this was a pretty personality driven campaign, without question. we tried to move to the issues and try to just not just in the debates, but general news coverage as well, talk about the issues. >> i agree with that completely about the debates. in terms of news coverage, we do talk about the issues. i will say, and this is nothing true ass has been long as i have been in journalism. the horse race is always fascinating. it is especially enlightening, but you can't ignore it. if a candidate is either soaring or sputtering, that is part of the story too. we do try our best to get to the issues, particularly in the debate. they answer and sometimes they don't. to a limited degree we have the power. when i was asking hillary clinton about pay to play as an issue. but to a certain extent, they

will do what they want to do. >> to the right, please. >> hello, i entered into the united states back when it used to be legal in 1980. my understanding of journalism is embedded in me by movies like all the president's men, which is why i appreciate being here tonight, and appreciate being in the presence of two great journalists. the presence of two great my question is to you chris, and to you martha. we all have regrets as humans, as 50% of our country does today. if you could rewind a tape and go back to the last debate, what question would you have asked the candidate that you wish you had asked? >> climate change. [laughter] [applause] poverty.

homelessness. >> here's where i would disagree with you on this. i thought about it and was getting a lot of -- you get a lot of emails of people suggesting questions. it is not just writing to you, they are also writing to us. i thought that were a lot of big issues that had been discussed but i wanted to ask. i did think about climate change. there are some subjects, and i know a lot of you aren't going to like when going to say. the issue isn't important, but i'm not sure climate change is the best 15 minute debate topic. i think it gets technical fast, or gets general fast. as opposed to things that but will you do about entitlements? where are you on deportation or sanctuary cities? are clear and obvious

topics. i think climate change can be a little like grasping at clouds. i thought about it a lot as a topic. it is not easy 15 minute topic. >> that goes back to what the challenge is to you. take are out how you difficult subject like that and "draw something" out of the candidate that gives us a sense of what will happen if they get elected. in retrospect, i'm not sure that we drew out of either secretary clinton or mr. trump enough information about what would you really do if you're going to be in office. i fully appreciate getting that substantive is hard to do. we are now in the post campaign, post-election time. now we have to deal with the reality that one of those elected is governing. we are shocked every day that we are surprised by all the stuff

that is being suggested. maybe if we had used the debates to elicit more of that, that would be more helpful to us where we are right now. >> next question. >> i am from south florida. i am a journalist and student. chris, you said a journalist's role is to follow public opinion. journalism is kind of responsible for being the agenda setters. how do you differentiate following the public opinion and leading the public opinion and having to consider your viewership and getting views and how leaving donald trumps mike trump's mic onld

to get more views. how do you balance leading public opinion and following public opinion? mike: i just want to make it clear to anybody that has any doubts, i was saying that was a bad thing we did. i was speaking also to the issue that some people say we were favoring donald trump or building him up. i think it was just because if you put him on tv, people like him. we are not supposed to shape public opinion one way or the other. we are supposed to report the news and let people decide for themselves what they think. we're not there to shape or to follow anything on public opinion. we're there to report the news. people can make up their own minds. >> over here please. >> i'm a reporter. with cq role call. this is for the panel, including

you marvin. it is not the relevancy of the presidential debates. i'm saying that as someone who really wants them to be relevant. we had 100 million people tuning into the first presidential debate. myself and many of the other people in their analysis of debate thought that clinton overall won the debates and came off as more presidential, had more control of herself and policy and temperament. donald trump won the electoral college -- >> what is your question? >> given that you have 100 million people watching and one candidate was seen as doing stronger in the debate, what does that mean that the candidate who is seen as being the weaker debater won the election? what does that mean for the debates ability to influence voters, or are we in a washington bubble as journalists who were watching the debates

and saying this person is better and have fundamentally different takeaways? >> you are in a bubble. there are three bubbles in this country, and they are echoed chambers. one starts on the east coast in boston and comes down to hartford and goes to new york, down through wilmington, philadelphia, baltimore into washington. it's the new york times washington post bubble. then you go to seattle and go down through portland and san francisco and l.a., that is the l.a. times and san francisco chronicle double. they have a small bubble around the great lakes. if you look at the mass with a red is in the blue is coming will see that is what happened. that bubble around the great lakes broke this time. he broke that blue bubble. your determination as to who won the debate depends on what you are looking for.

people are not necessarily looking for the smartest candidate. he was talking to someone totally different than you. and they voted for him. >> on average, 10% of the american people have a postgraduate degree of some sort. hillary clinton won all 18 states in where people have above that 10% average. she only won three of those below 10%. is thek's argument smart people voted for clinton. [laughter] >> the smart people aren't always right. >> next question? >> i live in maryland. i hope this doesn't degenerate into a technical global warming question. i do have a question about what was alluded to. that is the 15% exclusion

criteria. this is not a nonpartisan group. this is a bipartisan group. >> not so. it is nonpartisan. >> you are both democrats or republicans. >> not everyone on the commission is. >> it has always been headed by the former heads or prominent officials of either the democrat or republican party. democratunded by both and republican leaders. >> what is the question? >> my question is a specific one. your criteria is 15% in the major polls. when some people came forward and said let's have another criteria, for example 50% of the american people wanted somebody else to be on, then they should be included as well. the then head of the commission said that is a ridiculous criteria. the only question that matters

is who you want to be president. there is a problem here. the problem is that no poll asks the american public who they want to see. no poll is asking the american public who they want to be president. >> ask your question. >> every poll asks who would you vote for? that's a different question. by your't you abiding own criteria? >> we are. we have been sued in every election cycle of the 2008 with the question of what the criteria isn't whether or not we are following the standard that the commission was set up with. i must be candid with you -- we constantly look at the criteria between every single series of debates to determine. there are some of the commission who think it should be higher,

some think it should be lower. others think that everybody who is on the ballots and could conceivably get 270 electoral votes could be concluded that included wherein we decided to go with the league of women voters, who had the 50% rule -- 15% rule. john anderson was invited to participate. the question of what the criteria should be, we get input every four years, we look hard, we did at this time, and decided the 15% rule established by the league of women voters with.e we should stick add, in every election would we had two major party candidates that were not regarded favorably by the majority of americans were there was an opportunity for a third-party independent candidate to actually inspire people and get support for 50%, this was the election -- 15%,

this was that election. the problem is neither gary johnson or dr. jill stein could do that. so the problem was not our problem, it was their problem. name is john. news station.with you spoke about what great campaign reporting was done, and i agree with you. however, it was found that the majority of stories that were shared came from these more alternative sources of news that turned to be fake news. from these fringe sites. i'm curious to see your thoughts on what you think led to this growth of acceptance that people have had in these kinds of stories. we saw what it turned out as one

of the pizzerias in d.c. i'm curious what your thoughts are. >> junk sells, and it always has. i'm sure there are times where circulation for the national enquirer was greater than the new york times. it is challenging for the democracy, but it does not change our job as journalists, which is to do the best reporting and most honest reporting we can. there's going to be more noise out there. the world is changing. people were saying to me whether or not we should be reporting donald trump's tweets. my reaction is if it is newsworthy, absolutely. i talked about in 1980 when i was covering reagan and he would go to the helicopter. people would shout a question and he would give a quick answer.

>> or no answer. know, but some of the time he was giving an answer and it was off-the-cuff, but it was interesting, it was news, and the reported. >> he might be tweeting all the time, you never know. to bebill clinton used looking at social media coming back from his morning jog and we stopped him from that. [laughter] >> there is just more social media. it is spreading and spreading and nothing is stopping it. people need to sit back and figure out that this is fake news, a lot of it out there. i don't know how they do that, but -- >> i think we have run out of time. i want to thank you guys for much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: often when you look project, you look after it to see if you achieved your objectives and that what cost. so what wanted to see through this last half-century of military interventions, partisan politics aside, morality aside, what happens after the party is over? what are the after effects of war and what are the cumulative costs on both sides?

--brian gruber just discusses his latest book. it chronicles his tribal experiences through countries affected by u.s.-involved conflicts. >> of course we all come with some form of bias, but i went with an open mind trying not so much to understand what a partisan point of view might be or be validated, but to look at what the mission accomplished and what were the costs on both ends. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span "q&a." announcer: coming up, data manipulation by the u.s. geological survey. testifying before the house natural resources committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

ther, lawmakers discuss influence of iran on terrorist groups in the middle east. 2:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. the transition of government on c-span is president-elect donald trump selectors cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress. we will take you to events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, watch on-demand at c-span.org or listen for free on our c-span radio app. c-span,today on washington journal is next. at 10:00 a.m., the house returns for general speeches. at noon, the benefits improvement act and the childhood cancer treatment act. representative walter jones of

north carolina and ted lieu of california on bipartisan efforts to rein in super pac's. clint news -- clint watts on the campaign of 2016 in fake news. host: house and senate are back in. expected to pass the 21st century cures act which would give the fda the ability to expedite. also the moonshot effort as it effort to cure cancer. hisld trump said announcement of ben carson as secretary of health and human services allows us to --