglo environment, if it is the message, yes. there are three times democrat, so the message resonated and hispanic, yes, kamman, but unfortunately or fortunately, the wave of the politics and the partisanship is it outweighs, to

me, the ethnicity of the candidate. i wish everybody would run at large. there is no party affiliation, you kind of run based on principle, message, this because what i am hearing from people is that i do not want to be identified as who i am by who i vote for because it is very fluid. one day you will vote for democrat, republican, you got back and forth on the ballot. not every single person on the "d" side may or may not be good enough everything a person on not be side may or may good. what you're seeing in cameron, people are deliberately choosing who they want to vote for and that is, to me, because the candidate actually resonated and connected with all walks of life in that particular -- >> do you agree the money issue does make it different?

they knew you and i am assuming you did not change much. you are a person that they knew. >> yes, i do not have a lot of money. it has gone hard to raise money. >> put you have credibility. >> you kind of do other things. candidates do what they have to do to win. i would stand on street corners office of science. i got a lot of one finger howdy's and all kinds of good stuff, but i think it goes back and you touched on it, it goes back to connecting with that grassroots, that door-to-door, and i knocked on a lot of doors, too, early on, but, unfortunately, money does generate because you cannot not run on 10 million households with the main households if you're running statewide. now, with social media, it is basically free. then you have to look at the hispanic community. how many within the hispanic community that are of voting age have access to internet in some

of the rural areas, facebook, access to what the call "la fa ce" in spanish, how many have that access? paso, when i worked on driver responsibility programs, we knocked -- i think it was close to half a million people -- and i was walking and i did not have my id. i am in austin, i don't know if i would do it in dallas but they know me here. do,the things we could using technology in the law to make it easier, and my right? re: all the little embarrassed and they say, texas, you are at the bottom of voting? i am kind of embarrassed in the state you put me in. -- there ishere is

a lot of concern and it is embarrassment. -- my i go back to what compliments to the legislature and trying to continue outreach and reach out to the voting constituency about trying to make it somewhat easier and facilitate, but you have got second and third world countries that their voter participation is much higher and the only vote one day. the we give folks opportunity to vote for two weeks, plus a election day, plus all locations, and yet we cannot seem to do that. i think it goes back to what we talked about early on, at the end of the day, we will agree on one day. thing.ne it starts at the candidate to appeal to the constituency and get the message out, the attractive, and it is not just the messenger, it is the message. itwe will go ahead and open up to a q&a from the audience. we're running a little bit out

of time, but go ahead. just witnessed on a local level. our school district is primarily hispanic and we have never had an hispanic school board member. what i see repeatedly is wonderful, hispanic candidates running and being crushed. they get the message out but they are still crashed because what we had is a voting machine of caucasians that are holding the public. i am still here wondering what , to me, it is not about the candidates. i have seen it happen multiple times, it is excellent candidates with excellent messages but they are being crushed. i still have the question. to me, the question is -- are we ready to show the power? >> that is an excellent question

and i think you could cap an outstanding latino -- and i think you could have an outstanding latino or latina record in the community and if they do not have campaign resources, i.e. a budget, to do 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 mailers or ads or other social media or advertising to run the robust, aggressive campaign, to reach beyond the anglo 50 and over, it costs money. the money and worked at my staff. it is hard when you only have so much money and go with the high propensity voter. it is going to change over time, but you have to have the complete package. you have to have experience, a good candidate, and the resources to say, i will not go universe, but the

robust universe where i get more turnout. in my experience, it has come down to money. >> my question is, it has to do with are we voting, and something that may be the elected officials have learned, if you can handle something administratively rather than going and trying to pass a bill one way or another, it is a lot easier to get something done. we are about getting our people out to vote. is there a way to ensure that there are two saturdays or two weekends in that period to everybody can come out to vote? the issue seems to be that their politicized the election. when one party sees that there is a certain technique of voting, like dirty voting, bringing in a lot of numbers for the other party, you will want to mess with that and reduce the amount of time or reduce the amount of any kind of exposure you had to losing votes, so to our secretary of state, is that something we can do to ensure a weekend because

last time there was a weekend cut off and only one saturday. my polling is in the other direction and i had to vote early, but if you limit the number of days, you're impacting the election. >> let me just briefly talk. if i remember my county judge days, the county commission sets those locations. there are mandatory times, but i think that would be up to the local commission to open it up, but it comes down to money. their limited resources. the elections are one of those departments in county government where there is no romance in it. it is election department like having an i.t. department. you do not know what you have got into you turn the switch and nothing turns on. i think you need to go down to the local counties and emphasized that with them to open it up.

and cameron, it was the discussion on what you would have the locations? centerthe precinct, the of the county, and it is always, do you want to have it at a: the east side of brownsville because that is for the majority of democrats are, at least in cameron? even at that level, it becomes politicized, but i think you reach out to the local county commissioners and let them know that you want to have two weekends, after 5:00, a lot of open until 7:00. early vote opens up at 9:00 and the go until 7:00 p.m. >> on a local level. >> politics is local and these local levels are what transcend into state and federal policy. for a stateto vote the countyt is election office running the election coupled with county commission races or judge or district clerk or whatever. >> if you are asking for

guaranteed to saturdays, i think that is something the legislature could address. i would be in favor of that. wo saturdayst this year and i think we cut one off, but adding two saturdays makes sense to me. >> will you be cosponsoring? >> i am in. [laughter] i guess we are celebrating our commiserating. look, we would not be having a discussion is that built for lyndon johnson past. barbara jordan added texas under the bilingual and a lot of other places. it is really sad that we have come full circle. now, states can make those changes because they decide to do it on a political limb. most people do not give up power willingly. you have got to take it. i have lived long enough and been in this game long enough to

be more interested in my legacy more than the next election. the real tragedy is most of the decisions and the be made by people who were put in a certain position to protect a certain group. the next- i hope in congress, they can find our to do it democrats and republicans, historically, have done. realize the significance of lbj and martin luther king and cesar chavez and voting rights. in language will voter education before the hispanic audience? >> english and spanish. >> what format? >> you can go to votetexas.gov and it gives you the outline. terms of unlocking the hispanic vote, that does not seem to be successful, so what other ideas to think would hit to be more successful to the hispanic audience? back, i still think

the fundamental responsibility of voter outreach and vote of visualization is a to the -- voter participation is up to the candidates themselves. to provide information readily online and i go back to the question, has anyone done a study on the latino and how many have access to online -- .> fastest-growing group, yes facebook is growing widely. >> we started getting aggressive postour facebook page, we stuff every day, twitter, instagram, we are doing everything that we believe we need to be -- is the more? absolutely. >> republican at structural things that the secretary has control over, his staff was in support of -- well, they cannot say, but they said we could do this on a voter registration.

if we look at the latino vote again, they are young. i% are between 18 and 29, don't know about you, but i don't know any person in that age who has a book of stamps in their purse. [laughter] so they will not go to his website to print out a piece of paper until it out. if we structural thing could do -- it is a thing. we could do same-day drivers license and do something registration. for young and mobile voter who moved here from harris county to -- south boston, they wake up and say, damn, i did not do might go to registration. these are small barriers we can overcome emily have someone suggesting -- and when we have someone suggesting we cannot overcome them, we are doing a

disservice to the american heroes [indiscernible] who gave up their lives for the right to vote. running out of time, so our last question. [indiscernible] >> i teach young college students about american government, and i find that fundamentally the problem that i think you are not addressing is they do not trust the system. the are alienated from system, angry at the system, it is not addressing their issues incomeudent loan debt, equality, unless most fundamentally, a lot of them believe their boat does not matter at all and that money controls the entire political system. my question to you is, how do you really address the issues of young people and particularly, which is mostly young hispanics, that they fundamentally are

alienated the system? how about public financing of election so that they would actually feel that their vote matters? you are tell you that right and thank you for your public service. when i was speaking at a public university, i asked the question of the student body, who do not vote? have to not vote for various reasons. and i say, give me a reason. the number one reason was out of trust. candidate back to the . you have to engage these young adults. public finance is above my pay , so the question i pose to the student was -- ok, you do not trust anything and never think him as a result for the next 50 years or 60 years and not vote simply because you do not trust? that is indicated to the students, casablanca valid --

cast a blank ballot and if you have enough like ballots out byre, i won an election votes, so every does count -- so every vote does count. that means there were people out there who took the time to vote but they were so disenfranchised with the candidates that they did not bother to cast a vote for any individual. you are right, but it will take people like yourself and people in the audience people appear, to convey that message. at the end of the day, it is up to the candidate as an individual to regain the trust. it is not so much the messenger but the message or maybe a combination of the two. thank you. >> thank you for everyone for coming by. [indiscernible]

>> i want to know, i heard both of you speak to what turned out what happened at the voting turnout according to the district. where do we draw the lines -- the way we draw the lines only increases minority density, so you are only adding power to minority districts, and as a result, the districts are principally uncompetitive. in the general election, [indiscernible] allhe real election is about the primary. because of this specific issue, would you support repealing the voting rights act to remedy that aspect of the politics? what protections would you put in place for voting? it may paradoxically be the reason why we have uncompetitive elections in the country. >> i think you read it the wrong

way, the voting rights act is the principal reason we have diversity in american politics. [applause] system, it links things for you to run in the -- district, issue you would run into congressional scene of 650 -- 650,000, so this system was designed for people [indiscernible] in the old days, my ,redecessors, barbara jordan african in the state senate, they had to fight with the democratic counterparts because the old days were tied to crack the latino and african-american vote. you want some but not too many. and in this generation, i have to argue much solid my colleagues -- i have to argue much stronger with my colleagues and it has nothing to do with

race but everything to do with party. i would say that blacks and hispanics have a right to decide which party they went to vote into like everybody else. is a distinction. we have got to where we are because of the voting rights act, but you cannot, under preclearance, make changes without some independent entity looking at it and saying, does it disenfranchised a certain group? that is a tough thing to do. it is appointed by the governor. commerce liaison with and members of the legislature, particularly the senate and now it is kind of book, but when you are in that position, you represent, whether it is democrats or republicans. i think we should take some of the partisanship out of the electoral process. appraisingegistrar

folks on the local level. i think i responsibility ought to be more than tandem elections. we should be taking a bully to make it as easy for people to participate. why not have open discussion? in brazil, you get a parking ticket and you pay one dollar for not voting. there are structural things we can do. even when you have primaries, texas was still at the bottom. [indiscernible] district, we are 97% anglo in the republican party primary. i've hispanic with no pronounced last name and i was able to win. i do not think race should have an impact on whether or not we have the bipartisanship you are .eferring to it should not discuss his you

have the perception that those individuals vote for one side or the other. i think if you are a good candidate and anglo, you can win and an african-american candidate and if you are hispanic candidate, you could win an anglo district. thank you to our panelist for being here today. [applause] >> on monday, the director of national intelligence and other key intelligence officials will discuss how they are responding theecurity threats at defense and national security summit. watch it live at 8:30 c-span on c-span2 and to spend over. coverage on your "road to the white house: 2016" where you will find candidates, speeches, debates, and are questions.

this year, we are taking a road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss issues they want to hear the most from candidates. follow c-span student cam contest" to the white house coverage on tv, the radio, and online at www.c-span.org. campaign advisers and pollsters discuss the effect of social media on the political process in the 2016 campaign at an event hosted by the harvard to the politics. this is just over one hour. here, tonight, is our panel and social media -- is our panel. politics fromte 2014 will be meeting and we are

delighted to have you back. in 2014, she led a study group theender, journalism and midterm elections and she will be able to revisit the topic in the general elections soon. of is the political editor the boston globe, where she coordinates the newspaper coverage of the new hampshire primary and the 2016 presidential race. she also works on the weekly ,ection of politics, capital which publishes friday in print and throughout the week online. previously, she served as the politics editor for "roll call" and you can find a different new stations on the weekends and otherwise. she uses social media to enhance and promote work across all the platforms, so i guess she has a bias, but we'll find out about that in a moment, after she introduces the rest of the panel and moderates. thank you very much. [applause] moderator: a little, thank you

so much for happiness here today. i think this will be a great panel and public has been fantastic so far. leading the discussion today. instead of me introducing all of you guys, why don't we go through and give about two minutes of our background. next? nick: i write about technology and culture. i have written a few books, most recently the one called the "glass cage" about automation and how it is taking over our job and that souls sometimes. before that, a book called "the " which looked at how being consummate connected to the internet is influencing the way we think -- being constantly connected to the internet is influencing the way we think. and i was an editor at the harvard business review. mindy: i am mindy. i got my start in politics 12 years ago and kind of made, by

accident fell into new media, which most people do not know what that was, but i was young and coming out of college and had a little experience in photoshop and people said, do this job in addition to your regular work on capitol hill, and that led me to run the media program or presidential campaign , the republican national committee, to open a consulting firm where i worked with different candidates and groups in the area. ultimately, it led to a job at twitter as one of the first staffers for politics and advocacy. social media has been a big part of my life in politics even before it was considered social media, when it was blogs and other platforms. i think many of you, back when many were in middle school, today, i've a consultant and i do political consulting and run a group called empowered women to inspire, educate, and give way to a new generation of american women, to bring them together and strengthen their impact on civic culture.

john: my name is john and i am the director of polling of it to the politics. 27 or 28ast 15 years, different sources, i let the city group of undergraduate with the largest millennium generation. you cannot study the millennial generation without engaging in things related to social media, so that is a major focus of what we are about to conduct two surveys a year and over the course of the last couple of years, dozens and dozens of focus groups for you people across the country. in addition, i often talk about how i am indebted to millennial's on campus and at home and have a company and the objective is to use social media to identify, empower, and asked more from our clients and passionate constituents using social media. thank you for having me.

moderator: give a warm welcome to our panel. [applause] i will kick it off with i think the most burning question on all of our minds in terms of social media -- donald trump, good, bad, or as he might say "huge" with social media? which one? ick: i think he is a good case study in what works in social media and politics. wantedtbh, politicians age,ing -- in the tv politicians wanted to have a coherent image out there, so they tend to repeat the same thing over and over again. the image may have been artificial or partially artificial, but that was your goal. that does not seem to be the goal with social media because what you want to do is grab people's attention when they are

facing this swirl of information to social media, and it turns out donald trump is good at that, at blasting messages, love him or hate them, but they make you stop and say, i cannot believe you said that. that seems to work and keep the focus on him through social media. that kind of escalates through the rest of the media, so he has often been setting the agenda for the messages he is shooting out on twitter and the rest of the media covers it. it is a different dynamic than we have seen before. moderator: would he be the front-runner today if it were not for twitter? think it demands authenticity. that is one of trumps greatest strength. he is laying into it perfectly. when i go back -- he is playing it perfectly. when i first started at twitter, and my job was helping to train

candidates across the board, one of the best actresses? how can you -- what are the best practices? how can you authenticity? it was behind the scenes, make them feel that they are the most important stakeholders, your twitter audience, and instant response. what we see, even today, when kevin mccarthy dropped out of the race or speaker, from was that with a response within minutes. you can tell it is not -- i would be -- it might be carefully scripted, but if it is, he did it might quickly. whether he be the front runner without twitter, quite possibly because he was already a tv celebrity and they know he gets great ratings etc. have been quick to want to feature him. in fact, i think country to his decline in the polls are a few things but one as he was hyper covered for so many weeks and there is only so much that it

could be sustainable and they had pulled back. john, what do you think donald trump's lasting effect will be? john: i think it is all of the above based on where you sit. i think it is good because he is innovative. first time i have ever seen a candidate create short, 15 second many ads on instagram, so good as i think he has shown the can dof what somebody and engage people. whether he is engaging people in terms of moving the country forward making america great again is to be determined. i think he could be far more positive in terms of his tone and capturing the moment to engage voters in several discussions, so i think that is bad, but it is huge because i am not sure he would be or we would be discussing today if it were not for his use of twitter and

instagram. moderator: this is an example that john pulled from instagram. kelly let it roll? -- can we let it roll? >> having trouble sleeping at night? need some energy? --hink the norm ought to be [indiscernible] for all your sleeping needs. john: it is good because i never would have thought of a 15 because i would use that time to say, give me your ideas and what we need to move the country forward rather .han having negativity mindy: and how you run the campaign, typically, when i have been on campaigns, the discussion is, went to go negative and when is the right moment? there is not been that calibration. they recognize that you cannot wait and criticism of mitt romney back in 2012 and quite

often when they lose, they waited too long and he is not waiting at all. moderator: anything to add? if you look at jeb bush and hillary clinton, the airplane by the old rules and nervous about saying anything that will blow up into a tv controversy, be accused of having made a gap. trump lives on that. things that would have been defined in any election previously, for him, seems to put more fuel and has tanked. reporters and covering campaigns, we monitor the role of television quite a bit. how much money they are spending on tv and it usually shows, 20 they are bringing in. for years, decades, we have thought of television as the dominant force of media. is that still the case and for how long?

and when will digital media overtake that? nick: i think the 2016 campaign is the first when we are seeing social media as a mature levels begin to shape the campaign. 2008 i think was called the face the facebook campaign because obama organized people on facebook, younger people mainly, and he got a lot of [indiscernible] but it cannot shape the discourse of the campaign. i think this is the first year that we have seen how campaigns change when social media does drive for discussion. that does not mean that tv or radio is going away, but it does mean that often, all the other medias are falling for this going on on social media. even if a person is following the campaign through twitter, but they are seen through tv and other media may be very heavily influenced by what is going on on social media.

mindy: there is a mistake often made by campaigns and also by many who cover the campaigns that were the most money goes means that is the most important aspect. most of the money goes to tv because it is the most expensive. digital advertising is not only increasing in the share of the budget but in cost as demand rises. tv is still incredibly expensive. about thereports money that super pac's are spending on television because there is so much competition. think it willt, i still tend to dominate the narrative. year whenybe by next we are a few months out, there will be more coverage of online advertising in the same way as television, but tv is a more regulated market. there is more disclosure of where people are buying. the internet landscape is

gelling and their are more demand side for getting into the wonky terms of where people are buying through one platform, but it is still the wild, wild west in terms of tracking and who is buying where, and because of that, it is easier for reporters to write to beat stories in the social media story. moderator: true. john: the one thing to add to that is that video and television is still a primary way to tell a compelling joy. --hink it has been 10 compelling story. i think it has been 10 years since we saw the dramatic change of television to other kinds of advertising. ago, theyne decade adced without a single tv and they held onto the lead without the ad. said, i do not have enough

money to put this on tv, can you send this to friends and family? he went from third place the first place against two people who were far better known and had more money in their account, so it is for the campaigns of candidates that empower them to engage on their own terms. nick, you mention 2008 was the face collection and from my perspective, 2012 was the twitter election. 2016, what will that be? john: a lot of folks take it snapchat this election. in terms of not having to wait for the 24-hour news cycle for the consummate the perspective of their friends. we see that 1/3 or so from our for voters are actively

engaging with snapchat. when we look at the demographics of snapchat versus instagram, they are quite different. each of these campaigns identifies where they want to focus their interest. moderator: so 2012 was the twitter election. snapchat issure sitting back and say, we would love that to be the story for 2016. it very well could be, but i don't think so. i think it sounds sexier but the more accurate is it is finally the mobile collection. people engaging with the campaigns via mobile. i think that is right. i think it is all of social media now. i do think that calling it the snapchat collection make sense

metaphorically because what we have seen with trump and others is that the good strategy is to model the personality on the way snapchat works at the burst of the people' is consciousness at regular intervals but not take anything so deep complicated that it requires people to pay attention. if you model of yourself on snapchat, thatn could be a good media strategy. moderator: good news for rand paul, i guess. arrays of hands, how many people in the audience have their own facebook account? snap chat account? twitter account? do not be shy. nick, you specialize in how the internet changes our behavior. on facebook, i think we all have runs to pick and choose what they post based on their political beliefs, we all have readingle, but by only what we choose and having that option, is it possible people

are hardwiring their brains to read certain things and what a long-term effects? unfortunately, and this is not something you would the internet for social media, but i think what we are seeing is a continuation of the story of the polarization of politics in the country where people -- the hope for the internet was you put all this information out there to make it easily available and people will go out and sample different opinions and look for thoughts that contradict their own. what really happens is people go out and gather information that confirms their existing biases, political beliefs. what we know from the psychological studies is that the more information you can gather that supports your pre-existing belief, the more extreme the bullies tend to get. -- the beliefs tend to get. it did not start with the internet social media, but i think it is probably going to

end up being more of a wearizing force that originally believed or hoped, which is that it would encourage people to expose themselves to a wide range of viewpoints. moderator: this strikes me as probably not the most productive thing for constructive political discourse, right? would you agree or disagree, mindy? mindy: i generally agree, but i think the answer to whether forcing polarization in a way we have not seen before is that there -- it is complex and it depends because it is quite true that people can much more easily put themselves off and go after information that reinforce their own bias, but on the other hand, in the past, you are limited and the people who influence the work in your int -- the people who influenced you were in your geographic region and the people who influence you now are across time and space and more likely to be exposed -- and people are also moving so they

are more mobile and not staying where they grew up, so you're more likely to be exposed to a diversity of views and opinions. i think that is driving him predict ability -- i think that is driving him predict ability. in a political -- unpredi ctibility and social media has disrupted that. also, on certain platforms, especially twitter, it allows people to post anonymously and it does really help foster this kind of knee-jerk reaction in consuming things and instant price and not looking at the context. in that instant reaction and people being quick to respond emotionally without being thoughtful, i do not think that is constructed for this course -- four discourse. john: i think there is every psychology as to why an

individual gets on twitter versus other channels. i am most focused on in terms of the millennial generation, i'm not sure that polarizedions are so rage was become voting -- voting age for the first time. in other words, those on two of you are trying to understand in which the world operates. they are choosing to show things about themselves that they care about and often times it is related to their life, their dreams or what they share. the a lane every single day, millions of them, saying the things they care about. not the right wing or the left-wing, but things they care about which is an opportunity for members of government are both sides to engage with them and dig deeper. to say, tell me about your perspective on this issue, and i think the challenge is not necessarily the citizen's point of view.

the challenge is from those who hold the power to not engage. we have a handful of examples, cory booker from new jersey, he does not -- [indiscernible] unfortunately, there examples are few and far between. moderator: john, as part of your research, you worked with students a lot and you pull among millennials frequently. can you show us some positive and negative examples of social media engagement with this demographic and others? you alet me just give little background, but the reason this poll started back in ,000 is a couple of young folks trevor and erin, or concerned about the disconnect between service and voting. their friends on campuses and high schools around the country seemed interested in giving back service but they do

not to the connection to voting. they thought, would it be easier and faster if they served and voted? we have learned that they are trying to engage. we have a good and bad example of that. one of which, from senator booker in new jersey, engaging with a student with their point of view on gun control legislation. it is behind me. a constituent of new jersey says it, goodcrats discuss gun control is. so senator cory booker went through tweets going to and talking about his perspective of what good gun controllers. you can see thousands of people engaged on the positive policy

remark that would not have happened otherwise. it is just a moment, but now there is a connection. then andction between there is more information we can find as well. that is one example and there was another of doing it the opposite way, which is at the trump campaign tends to do. they engage with both, but rather than engage in a positive remarks, they engage in negative things. you can see, to your point, they are treating somebody who has 42 followers or so, but tweeting something negative regarding the interview style. citizen engaging with but not in a dialogue, more in [indiscernible] -- as got moderator: i think it was the all caps, that is what did it. i wonder, do you mind sharing what you have seen in the

presidential campaign that has affected to reach voters and also an ineffective way. mindy: i think one of the less do not mean to i pick on him, but there was a moment a few months back and i do not remember the exact issue, but jeb bush and hillary clinton got into a spat and i do not think -- it seems that the reasoning behind that would have been to say, we are embracing the new media, political discourse happened, and this is where political engagement happens and by jeff rising up and -- jeb rising up in debating hillary, she was already the nominee and he was in that old presumptive nominee, this was several months back, and i think they both ended up looking childish, so that was one of the poor examples i have seen.

the common he made in new hampshire that people needed to work harder and then she jumped on it or something like that. nick: bernie sanders has been pretty effective in reaching his audience and expanding his audience through his posts on facebook, where he feels them around contextual statements that seem to have a certain degree of [indiscernible] and allow him to rise above the fray. the problem we are talking about what is affected or not, we could go with john's definition which is what helps political discourse, but that may not be what it is politically acacias. postnk trump tends to -- offensive tweets

, but they have been effective for him. you could argue they don't raise political discourse, but that is to be what works on social media. theave to remember that political stream of information is just one string among all sorts of streams, social streams and that, that people are looking at. you have to really do something to stand out and grab people's attention and make them say, i better stop and look at this. in some ways, it might be the worst strategy to try to elevate discourse if you're getting rewarded for just kind of grabbing people's attention by saying, striking or outrageous things. moderator: maybe this is too far and assumption, assuming everyone on the stage believes in getting people were engaged in politics and political discourse, even myself, we talked about how these social media and mediums can be

effective for candidates, but what is the most effective medium for this course right now? -- i: no, i do not think mean i think campaigns are campaigns are playing in so many different fields. you're talking about social media but you have many candidates who are turning to --use to state their case media to state their case, a publishing platform. a longer form platform. i think the jury is out on which is most effective. understanding that there is a fractured media landscape. if you want to get as many

people engaged as possible and persuade and get your message out to all the constituencies that you need to win, you will not depend upon a single platform. platforms,y on many and do virgin media as well. seen one: have you medium more than the other that has been more political -- productive political conversation? we recently held a town hall meeting that we as these kinds of questions. and the answer was where the candidate chooses to engage, i will find it. what they are telling us is just find something you are comfortable with and use it. they wanted the candidates to use it. trump, that is trump,

edward sanders it is sanders road they want the candidates to use the language that they do and not just another version of the sanitized press release. gendersr: do different use social media differently? shows both ondata twitter and facebook there is a slight tilt to women using those. there are certainly different demographic groups. then there are platforms like pinterest which is not seen as a powerful political tool, and it is heavily female.

that is quite interesting. linkedin, which some campaigns will use it, is not so much engendered difference but there is an age gap. is the only one that over indexes for those who are above 29 years old. moderator: john? carr: we do this every time. -- mr. volpe: we do this every time. there are some differences based on what platform. everybody can be found if they want to be found. people raising their hands wanting to be engaged. i will say, you can see that some people tend to like comments more, some people tend to post more.

up theirhas opened data fetuses that they can learn more about what people are doing. and let more information around. any data: do we have on the gender divide? mr. volpe: it depends upon subject. stay tuned for that. moderator: nicholas you have done work on how technology changes our perception. the exam always given is the richard nixon and john f. kennedy debates. only going through a transition right now?

is this just a part of a historical progression or are we going to more superficial politics moderator? mr. carr: i think it is a transition. if you trace i would argue that what we're seeing this year is a third big mediation shift elections and campaigning. the first eating radio, which hit the point of maturity in the 1924 race were calvin coolidge one election. radio is very interesting because suddenly candidates did not have bodies and they just spoke with their voice and they were not speaking at the fairgrounds. the came into people's houses through these radios. and suddenly you had to have to have this intimate conversation with voters. a lot of candidates cannot make this transition. franklin roosevelt with his fireside chats was ideally

suited to it. and in 1916 you have the reduction of tv as a main media force. it was perfectly encapsulated in the debate between kennedy and nixon where he was totally oblivious to the fact that he was sweaty and looked horrible on tv. tv, in one sense it gave candidates revised back in front of everybody to affect internees everybody but turned them into two-dimensional images. it's really tidy and presented yourself -- it changed title presented yourself. social media is the new thing in the mix. it nothink in some ways longer emphasizes the image of a candidate. it will put much more evidence

on personality. what a personality that grabs attention on social media and you want to be somebody who says something new all the time rather than repeating the same things over and over again. that works on tv, where you have a voters attention captured. you do not have that on social media. saying the same thing over and over again. traditional campaigns do that over and over and it comes up a little dull. what we're going to see is that candidates either have to adapt, or politicians have to adapt to this new media for a new generation will come in that is the same of people with radio and tv. we are getting hints of how that will play out, but it will be very interesting next year and in future elections as well. it changed who would run for office, television,

radio, and no social media. generation of politicians do you think we will have is a product of social media dominated environment? i think we will have people who are a bit more freewheeling. moderator: it will be fun for us. mr. carr: it will be fun, and there will be a good site at the bedside. whether you look at politics or elsewhere, social media move forwards with the intention of a very visceral and emotional message. that is what cuts through the chatter and the noise. -- that willere bring people into the political process to relate to the community danger is a motionless and is always dangerous in politics because you can read a kind of cold personality around a candidate.

there is a risk here that it will just get more superficial and emotional in the mess just and in the level of political discourse which was not great to begin with a it will garden -- great to begin with. there is a new paradigm because of social media. i look at it differently than fostering a cult of. i think it does do that, and we see that with donald trump as that he would run. but i'm going to do something dangerous which is make a prediction. i do not think that donald trump will ultimately be the next president. question ofy been a the has taken off, but is he ultimately successful? he has a lot of energy, but will he ultimately become president? or will simply also can throw

the needle between being , and have a certain stature, but also personality. enough personality that people do not think they are wooden. i think it will be the latter. with the new paradigm of social media, what it has really done in terms of an impact is that it is more participatory. it is more democratic. everybody is part of the process in a way they have not been in a long time. have dominion over the process and it has empowered people with information. it has given them a power to create support and get their message out quite quickly and raise money quite quickly. this is where i know the title , we will seeon things as chaotic and messy as they are, but i think the answer

is in some ways it is strengthening it, but we are still at the beginning of the shift of the paradigm and it has not filled out. look at the republican debate stage for the democratic field right now. it is big, and diverse, and messy because it is hard to know who is up and who is down on what day in who believes what. couldeople might say we record in a neat package, but democracy is the ability to fuel evil no matter where you are or were you come from to run for president. the social media are as fizzling --t does facilitating that s facilitating mass. i just believe a

couple of things. it is not think it has to be that way. i know for a fact if some candidate said i'm going to use twitter tonight to say i will host a community meeting to talk about what is going on in the city, they would have 100 if not 1000 new people show up to have a conversation about that. that is the use of social media in the best way. anthat room you have 18-year-old, an 80-year-old and a lot of people in between who want to participate in solving problems. that is the first step in building within the system. they're connected with somebody who actually cares. they were all of that person, and that is the way for social rated to save politics. but for whatever reason it is difficult for us to figure out how to best use it. obama did that beautifully eight years ago. interesting, is

when we talk about social discourse, that discourse is still in person. it is still at the town hall meeting, not on social media. mr. volpe: for social media will bring people together. like the example used in new jersey, you can have an engagement with somebody. the common problem, whether it is millennial's or other generation is black of faith in the system. we finally have a tool that is participatory and democratizing, and we are not using it in that way all the time. i think that if you build trust and create a relationship that will lead to success on the ballot box i think there are many examples to get there. the problem is too many of us are not going to control -- consult strategists for more than the 32nd spot and it is a

very different mentality on social media. you have to be prepared to engage and listen and respond and it shows your true self. e-mails arein which a true personality before you know they will be made public. there are some charming things about e-mails. you is now the a lot more than a tweet or a facebook post. moderator: what your question then we will go to your questions. if you have one, please lineup that any one of the four mics. i would like you to answer the title of this panel. his social media routing politics? to volpe: that would have argue that politics was in some pure state before. i do not think so. it can the good news is

draw people who are feeling disenfranchised and disengaged, it can draw them into the political process. if you're not watching news on tv or watch it on the radio, then you what political discourse to go to social media, to where people can have the opportunity to get involved. but i worry that ultimately it is making this discourse more superficial rather than richer. it is giving a long people, i fear, and illusion of participation. they think if i retweet something i am participating. if i like something i am participating. but what it is not doing is drawn people into a thoughtful engagement with policy issues and candidates. instead it is repackaging political conversation as streams of superficial tweets or facebook messages.

would hope that people would go beyond that and use that as the entrée into some deeper engagement. some people will but i do not think most will. moderator: we will now go to your questions. as iterative provinces near and dear to my heart. your questions should have a question mark at the end of it. make sure it is actually a question. we will go from left to right. >> thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak with us. my question is mainly directed at john, although i would be interested in your perspectives as well. in terms of using social media to save politics, the excel all you gave seem to be more possible at a state or local level as opposed to a national one. i wondered you can talk about, you signify she spoke about occurring at the state and local

level? quite a few more possible for social media to say politics at the state and local level as opposed to the federal level? mr. volpe: the best ideas come from local cities and towns scoopedmerica that get up by candidates for president. but i think it works everywhere. for canada to start a conversation about poverty on twitter, and then somewhere else, that would be helpful at any level. and we have engaged in similar conversations with school teachers across america, issues of education and poverty had the question of which candidate would want to the hard work to get there, because it takes effort to read people's responses and to engage good ideawho have a to take those ideas and develop

them into policy issues that might work. hard, buterent, it is it will be better ideas and more engaged citizenry. if you do that, it also helps in my opinion. >> thank you. moderator: either of you? next. hello. my name is caroline. i myself more in college. thank you for being here. my question is getting at something that nikki mentioned. encourages people to get involved in care about issues? that one uncle who posts everything on facebook. do you want people who want to care about the issues, or just do not care? i think it is a good attention galvanizing

and getting people involved in taking of the issue. whether it is a medium for encouraging sustained injury -- sustained engagement, i or dubious about that. what we often see it become very important for a day, or two days, and then they disappear. and then we wait and something else becomes very important. certainly for some people i think following something on social media will be this or that gets them deep league involved. but that is counterbalanced by ass charter of our attention the new thing comes up and pushes aside something else. and i think for most hateful it ofl create bursts participation and incentive news, but probably will not create the sustained engagement and actually leads to changes that they might want.

none of the popular social media forms are made for discourse. they allow people to get instant , sometimesoliticians a cory booker example is an exception. but even twitter is lacking. there are new platforms every couple years that are the going to address this problem, and what concerns me and even going to john's idea is that you will hear from numbers on capitol hill now that they stopped during -- doing town halls because they would rather do it on social media because it is more control. they will do q&a's on facebook and they can decide which questions take. people might yell at them, but

there are ways to shut it down that is different from if you were at a physical town hall meeting. i do not think we're quite there in terms of social media being great for discourse. need to statedo your name and your affiliation with the college or harvard if you have one. domain name is jack and i'm a freshman in the college. how can candidates appear more authentic even when all their messages are crafted a well ahead of time? very good question. when they are not crafted well argueof time, i would against doing that. i do not think it is a good use of the platform and the culture of love or particularly in twitter word is instant response. what you see campaigns due to

the candidates, and keep them from making a mistake is have many staff tweeting during the debates. and that is a departure. going back years ago, there would've been only a few people within a campaign who were empowered to actually speak on behalf of the campaign. now they have the whole army doing so on twitter but i would really guard against -- there are stories out of the 2012 election of mitt romney's campaign going through 22 approvals. there are different sides of the ,tory, but if that is the case that does not allow a candidate to really realize the power of social media. moderator: do either of you have an example or thought on who is a really, truly authentic person for politicians when it comes to social media?

mr. volpe: i do not know off the top of my head, but i will say that the advice i would give the candidates in terms of being the samensive would be advice i give my kids to be more popular in school. just be yourself. don't try so hard. if you're not comfortable talking about yourself on twitter, they don't talk about yourself on twitter. code instagram and take photos of what your life is like on the campaign trail. they have a beautiful histogram of his life as a citizen of los angeles and what it shows. is,to me that shows who he where he is, etc.. he does not seem to be trying so hard.

if it is natural, it is not, if it is not commit is not. but do not force the. -- it. there are several candidates who are doing a good job. donald trump is a case that he, but i would buy all the other candidates to copy him. to show a more brash style, and it looks silly it hurts them. you do have hillary's camp playing quite actively. i think they're using medium quite well. whether does fully themselves it does not come across as an authentic, so that is a win. mr. carr: one of the challenges is that there are so many social --ia platforms, how do you each one is different, and it becomes very hard and time-consuming for candidates to

be authentic on each of these platforms that they are sending their messages out through. i guess i cannot hillary clinton, but if you look at her facebook page at her twitter feed with a are basically mirror images of themselves. if you do that through all the platform she starts to look very manufactured. but on the other hand i sympathize with the hard it would be authentic on all of these platforms all the time. you would die of authenticity eventually. moderator: a lot of putting yourself out there for normal person and a politician who is used to putting this all out there. >> hello, i'm chris and become more of college. it seems like there's a lot more political information out there. at the same time you of the ability to self select what is ratio get based on pages you like it here you follow on twitter my question is do you think that social media

increases peoples exposures do different things at stake points or further entrenches them in their own viewpoint? moderator: you have done some work on this. mr. carr: and i talked little bit about this before. in general, it leads to more entrenchment in their existing points of view because they seek information that can is rather than opposed. that is not true of everybody, and some people use the opportunity to expose themselves to different views. but if you give them a huge amount of information they will alreadyhe things that resonate with what they are thinking. moderator: back down here. >> i am victoria, and then leave the woman in public policy program here at the kennedy school. we've seen that the rise of social media on the mentally enhances the campaigns of

nontraditional candidates. one of the things that also , isens to women candidates that female candidates and women who participate in the social media space, even though o ver representative are likely to have aggressive shutdowns by other people participating in those venues. can geto blog regularly visceral attacks, and there are a lot of trolls who spent time doing this attack. do you have advice for how candidates can most effectively handle that type of engagement? and what do you see as the future for campaigns beyond how these platforms are regulated so we have less visceral engagement anywhere that is deeply negative and instances -- and diminishes discourse? that dynamic, where

there is a lot of vitriol and not just for candidates, but even voters participate on social media, it is a deterrent, because people are attacks and really shut down. who it ispeople likely should not be allowed to express their views. the,meone takes a opposing the discussion is really shut down. that is unfortunate. that hinders the ability for to be a platform for discourse. i am more concerned about that then siphoning people often to their own camps. the reward for trying to express a view and having a discussion if you're already going to have that kind of response? ofis worse for women because the types of attacks and can lead to. , you have twovice options.

either you engage or you don't in case. if you decide to engage, do you acknowledge types of commenters were not? i think engagement is always better for all the reasons we're talking about today. if you say silent or absent, people are talking about you anyway. , not so to be able to much control, but participate in the conversation and be part of it. and in terms of whether or not to engage those commentators, because of where the warm -- where the platform does not limit, i see this happen all the time with many women candidates. some are really the best at being open online. especially members of the house. they get those kinds of comments, and i was once when i see them. but they continue to do it. it helps in terms of the human

to their constituents have with them of someone who is open. some of those women on both sides are in swing districts. the reason they continue to be they do this. >> do you see the future of social media as better regulation on platforms? engenderedticularly aspects, that if they took twice in a forum that mike would be cut because they had nothing to could reach the discourse or or outside reasonable dialogue and might even be considered hate speech. one of the benefits of the social media platform is that people can express their authentic self. do you see that as always going as untroubled --

while working or do you think there will be more mitigation in the first to create a more effective dialogue? it is such a tough line because where do you draw the line? where do you cut it off? some people see as offensive, others see us appropriate. in collegeig issue campuses as what is allowed in debate and windows -- those platforms tend to be as open as possible. is continuously revisited when you certain things that are absolutely acceptable, and will register a complaint and can be taken down. members will be warned that their account can be shut down. everything has a policy and waste. -- a policy in place. there are really thoughtful debates that go on about when to draw those lines. but they tend to lean toward being more open because it is part of the comments of the platform for open discussion. my name is ignacio, i am a

sophomore in college for every once in a while a really bad tweet resurfaces and harpsichord leticia. i was wondering what you thought is going to have been in the next 40 years when people are running for options who have hundreds of thousands of trees in their name. , willhat be any different people actually go back and look at all of the streets that people from my generation are tweeting now? ll that affect us in the future? moderator: for facebook photos. generation next politician going to look like what we can see what they were freshman year and not really caring. a memo to all of you. you think the things we see now from politicians, that we see things past resurface.

do we think it will be as far harmful down the road? mr. volpe: i am hopeful that is pleasant to the proper perspective over time. thatember the first time there was an ongoing debate about bill clinton spoke -- smoking marijuana. every candidate talking about the things they have done during the college life and we have had more context in the last 30 or 40 years and i suspect that will be the same. it is so difficult now for someone to run for public office . hopefully that will have the proper context over time. i am an optimist. ms. finn: it has definitely impacted our sensitivities in that way. be a reason somebody exited the race in the past. it might be a big deal.

a huge deal in 24 hours over twitter and facebook, pathetically play because there's so much else to cover. the news cycle has become so quick. my name is evident, i'm a senior in the college and thank you for coming out. when i think of the question is social media routing politics think of one of two effects of the one is that everything nowadays is political, and becomes very political very quickly. one example i can think of is there is this woman who tweeted a joke, and then by the time she landed in south africa, she had been fired, had to move, she receives death threats. the other is the comment section. the question i have is sort of two parts. the first one is, why do you think this seems to pop up everywhere and every explanation that we encompass for all the

time. why does this always seem to create case and will be inevitable? the scale of these platforms means that it is very easy to get enough people offended that it snowballs very easily. things about social media, it can be a platform for a mob mentality working all react viscerally without thinking about it without thinking about the other person and the benefit of the doubt unfortunately, that is part of human nature. when you create this kind of scale where everybody can say anything about anything it becomes very hard to avoid that

very unfair and damaging dynamic. either since it will always be with us. hello. my name is frank, i'm a freshman at the college. i was wondering, you talked a lot about how social media can be bad for discourse. in talking about political issues. seen wondering if you have .ny better ways to do it other features that we could implement to improve social media websites, to improve discourse on? have you encountered anything like that? i have an example or two. it is connected to the original point i made which is you can use social media to start a conversation, but you're not

going to create a policy paper on twitter. you need to take it somewhere else, either off-line or online. this is an example of starting a conversation it will places where you find people who really want to be there, who really want to have a perspective you take it to a closed space. participate, but you have to say who you are. he worked with other members of the community to solve a problem where it can be crowd sourced within some kind of guidelines in terms of what the problem is and have a respectful of conversation. that will lead to tremendous results. we have done this dozens of times across the country. and at the end of it you have specific policies that are created at the local level, sometimes with experts, sometimes with citizens. attention ofts the the governor, the senator, the

mayor, the administrator, and i think that is the way it can work. yougain, we all agree that cannot have the most productive conversation on social media, but can be the invitation to invite people into a more private space with goals and objectives. moderator: i think there's a lot of room to make it better and will platforms for improving existing platforms for discourse. ms. finn: that may be a tall and for students in this room to work on. something i worked on last year was a platform called change.org. it is an open petition platform and petition is the oldest form and tool in our democracy to share your boards. the one thing we found was that it was an incredibly powerful platform. through people signing petitions and collective action of millions of individuals there was a lot of change happening.

we still have the same issue where it was very one way to one way and something you not expect. you talked about politicians shouting the public and being one way. this way it was shouting at decision-makers and corporations but not giving them the headphones to actually listen and a productive way and engage in a dialogue. planneds people are clambered for particular change and it may not be obvious the way things are they are. created a new feature set of the platform to allow politicians to respond and start to engage in the dialogue, which was in use by dozens of relatives that this point. i'm not saying that is the whole answer, but it really was a response to disconnect and the fact that we feel social media right now is wholly inefficient with this kind of dialogue.

mr. volpe: the easy part is to create the platforms that would allow days -- tapered discard -- deeper discourse. the hard thing is to allow people to talk. moderator: last question. >> i would be interested of you talking about how is owned raising and how you see it moving both by candidates and by , where's that going to go? how is it affecting these campaigns now, and where do you see that having an impact in the future? moderator: fundraising generally, or through social media? >> through social media. how is fundraising through social media, e-mail, facebook, like bernie sanders and

everybody and third parties? why don't we do a fast answer? i think a lot of those lessons i learned from 2004 with howard dean before social media, with the idea of empowering regular citizens to share couple of dollars here and there. part of that was to shut down people who commented on blogs during that campaign. say fornizers would every comment i want our community to raise tax dollars. number of dollars. and take a look at the other side of the campus. he is the one that has the highest portion of his tweets responding to people.

he is working, talking to people, raising a decent amount of money with small donors to get there. the great promise of the internet was that it was going to re-democratize the process we talked today about the ways it has. with fundraising, it is another one of those stories that has two sides. it has in some regard. you look at bernie sanders right now, and the fact that he was able to raise almost as much as hillary clinton in the last quarter. the great majority from that was social media and online. see that with republican candidates were doing that as .ell marco rubio will not be where he is today if you not done the same thing in his senate primary against charlie crist. he was able to do the same thing. the sad, there is still an incredible influence over the system by major wealthy donors. to thelly is two sides

story. that is one of the stories to watch in this election cycle and even with howard dean, he was able to over perform where people expected, but he was ultimately victorious. obama was ultimately victorious, so there has been an extra about those who have those movement behind them. i know absolutely nothing about fundraising. [laughter] moderator: fair enough. can we please give our awesome panelist a round of lost? -- a round of applause? [applause] thank you everyone for coming, very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> on the next washington journal, pentagon reporter tilghman about sending

to help in overseas the effort. and then talking about processed meats and cancer. and then sir westwood talks about the irs commissioner impeachment. that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. members of the white house press corps talk about their jobs and how they cover the presidency at an event at the washington center. they discussed obama's relationship with the news media and answered questions from the audience.

this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning everyone. it is my great pleasure to welcome you. this is an important part of the center. to learn about issues of public concern. you will learn about strategies that they care about, and at the conclusion of today's conversation my colleague will take a few moments to share with andsome logistics

transition to this afternoon's conversations. have come from all around the world and the country and we've a panel of professionals today that we only can put together in washington dc. they are leaders in their field, and they also get to write the first draft of history. this is a good opportunity for you to think today about the issues you care about, and the difference you want to make as you and are up on your future. -- embark upon your future. here's our vice president of student affairs. [applause] >> good morning everyone.

it is my pleasure to welcome our moderator, miss christi parsons. she is a 26 year veteran of the chicago tribune. she has an undergraduate degree in journalism and english. and a masters from yale. please welcome miss christi parsons. [applause] >> thank you for that nice introduction. when we were talking to college students, i didn't expect you to show up on a friday morning. i didn't expect you to be dressed so professionally. we are going to have to up our game. >> it is not at 8:00.

[laughter] we are looking at you and listening to you. we appreciate you giving us that honor. the washington center does such great work educating our future leaders. hopefully some of you are aspiring journalists and public servants and advocates. it is good to talk to this crowd directly on this friday morning. as the introducer said, i'm christi parsons. i don't just write for one outlet anymore. i work for lots of readers and for a wire service as well. the media landscape is changing. we will talk about that. my audience is broad and wide. we really are lucky to have this panel of white house

correspondents to talk about the press and the presidency. the president could not be here today. [laughter] he is running the country or something. so this will be from the perspective of of the press. it is a special group of people. they are members of the white house press corps. they cover the presidency. we have something like 40 years of experience covering the white house. we thought it would be helpful for you to hear from each person here and their personal story, professional story, how they got to where they are today. i would like to start with that and we will go first to kathleen hennessey from the associated press who was my partner at the white house covering the president from the los angeles times. kathleen hennessey: we were colleagues three weeks ago. it feels strange to say that. i work for the associated press

which is a wire service. almost all of the newspapers in the country, in addition to the internet and internationally an enormous audience, it is almost alone in the way it covers the president completely, fully, at every possible moment more or less. therefore my job when i worked for a newspaper has shifted a little bit to being a constant presence in the white house. we consider ourselves a constant set of eyes as much as possible. i started my career in washington and with the l.a. times. i left to go and cover a statehouse in nevada, and politics in las vegas, to get out into the country and cover politics on a more local level.

i came back to washington to cover congress and national campaigns. now i am at the white house. i think that one of the things that i said that is most unique about the way that is different from -- the way we covered the president is different than the way we cover any other politician in washington or anywhere in any statehouse, he is basically stuck with us almost all the time. any public statements, any public appearance, even a personal dinner out with his wife, a cough game -- a golf game, we are nearby. a small cluster of the press as representative of the larger pool of the press corps, it is not glamorous. looking for any sign we can of him, making sure he is where he is supposed to be, and giving a rhythm of his daily life. christi: we view say where you are from and what your academic past was.

kathleen: i didn't do any journalism when i was in school originally, i didn't know what i wanted to do. i studied history, the classics. t wasn't a terribly useful major. i got into journalism later in life and went to berkeley for graduate school. i did internships at the l.a. times and the ap. >> thank you. let's do an introduction with april ryan. she started as a dj but now is a public author. i'm very excited about this new

book by april. the presidency in black and white. we are talking about the things she raises. will you do your two-minute personal history for everybody. >> i from baltimore, maryland. i cut my teeth and news in baltimore. baltimore is a newsy town. you know i love my job. i started out as a disc jockey. i was bored giving time, temperature and weather.

>> your point was about getting a sense of what is happening. april ryan: a lot of times they are told not to say anything. if you have that relationship, they will talk to you on your cell phone. on their personal cell phone, about what happened and what was said. it is port to be there, be seen, be a part of the mix, be in the pool, be a part of the white house press corps. you are only as good as your last story. if you are not advancing a story, what good are you? that is how it is viewed at the white house. it is the best of the best. >> analysis available all over the television, in newspapers, magazines, online, and that is really important and viable. a lot of time people are working with their own original reporting, but often it is broken out of the white house. very often it is just as simple as the president looks down

today. >> the team to washington. required job. wifeeeing the mcdonald's -- i am sure you remember seeing sam donaldson's life.

go out and cover this drive-by shooting that happened. they would come could give an impromptu press conference. that was my first taste of tv news and i was hooked. from there i worked my way into a job at next, tennessee. then i went to dallas, texas. then i was hired by cbs news and later cnn. it has been a long and strange road. i got back to d.c., doing what i love. typically, it is whoever wins goes to the white house. one to try the guy the next he won the election. not courageous long, but as

somebody said earlier, writing a draft of history, during the first live shot is quite challenging. it is a little exhausting, but it is a real treat to when i walk through the gates of the white house everyday real like the luckiest guy in the world that i get to work in this flies. honor to work with all of you. it is qqq on your toes, cute you honest and which you want to do .our best every day >> rest of the press corps is sitting there listening to the

tv to their immediate take on what happened and it is very influential over the whole process because that is the first drink most people get on their the other people in the press corps are listening as well. it has an amazing talent. i need at least 15 minutes and a phone. we're going to pull back the curtain for you a little bit about how we cover the white house. saideen to something you and 21 opening statement people of the white house everyday are very close to the president for every company event. othereport back to members of the press corps vote what has been said or done in the small room where you cannot

fit the whole press corps. but when we travel that number is 13. they are on air force one with the president, everywhere they go. they are sending feeds back to their peers to report what is going on. kathleen is a member of the permanent pool. hp is always with the president. that is rare that we have heard right here, right now. why do you spend so much time making sure that they are watched all the time? of darkimes it is sort a