is a scientists who shop for the move. preachers and porters and seamstresses that guided us toward the mound top of freedom. sometimes we can mark progress in special places, hollowed ground where history was written, places like independence hall, gettysburg, seneca falls, kitty hawk and cape canaveral. one of these special places is the stonewall inn. in 1969, eternally decade winding down, the stonewall inn was a popular gathering place for the lgbt community. at the time, being gay, lesbian, transsexual, was visited of seeing, even a mental illness. one night, police raided the bar and start up the -- started arresting folks. mistimed the patrons had enough. they stood up and spoke out. it became protests, the protests became a movement. the movement ultimately became

an integral part of america. over the past several years, we have seen achievements that would have been unimaginable to the people that started the modern lgbt movement at stonewall. today, all americans are protected by a hate crime law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. do not ask, don't tell is history. companies can no longer turn you away because of who you are. transgender americans are more visible than ever, hoping to make the nation more inclusive. one year ago this weekend, we lit the white house in every color, because in every state you are now free to marry the person you love. there is still work to do. as we saw two weeks ago in orlando, the lgbt community still faces real violence and discrimination we cannot rest, we must push for equality and tolerance.

but the art of our history is clear, it is of progress, and a lot of it can be traced back to stonewall. this week, i am designating the stonewall national monument as the newest addition to the parks system. it will be the first national monument to tell the story of the struggle for lgbt right. i believe our national park should show the whole story of our country, the richest and diversity of our american spirit. that we are stronger together and we are one. that is what makes us the greatest nation on earth. ♪ >> hello, i am senator richard burr and i am the chairman of the subcommittee on intelligence. i would like to talk to you about terrorism and that that of -- and the threat of prices and other extremist groups. the challenge we face today is unlike one we have ever known.

the message is not new. it is their leveraging of our technology and innovation to kill that makes this a new threat. that is why the obama administration needs to treat the threat posed by isil seriously and lead a campaign to the heat -- to defeat the terrorist group. the print low way to do defeat isil, is to defeat them in iraq and syria. the cia director testified before my committee and the american people about the growing threat of terrorism and how our intelligence community is challenged to protect us from attacks. the hearing took place just four days after 49 individuals were tragically murdered in orlando by a disturbed and evil person. chillingly, the cia director predicted more attacks like those in san bernardino and orlando, assessing the isil can

draw on fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the west. i have said before, that we live in a society, one that values freedom and diversity, contrary to what some will have you believe, you can live in a free and open society while still being safe. i also feel strongly that we need to continue to protect american civil liberties and privacy. the content of our phone calls, e-mail discussions, bank transactions, medical records and data should be sicker. -- secure. i believe that consumer data is too insecure and we should take solutions protect information. some of those consumers now happen to be terrorists and they are using secure messaging applications to recruit, plan and execute attacks against civilians.

what is increasingly clear is that the very technology that is enabling tremendous innovation in manufacturing, medicine and other areas of the global economy, is also providing terrorists ways to innovate and propagate their evil. we are at a point in time where laws that were enacted to provide capabilities to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies are out of date and in some cases, no longer applicable. we face a growing and significant threat from michael and contrary to what the administration would have you believe, we face a threat at home and abroad from an ever capable al qaeda. we have learned from 15 years at war, that we cannot sit back and expect to be protected at home by the -- by the great expanse of the atlantic and pacific oceans. terrorism is global. we will win the fight against our adversaries, but we will

only win if we take the fight to them. i have said it before either remains to, -- true, we must attack isil and al qaeda where they recruit, where they plan their attacks. we must deny the terrorists a safe haven. we have not effectively blocked -- brought the collective america to the fight. this is taking small steps in small -- in some areas, and not others. we have not directed the full capabilities of this nation against this problem. terrorism has reached our doorstep and touched innocent civilians, in boston, san bernardino, and orlando. right now, i feel that the question is not if, local, state and federal police officers will have to respond to another

attack, it is when. and i am not willing to accept that it is a reality and a new norm. the director made it clear that despite all the progress against isil on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not produced or reduced terrorism capability and reach. he assesses that as the pressures mount on isil, it will intensify their campaign. the president has spoken often about progress and the correlation of countries that have tried to contain isil and their reach. to remove it fighters from the battlefield. let's be realistic about the problem before us. let's understand it and let's address it, well the u.s. led coalition has made progress, america and allies have simply

not made the progress we need in order to eliminate isis. america is the greatest country on earth and our allies are with us. the time to take action is now. i am senator burr, thank you for listening. >> on newsmakers this weekend, our guest is jeb hensarling of texas. he talks about efforts to replace the financial regulation law. he also shares his thoughts on how the federal reserve is currently operating. watch the interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i am pleased that the senate as a body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body.

this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. during the election, i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign. she decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. she was not asking for anything. i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. it was an unexceptional moment, except for the fact that she was born in 1894 and her name was marguerite lewis, an african-american woman who had been born in louisiana. born in the shadow of slavery. one at a time when lynchings were commonplace. born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. it took our country from the

time of its founding until the mid-1980's to build up a national date -- a national debt the size of this so-called stimulus package when it came over here. we're talking about real borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. tonight on c-span, a look at the 2016 presidential election and the impact that technology is having on the race. we will show you two events. one from a recent conference on -- in santa monica california and another from the george w. bush presidential center in dallas. later, eight conversation with sheryl sandberg. >> an all-female panel of digital media correspondents, producers, and executives discussed the 2016 present

election and how podcast, live chats, and other technology is being used to target millennials. this is from the ideas los angeles conference in santa monica. this is 40 minutes. >> it is all women. [laughter] [applause] hi, guys. thank you, everybody, for coming this afternoon. as amanda mentioned, i was the editor on the digital side and i worked on the election strategy. i just started with my husband and the cofounder of twitter on a new company where we are a content creative shop working with creators with distinctive voices on awesome storytelling across platforms -- podcast, video series, etc..

we are here to talk about politics, which is not so much my daily life. >> lucky you. hillary: it is still part of my daily life. when fusion asked me to put together this panel, it was an opportunity to bring together some of my favorite people who work in political coverage and it really differently. i will introduce them. you are not sitting in my card order. let me rearrange quickly just to make sure i do not miss any key points here. liz planck, thank you for coming. liz is an amazing voice, especially in the video space. she is at vox.com where she is a correspondent and has a series called 20 16ish following this election. she was at mic.com, where she created flip the script, and

award-winning series covering social issues. she has been part of explosive digital properties online and a big voice that has helped drive those brands to be very prominent during the season. thank you for being here. caitlin thompson is a director of content at a swedish podcasting company that does basically everything for podcast from editorial oversight to cms to add serving to everything else. >> global domination. hillary: she also ran political coverage in 2012 at wnyc and covered 2006 and 2008 for "the washington post" and also "time." you are a firm a doctor to

podcasts. i'm testing my own knowledge based on our many conversations. both bring to the conversation a great depth of knowledge about political coverage and this new space of podcasting, which we know everybody is super excited to get into. catherine is actually the chief operating officer of matter studios because i just hired her a few weeks ago. [applause] we know each other from politico where she was previously starting an editorial but moving and to operations for politico and also working on the politico state expansion where she was vp of operations for politico state. she took politico into six new markets around the country and especially in new york and worked on the integration of capital new york with politico, which was a big deal and our new york bubble world.

alecia menendez, fusions superstar anchor and correspondent and just amazing article brain. we work together a lot at fusion, especially on the forum where she just brought her super depth of knowledge about the issues and the candidates and everything that they have said for the last 12 years is just encyclopedic knowledge of issues and positions to that event and to everything that she does every day. i also wanted to mention that i think -- alicia: don't do it. hillary: i can't call you broadcast journalism's new gladiator? "elle" magazine said that. i had embarrassing tidbits for everyone.

let's start talking. this is obviously a crazy election year. it is really different than we thought it would be a your ago when we were working at fusion, trying to figure out how we were going to do 2016. i do not think any of us foresaw the trump force coming our way and thought it would be something to do with early on in the election and probably less so. we get down to the issues that sort of drive the conversation more ourselves and having it driven for us in many ways. i think there has been some adjusting we had to do. one thing that i think we have all been working on is how you differentiate yourself in the space. you think political coverage and it's just like this rash of headlines day in and day out on the campaign trail. we all want to be more creative, help drive the conversations we

want to have, but it's hard when you're faced with this just onslaught of headlines and news breaks coming at you driven by the singular your campaign. i think at the same time though -- in this panel was arranged to help address these new technologies and new opportunities that we are seeing. we are seeing innovation in video and innovation in the digital space and changes in the way that broadcast is doing things, too. i just sort of want to get at those questions with you guys and your respective areas of where you have been and talk about what you have seen this year in 2016 that has been different than for years ago and maybe a little farther in the past. caitlin, i wanted to start with you because you are in a super new space this year, working in podcasts. what from your perspective has been -- have you seen happening in podcasting that has felt

different than what you see in day-to-day political coverage? caitlin: it's a good question and i think a good 2 -- first of all, how many people here listen to podcasts? of good, there are podcast enthusiasts. i love giving recommendations for people to listen to. for what has happened in podcast that i'm so enthused about is that there has been a real non-success of punditry. not to say that people not try to do it, but punditry has sort of failed in the podcast space. there are a lot of reasons to talk about why -- tech reasons, discovery reasons. there is the fact that most people do not listen in the same day that something is produced like a lot of other mediums. what has thrived in its place is so heartening to me. it is context.

it is explanation. it is narrative. it is gone to the far path of binaries of who is winning the horse race today, who has got the media cycle now, and what's tomorrow going to bring. this part of that world that's really interesting, but for me, the narrative context that "the washington post" is doing with their series where they talk about each and every one of the president's and their challenges and their stories. mic is doing a show called special relationship, which has a political reporter from the u.k. talking to one in the u.s. if anyone has tried to travel overseas recently and try to have a conversation with someone not american, you'll know exactly how interesting that can be and the show gets at that. i could talk at this for hours, but in my mind, what of the best political changes that happened this entire year happened on the podcast "another round." it is a chat show hosted by two women of color.

they got secretary hillary clinton to come and be on the show. it was the only podcast that she participated in this election cycle. they push her farther than anybody else i'd seen in any medium. they got her to talk about her husband's mandatory minimum sentencing law in a way that nobody else had been able to come close because they do not catch it in politics. they bluntly asked her a question and got to an incredibly real, hartman place. to me that was encouraging because these things are catching on like wildfire and the audience is younger, browner, more female, and really engaged. what they are choosing to engage in context and not punditry. hillary: i want to go to liz. and one of the early conversations we had about what we wanted to talk about today, we talked about some of the opportunities that covering

trump presents and sort of how that -- even with some of the really tough statements he has made about immigrants and other groups, that presents an opportunity to discuss these issues, too. can you talk a little bit about how you been getting into that? liz: it has been a hard election to cover for all the reasons we have laid out. i try to keep myself motivated. maybe it is my glass half-full approach that i have with the world. he is not a problem and an opportunity to have conversations about the things that he is talking about. trump -- we were talking about this earlier. he's not just like -- i don't think he is the problem. i think he is a symptom of the problem. he is saying things a lot of people are feeling and thinking and he is saying them out loud. that has offered a really great

opportunity to talk about how we feel about immigration, how we feel about all these things, how we feel about muslims, and why some of those assumptions and stereotypes are wrong and are actually bigotry. what i try to do with 2016ish, the show i host, is to take the camera off the candidates and turn it on the people and issues. the perfect example was actually last night. the senate democrats did this amazing filibuster -- a 13 or 14 hours filibuster until 2:00 a.m. around gun violence and just wanted to push very common sense gun security reform. that this amazing filibuster and i turn on cnn and they have four people talking about what trump said. i'm trying to find this filibuster and i'm like, why can't i find this filibuster? we use this program called slack

at vox like many other media companies. it is a chat system and it is 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. on the east coast and we are like we need to get this up. we put this on facebook live. we created a facebook live of the filibuster and we reached 3.7 million people. it was our biggest facebook live ever. some of the people were like, thank you for showing this. people were tuning in and commenting and we kept going because there were some of people watching. actually think it broke down because there were too many people watching. all this is to say that yeah, i think digital media generally is offering a different conversation and position on all these issues and conversations that we knew really need to happen. hillary: alicia, fusion has been experiencing a lot with facebook live and it is taking broadcasts into a new form.

it feels different, but we are wrestling with a lot of the same desires to show and to get inside and tell stories visually and not just in terms of text and other things. this year, what are you seeing that is different with broadcasts? when you think about producing broadcast journalism, what are you thinking about, especially going into conventions? i'm sure you're having conversations about how you do that in this space. alicia: i'm in a unique space because we're trying to broadcast to millennials, the generation that is cord cutting. what a challenge there. going into the election, there was a lot of concern that following the two elections of president obama that there was an to be a drop off in the interest of young people. that could not have been less true.

inasmuch that we do not think we were prepared for donald trump, we were not prepared for bernie sanders and to the extent that this generation is going to feel the bern. there was a lot of attention and enthusiasm and many more candidates doing press events than anticipated. normally you have a lot of debates at town halls, but every night there was like a new debate or town hall. that allowed a lot of networks to experiment with different formats. we have the opportunity to have hillary clinton and bernie sanders and martin o'malley when he was in the race one-on-one in iowa talking about issues to the hispanic and african-american community and there are other topics that we never get to get to because you would assume that there were other opportunities and we need to get on the "ace line issues."

there some much interest that there is this reality now that people are consuming so much more other news and it's not enough to just report on the news and do this punditry. you have to do a deep dive on issues and stories and a have to be character driven, which is wonderful for someone as a storyteller, but you have to be aware always that you are producing a for television to take up the time that you have promised the cable networks that you will deliver them, but also to think as you are telling that story how you're going to tell it online. when of the mistakes that people made in the early days of that was assuming that i could do a seven minute television package and then just cut that down two minutes and put it on facebook. that is never going to work. it has to be uniquely composed for the platform you are going to deliver it to. i think that there's a lot of learning going on in real time. there are certainly exceptions to that. i'm sure you saw anderson cooper on cnn have this exchange with

pam bondi in florida that has gone viral. that as an example of a television clip cut down and that is unprompted live television. if you are producing something storytelling come a has to be told different on every medium. the final thing that i would say is that you see innovation in part because of donald trump's habit of calling out the press and refuting statements that he has made. you see msnbc and cnn who has to do 20 47 coverage doing fact checks in real-time as the interview donald trump because it is the only way that they can keep up with the interview and keep the viewers informed. that is something we've never seen before. hillary: used to be like fact checking was like a nonprofit enterprise. it would happen three days after a debate or something. maybe if you get around to it, you will see what is true what is not. it is part of our daily diet of understanding now.

catherine, you are at politico for seven years during the explosion of that brand and its domination and it's really setting the bar for what doing real-time news on the political space looks like. i also worked there and learned a lot about that kind of pace, very challenging to keep up with. inexpressibly linked to the brand, they really change the way that news would become disseminated around politics. i think of it that no scoop was too small. you started seeing as other platforms and other companies emerged, like mic an fusion, we are tried to get into that space a little bit. you saw the new york times start to get faster and faster. everybody is trying to be fast all the time and i think politico started that, especially in politics.

what has the company done to go beyond that? obviously that cannot just stay same. you cannot just sustain on that. what are some of the things that politico has been reaching into that continue to grow and innovate around this clinical space? -- political space? katherine: politico started in 2007, which was a unique opportunity because people could start the 24-hour news cycle and could be reached on devices. pretty quickly, other news organizations caught up. the best lessons that the founders learned and saw this shift in the industry coming is that they taught us that your worst enemy is complacency, both as an organization, an individual. they knew that even though

politico does generate revenue from its daily print edition. it basically serves as a capitol hill and congressional audience as well as a magazine. they set into place pretty early on things that have been hateful -- helpful for this current election. i just want to talk about a few of those platforms because the have been successful and were really smart about always innovating, always experimenting. some of the experiments i would not say failed, but there are a lot of lessons learned from that. the first was in 2011. it was primarily online advertising and print advertising. we started politico pro, which is our policy arm. it is behind a pay wall, subscription-based, and it is a really must use tool for policy professionals, not just in washington now but through our

state expansion of people who need intel in real-time about these niche policy areas, ranging from health to energy to financial services, you name it. that helps offer another revenue stream. another thing that we have seen that a lot of other media companies have started to utilize as well is live events. in 2012, we created an event team that is now 15 people. they are able to produce 150 events a year, which is pretty impressive. most of them are sponsored. we are very proud that we did not adopt the pay to play, meaning the sponsor does not have a seat on the panel. [laughter] katherine: they can do opening

remarks. those are just some of the examples. in the current day, we have been talking about in terms of podcasting, i think politico's biggest asset is people. the personalities, the brands, going back to that event is that it is a live extension of our journalism. a very well respected white house correspondent launched a podcast that has been hugely successful not just in terms of audience and downloads, but also in the type of guests he has been able to secure, one of which was president obama in the oval office. part of 2016 coverage, they launched the politico caucus, which is kind of a weekly insider survey of more than 300 people around the united states

who are really plugged in, whether they are politicians themselves or consultants or activists. and so with all these different platforms in terms of experimenting, the one mission that they all have is to break news. another one we were talking about in terms of real-time is we also have, and as soon -- in addition to these local bureaus, we have politico europe. to have a big vote on the 23rd about the eu referendum. that launched an app that has live results with polling and feedback. it goes to that founding principle of not being complacent. i think it's went to be interesting past the selection. -- this election. politico has famously been banned from

several trump events. hillary: welcome to the club. [laughter] has anyone else here can have banned? alicia: my colleague, jorge ramos. katherine: as hillary mentioned, i've just recently moved on to our quick matter studios. i'm still rooting for politico and i'm really excited to see what they're going to create next just because it has been such a variety of experiments that i am very proud of. hillary: sticking with what you were talking about with rush and his voice, i want to talk about people in this election who are covering and how we have seen the pool of reporters and voices expand this year. i also ran the coverage for yahoo! news four years ago.

i've done that like people on charters and all that. we made the decision not to do that at fusion and sort of look for new voices to elevate as part of our coverage. caitlin, you mentioned the podcasting space being really receptive to people of color and maybe other voices we are not heard before. i would just like to sort of see what you guys think about what you have seen in terms of new voices. has 2016 created opportunities for more voices we are not heard before? i still think of politics as being a pretty white man dominated space. i assembled this panel, so obviously there is hope for the future. [laughter] [applause] caitlin, do you want to talk about that for a second? caitlin: i would answer that two ways. digital media is much more inclusive. i think all of us, at least one

part or another, has either interned or step foot in and put in blood, sweat, and tears in legacy media organizations. legacy media organizations do not do the greatest job traditionally of being representative. that is something the digital world does instantly because everyone is on the internet. the barrier to access has dropped significantly. in my space, when you talk about the kinds of values and success stories that i was enumerating, storytelling. you are talking about getting involved in people's personal narratives instead of just covering a bloviating politician. those are stories that women, in particular, i daresay are better at telling. the barrier to entry in my podcast landscape has dropped so significantly. people take and involved -- can get involved in a conversation that they cannot have the last election cycle.

because the internet represents america much more than legacy media organizations represent america, diversity and inclusion and most importantly the two things together represent representation show an audience. if you have an audience, they will do whatever it takes to get an audience. some of the organizations are realizing that. as a result, there are 11 people who are good at telling those kinds of stories and recommending opportunities and are part of the push towards being more representative of the kind of stories and people who should be more involved in the clinical conversation. i think that is every part of us. hillary: and more representative of the electorate that is now going to be making decisions. alicia: even as we stand here on an all-female panel, i'm hispanic, but we are still missing voices. as we get better, we still have to get better. working in a newsroom, you think diversity in terms of what you can see, but there are a lot of

conversations that happen behind the scenes that i think are really important about which issues are important to cover, how you tell certain stories. not just reporters, but opinion makers. whose opinion gets to be out there? what constitutes the news? inasmuch as i think whose name is in the byline in who gets to show up on screen, it's also about the production team that is making really court decisions. how many rounds did you and i go over whether or not we should ask a question about reparations during our platform because it seemed radical? there was a question of how much space. how and a hierarchy of issues do you place an issue that this not often get spoken about? the fact that you have a more diverse the people making those decisions is really just good business. hillary: can he also just talk about the focus groups you have worked on the season? i think that was also a big

effort to hear voices that you often do not get to hear in the space. alicia: we did a focus group in new hampshire and iowa about republicans. it was crazy because it was a week out and they told me who would be number one. we have done them with young latinos in vegas and all over. when you talk about the most diverse generation in american history, we want to payment as a monolith. it's like millennials are all this. it is like every other generation -- where you live, your ethnic group, your sister -- socioeconomic status your education really fine-tunes the issues that your interested in. ec political fluidity in this generation. i do a panel what never hillary democrats would never trump republicans.

i've young republicans were going to vote for hillary clinton. i've young democrats who will never vote for hillary clinton. this is so wild and yet predictable in the sense that this is a generation that has a skewed political party does not want to be identified with labels and has a very complex set of beliefs about policy and the direction america should be going in. it's not about which candidate is cool, which is sometimes the way the media reports on it. but living in the reality of student debt intertwined about homeownership, marriage, employment come a entitlement, security. so i mean, this -- what happens to this generation is going to happen to america. and the sooner we can come to terms with that, the sooner we can begin building policy and politics that really supports that generation. hillary: what are you hearing when you're out talking to people?

what do people want to talk about the most? >> i think they want to talk about issues. just like everybody else. i think they are sick of what they are hearing on television. i go on cable news all the time. and i talk about my opinion. and i am sorry you have to listen to be talk about it for that long. but unfortunately, that is what drives, still, a lot of mainstream coverage. and i think the fact that we have so many more women now working in media and being reporters, i mean, i think nbc has an all-female campaign trail, they call them gladiators, i believe. [laughter] liz: and i think it is amazing. i think that really changes the narrative. i mean, i went to my first trump press conference a couple of weeks ago. and he just one by primaries.

ted cruz had dropped out. all of these people were asking questions about that. right? what do you think about vp, about ted cruz. we have to think about him saying hillary clinton was using the woman card. he went on fox news and said that. and nobody was covering that. minute, we wait a need to talk about that. i got to ask him that question and his response was very intense. like, i was actually speechless by the pure amount of vitriol against her. saying she has it easier because she is a woman. anyway, that led to a few weeks of that dominating the news cycle and being the conversation, and us talking about the fact the way donald trump talks about women. so, yeah, it absolutely changes the way we tell stories. it is important to remind -- women are not this niche part of the population.

we are a majority of the population, we are a majority of the electorate. we cast the most votes. you know, news stories like can we have an all-female ticket around hillary clinton perhaps thinking elizabeth warren as her vp, it is just a weird news story. it is just weird. most voters are female. most women do not have a problem with women in leadership positions, because a lot of us are in leadership positions. so, i think, that is a part of social media. and i think the revolution. >> to what you guys just said, i should've said this earlier, from covering these past three elections, it is so simple, but who has the power to say this is the story, this is not a story, has radically shifted. therefore the stories we are telling has radically shifted. maybe not everyone has caught up because they're not consuming

them the way we are making them. but that is the big issue to me. it sounds so simple but it is so simply and powerful when you are told by a male editor or some body with a different perspective than you do that that is not a news story. do you let it die or fight for it? liz: and people on twitter or facebook, if something is trending on facebook or twitter, mainstream cable news have to cover it. speaking of filibusters, just a couple of days ago, but the wendy davis filibuster, she did this 12 hour filibuster about this abortion bill being passed in texas. and again, i believe cable news was talking about blueberry muffins. talk on cnn about the calorie count. meanwhile, all of twitter was watching this filibuster on c-span, whatever lifestream was available. and the next day, wendy davis, who was before than nobody in terms of mainstream coverage,

became this -- it was the front page of every newspaper. social media has a lot of power. >> the white house is having a correspondents dinner, and i cannot find it on tv. on the social media front, we only have a couple of minutes left. but i was curious, we -- obviously it has been a change how the campaigns are using social, too. sort of watching, i mean, we know how donald trump is using it. it is like his statements are coming up on twitter constantly. but we also had this great moment last week with hillary clinton responding to donald trump with her now-infamous "delete your account" tweet. i guess i'm curious from you guys, like, what have been the

moments in the cycle that felt like these epic social moments coming from the campaign. it really feels to me like they have empowered some people on their staff, at least on hillary's staff, i feel like trump is doing -- it feels like he is actually doing it. but seeing the campaigns try to , sort of catch up with the vernacular on these platforms, like do you think it is going well? we have also seen some pretty bad moments, too. what was the worst moment for this campaign on social? >> i think it was hillary. it was actually a snap -- remember chilling with chillary? does anyone know what i'm talking about? it was worse than snapchat. she looks like what my mom would look like if you try to use snapchat for the first time. you know, i love my mother. but she is definitely not familiar with the platform. [laughter] liz: so she was just so bad. i think she also had the best moment when she told trump to

delete his account, which is an inside joke on twitter. when someone says something a us but not that arendt this -- horrendous but not that horrendous, people say delete your account. and one note is to say that social media is the only department in the media where there are more women than men, right now, and it is the fastest-growing, you know, portion of media. i don't know who is on hillary's social media or trump's, but the fact that it is female dominated on staff is significant. hillary: there is a lot of funky stuff going on. i don't know how many of you follow the candidates on facebook, but the number of times i will see -- i will name hillary clinton or ted cruz -- calling them amazing. and then the link is to tedcruz.com. and it really is a way of feeding supporters, but i do think that as voters and

as consumers, we do need to keep a more skeptical eye on the source we are getting our information from. since a lot of it is now self-generated by the campaign. >> we have like, two minutes left. oh, there are questions. cool, we will take them. >> i am puerto rican and i just founded the diversity matters field. it is a political website. i'm so glad to have female moderators on stage. i am going to philadelphia, too. so, i like to talk to you after the event. but my first question is, when you get started, because i just got started, what was the most difficult obstacle to really get your voice across in a meaningful way? >> for me? to repeat you want me

the question? >> i think you need to be miced. >> ok, my question is when you started, when you started your careers, what was the biggest , in a meaningful way to a political voice that was worthy and meaningful. ? >> my first campaign was in 2004. i just got hired as a 24-year-old to work in the "washington post." i got to go to a lot of the debates in the room, so i had access. sounds like you are going to philadelphia, which is wonderful, because being there is a lot of it. for me, i remember feeling really intimidated and -- i'm not quite shy, but i remember, oh, i need to improve my job. and i did through hard work and all that stuff. but that is actually when i got into podcasting, creating multimedia, working on continuous news coverage. i gravitated towards the stuff

that personally, people were not necessarily doing, because they all wanted to be in the print edition of the newspaper on a1. i thought to myself, this is a crowded field. everyone in this entire "washington post" building that has existed beyond my lifetime is trying to do that. i will ask questions about this over here, whether it is video, podcasts, reddit. my particular experience is that -- is to zig when other people are zagging, because you can find some space for you to do experimentation and innovation, especially in the campaign space, you know, those moments are rare. look for them and seize them, i guess. >> i have to agree. and --ed biggest problem problem and ist still am i biggest problem. i think that especially with political coverage, like covering the election, i looked at what other people were doing. i was trying to be as good as

other people, so i started thinking about what different thing i could offer or bring to the table. and maybe the way we had been doing it, reporting politics on this time, it could be improved by difference of perspective. so following that i think is important. hillary: oh, i'm sorry. we are all done. i am getting the signal. [laughter] hillary: thank you so much your time. [applause] hillary: thank you, panelists. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. last week, england devoted to leave the european union. an economic reporter for the wall street journal will discuss how the brexit vote will impact

u.s. and global financial markets and the political reaction from washington and presidential candidates. then the cofounder of free delegates 2016 cuccinelli grassroots efforts to allow delegates at gop conventions to allow -- to vote for any candidate want. uber economy are screwing american workers. the effect it is having on american cities and his workforce. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" starting live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. you realize, this is something i would not only love to do, but something i think would be really different from the kinds of books that have been written about macarthur the rethink anday to reevaluate who this person was, what is real significance was. what is virtues really were that

made him one of the most adored and edge related figures in american history, but what were flaws and what were the things that made him unpleasant and even hated by millions of people? q&a,ncer: sunday night on we take a look at the life and career of douglas was arthur. -- -- douglas macarthur. >> he saw the future more clearly than he saw the present. weather was america's role in the, the rise of china, split between china and the soviet union, which he foresaw. but also the fate of domestic american politics. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: now, a look at coverage of the presidency and

politics in the digital age. this discussion includes journalists, editors, and a spokesman from hillary clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. from the george w. bush presidential center in dallas, this is an hour. [applause] michael: thank you, kevin. and welcome, everybody. it is a privilege to be here representing the "dallas morning news," and to introduce our first panel. and i'll introduce folks as they come on to the stage. the founding executive editor of georgetown university's institute of politics and public service. the former communications director of the democratic national committee, he is a veteran of four presidential campaigns, including serving as senior spokesman in 2008 for hillary clinton. olivier knox is the chief washington correspondent for

yahoo! news, where he has covered the white house, politics, and foreign policy since 2012. before that, he was on the front press for 15 years. as senior advisor for external affairs, kevin sullivan leads communication and marketing across all areas of the bush center. he was appointed by president george w. bush as assistant to the president for communications in 2006. and oversaw message development and communications planning. since 2002, kathleen carroll has been the executive director and the senior vice president of the associated press, the world's largest independent news agency. ap journalists have won numerous awards during her tenure, including this year's put surprise -- this year's pulitzer prize for public service, and polk award. she is a texas native. and we like to point that out when we are here.

our moderator for the discussion is marty baron, he is executive editor of the "washington post" since 2013. marty has been part of 10 pulitzer prizes during his time at the post, the "boston globe," the "new york times," the "l.a. times," and the "miami herald." but he may be best known for his uncanny impersonation of the actor leiv schreiber. hope you enjoy the panel. [laughter] [applause] marty: thank you, michael. i will try to continue with that impersonation. and thank you all for coming, thank you to the panel for participating. so, the title of this panel is "the presidency: coverage in the digital age." so, what i want to do is start with a question about what really is fundamentally different about covering the president in the digital age? so why do we not -- why don't we start with that. so maybe olivier, kick it off. olivier: when i was covering the white house in december of 2000,

everything was on paper. we would get statements on paper. we would get announcements on paper. it was -- the wire services had to move quickly -- but everybody else had a more leisurely pace. then over time as the white house embraced the digital age and e-mail, and especially under this president, embraced social media, announcements have come from a variety -- via a variety of sources. everybody is a wire service reporter now. we are all constantly on deadline. so i think that is one of the biggest changes for the last 15 years or so. marty: do you change qualitatively the kind of work we are doing? olivier: a little bit. one of the changes is that we are now trying to reach audiences that are consuming the information from a variety of sources and a variety of platforms. we are all competing for these guys, in a way that we were not when i started the job.

now, for wire services, this has not changed all that much because we were constantly on deadline. but one thing we have learned in the digital age is that people's expectations of news products are different. in an old school video, you could build suspense and introduce characters and the rest of it. but now with the digital age, if the headline of your video is bear falls out of tree on the trampoline, you need to show that bear following out of a tree onto the trampoline within the first 15 seconds, or people tune it out. that has made a difference in how we package the news. everyone is looking for the magic, the magic wand that would turn everything, every file, every story into gold. we have experimented with shorter and longer stories, more graphics and fewer graphics, but i don't know if we settled yet on a way of a solution, a formula for making this work.

marty: kathleen, if news organizations are becoming more like wire services, has nothing changed for the wire services themselves? kathleen: they have change for us, too. in the way he described, but everything is faster, particularly more for presidential campaigns but white house announcements, the need to get balance and context and some other way to think about the story out, at the same time you are reporting on what is happening, is greater than ever. and that really taxes an organization, unless you make it a group effort. you just do not stick the white house on the assignment by themselves. they need back up, so the story -- the expectation is a story will be more complete within a few minutes of the event occurring, instead of having hours to do it, even a couple of hours for the ap. but i think the biggest change is the one we have all talked about a lot, and that this white

house covers itself. marty: what do you mean? kathleen: we have a competitor in the white house. they use social media quite effectively to use pictures shot by the official photographer, talk about things they're doing, completely skip over the press, which sounds whiny and i don't mean for it to -- marty: why is it not whiny? maybe it is, whiny, i don't know. why should we be concerned? kathleen: more and more, this particular president withdraws the acts of his presidency behind closed doors. i do not think any of us are whining about we are not in the residence watching him put his socks on in the morning, but we do want to watch them sign bills, asking questions on behalf of the public, right? you do not get to ask them questions. we're in a privileged position. instead we get is a very shiny, polished, adept view of an administration that is filtered

only by the people whose job it is to promote that administration. and i think it is dangerous for the republic. marty: mo and sully, you have seen this from the other end. does that sound like whining? does that concern you at all? or is that just what a president does and what a president should do? >> i would say empowerment is the biggest change, whether it be our teenage kids, can be like an international journalist because of the power of what is in your hand in your smartphone. in terms of -- when you work with communications to the white house your job is to get the message out in the most persuasive and memorable way you can to extend the reach as far as you can. now, our attitude with the team at the white house working for president bush was, it was sort of like going to the restaurant and you order from each column. there would be an event, maybe a speech, a meeting with local or

business leaders or community leaders. we would always ask the president to allow one reporter to sit in the meeting. it was the energy at the "wall street journal" with john, writing about energy during that cycle, let us allow john to sit in. even though we did not have twitter yet, we had a major web operation, even then. you can get the right audience. you do not get the whole picture if you only did it yourself. and i think that is still today, even as technology has advanced, it is a speech, maybe an interview, maybe it is a sit down, a quick thing, letting the reporter sit in the room. it is certainly letting the photographers in. we saw one of people when the white house was issuing so many of its own images and keeping reporters out. it is all of the above. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. you can use the empowerment you have as the institution, but also work with the news media. we are the only country where the media that covers the president is right down the hall. and you have to have --

president bush left and called a symbiotic relationship. there is a little bit of a transaction. he said i needed you, you needed me. that is important today, even in the face of all of this great new technology that empowers all of us to put out our own content. >> i think technology is has fundamentally changed. i want to take a step back and remember what this is all about. the relationship and the role of the press in a democracy is so important, it was cemented in the first amendment to the united states constitution. that is important. in the very first amendment to the u.s. constitution. having said that, there is no more sacred relationship in our democracy than between elected official and voter. that is what it is really about. for generations, you all were

the conduit. you were the ones that connected that. you are not needed as much in that relationship these days. and i'm not saying you are not needed, right? but i'm saying is because of technology, both sides of that relationship can actually circumvent you, to some extent. so when you see a white house or political campaign on either side of the aisle do that sort of thing, i think right now we are still trying to experiment and try to figure out what is the appropriate use? i do not think cutting the press out is appropriate. but there is a way to directly engage, directly take a message -- i understand why people pursue that. now, having said that, i will also say that there are challenges on the other side of this equation. the reporter who said, as a few that i have heard say, the notion you have to go to the white house to actually cover the white house is no longer true. and necessary. that bothers me, a little bit.

the notion that because of the internet and because people's views are so -- the digital age is actually making us less connected, and it is creating a whole new perspective, a whole new reality for so many people. because anybody is a journalist, anyone with an opinion and set up their own corner, and we are gravitating to people who have like minds. so, there are now conservative media outlets where voters can go, there are now progressive digital media outlets that do the same. what is happening in the middle, the true objective truth seekers, are struggling, because people are kind of retreating to their corners in this digital universe. and, you know, what do you do? how do you actually discern what is true, real, what is not?

kathleen: can i just say one thing? i take your point on all of this. but the thing that is missing in this discuss it of messaging, is a one-way communication. the president of the u.s., whatever party, is answerable to the public who elected him, or whom he or she serves. what is missing is the opportunity for anybody to ask a question. journalists have the opportunity to ask questions. the message is not being replaced by town halls or forums, where anybody can ask a question. it is a very select friendly audience, the questions are screened in advance, and it's still part of the one-way communication. i think it is not good for any administration to not be questioned by people -- and not just by people who are shopping -- are shouting on the internet, but to be able to answer questions. that is a door that is slamming. mo: i don't know if i would agree it is slamming. i think people are trying to figure out the equilibrium, right? i don't think the white house --

i hear the criticisms of this particular right house -- white house, and it is shutting the press out, but it is not entirely shut out. the president still does media interviews. he still does news conferences with his new staff, daily briefing. and i think you are right, i do not think it is ok to exclude the press. but what is the right equilibrium in this digital age? i do not know anyone who has figured it out. >> when you say trying out other tools, it sounds very antiseptic. but what we're talking about is a white house that excludes news photographers from a newsworthy event, excludes the media from an event, and then releases its own propaganda. the job of the photographer, whose material is being released, is to make the president look good. i'm not a particularly paranoid person, but i cannot vouch for the accuracy of the photo, in that i don't know if it was closed, i do not know if the postelection handshake between

romney and obama, i don't know how many times it did to get right. [laughter] >> what is fascinating about that particular photo, the white house editorialized it in the caption. it was something like, neither man wanted to be there, but they felt they need to be. it was amazing moment in the captions. when i pointed this out in one of my pieces, they went back and deleted that. so they had this incredible control over the images and words. and no one is saying they cannot use twitter or facebook or reddit or whatever. our objection is chiefly -- we have many, obviously -- but it is bad that they exclude us. they say it was a private meeting. and then there are 10 minutes shot by the white house videographer that goes on. what is really annoying is that the first draft of history is increasingly not a skeptical reporter, you know, kicking the tires looking under the hood.

it is a press release, essentially, whether it is video or photo, and that really bothers us. marty: the state department had a question excised, the video released by the state department. and it ultimately was pointed out that this question was somehow missing from the video. and they acknowledged that someone had deliberately, we do not know who, had deliberately removed that person of the video and now they had to put it back in again. >> people have a sense, they know the difference, consumers of news know the difference between something that they can though the numbers of the media popularity has declined, you are still above congress. marty: hanging on, barely. [laughter] >> i don't like being compared to congress. [laughter] >> pew was out last week with a report that said 62% of u.s. adults get news from social media. and we are to -- we are

predominantly talking about facebook, while "adweek" a couple of weeks ago at a fascinating story that if facebook were a tv show, and would have been 27th in that week's nielsen viewership numbers. youtube i think was 49th. instagram was 156th or something. this is what i mean by all of the above. you have got to reach people. you have to hit them in multiple places. but as much as people -- 80% of people using facebook, i think the number was 12% have high confidence in the news. we know they like things that i sent from one of their friends. sent from one of their friends. but they do not have confidence in the material that is there, are you really getting to breaking through with a message for your client or the president or whoever? that is why i kind of like the all of the above approach. marty: mo, you are talking about the mainstream media not be needed. but yeah, i mean, we have for

political candidates, the presidency but people who aspire to be president, who are appealing to their own media outlets, media outlets there -- that very much favor them. donald trump, obviously breitbart.com. bernie sanders, young turks. they say, the media is giving your reality. the conservatives will say they are promoting a liberal agenda in many instances. the people on the far left will say they are putting a corporate agenda. we are actually getting the real reality from these outlets, and the media is actually part of the conspiracy. >> if you look at a media outlets like fox news, right, whose slogan is fair and balanced. if you talk to the average viewer, they are saying no, we