mentioned by the president himself. he has great hopes for it. he believes it will create jobs. what do you know as a practical matter about wind today? >> first of all, i think the president's goal is achievable. doubling u.s. wind generation in the next few years, and that can be met. but there are certain obstacles. most relate to the transition system. most have to do with the grid, the inability to take increased wind output and delivered to market. this is actually not going to be a very good year for wind expansion compared to last year. last year was robust. this year would add half or less

wind. a the regulatory issues with respect to the grant are, one, how we site transition and how we allocate the costs. the siting traces back to 1935 and reflects the assumption that all bets as a delivery is local -- all electricity delivery is local. there was no interstate grid. at the time the law provided state and local governments will site the network. now we are fully into man -- interconnected with canada and local siting will no longer work. a particular problem with wins, because the best potential is the upper midwest, the saudi arabia of wins. the market is not north dakota, it is not minnesota, but it is the broader midwest and even broader northeastern connection. we need to strengthen the grant,

because that potential -- >> part of the buzz around us is about smart grids. it is sort of a gold rush for small companies. that is what i deduce talking to people round here. are we going to end up with too many competing smart ideas, and will thus martin is make any difference? -- will but -- will be smartness make a difference? >> we are looking at possible explosion of the technology and introduction across the board. it is insisting but also complicated. technology development and deployment in the electricity business has been focused really on the generation side, not so much the distribution side or the retail side. and the entry of these technologies, it does promise the u.s. can deliver more

reliable power at lower cost but it does promise environmental benefits from pushing down demand for electricity, and it should promote greater reliability because bus grid will sense disturbances faster and react faster. >> i have had a lifelong love of old-fashioned windmills. i thought they were beautiful things. my father installed a very many of them. and they were great to fill in the cattle trough, you put water up to a tank and you had water pressure. no use of electricity or any other energy source. but they were quite benign. they looked nice, the very few of them. the new ones, and let generating ones, in long rows look like a martian army has landed. there is nothing aesthetically appealing. how are you doing with ameliorating those things? >> i like the way the modern

winter and looks. i think it is a sign of progress. especially if you consider what the wind is displacing. perhaps if you drive by a wind farm and then you drive by a very old coal plants, maybe -- >> i am quite with you. i love the idea that c it that coal -- i like the idea that it is not coal, does nothing bad to the air, but how many of these machines will be needed to make a real dent and is there another option? what about nuclear? >> i think nuclear has got to be part of the solution. that is one interesting aspect about climate change and carbon policy, recognition that carbon policy as energy policy. it is not nearly environmental. both energy and environmental. because a lot of issues goes to what should the future of the united states become of the fuel mix, and the cost. those are energy policy

considerations. but to really achieve the aggressive reductions along the line the president laid out and congressional leaders are pursuing, the mackenzie -- mackenzie study was very persuasive. is now going on to greater things. brian, you're the future, right? "u.s. news & world report" was a weekly magazine. it was owned by a very interesting man that give it to the staff. his very conservative in the big world and a liberal in the small world. tell us, how was your internet adventure going? explain it a little bit. >> it is a complicated business. we're doing a lot of things but we still have a print magazine on a weekly basis. we have a web site which is quite large now. we have many more readers in the

website than we ever did for the magazine. we also have a digital legal product. in fact, we've gone back to the future and have taken the news magazine concept. we purpose it on a digital platform. so we're publishing something that looks like a magazine. it is like the old magazine and sums up the news of the week. it is published on friday. we finished editing at 11:00 and 30 a.m. friday morning, and it is e-mailed to readers at noon. the time when this is something we could have never done in the print world. the content is not all that different from what we used to do, except we're delivering it a half-hour later. >> of the old journalists, both have been radical and a journalist dick, are fair to the other side. have the headlines reflect this story and not be editorialized, and the types covered and

headlines were throughout strange shapes. much of that has gone out the window. how do you feel in this digital world? >> i think we have disagreement about how many people are reading newspapers. i've been more people than ever are reading newspapers, but they're not reading it in the version you had on the desk. they are reading it online. the content is generated by reporters and editors who are paid by newspaper or, in brian's case, "u.s. news & world report." the platform, as we say, is different. it is electronic. >> that is it worth it was not in our vocabulary 20 years. >> right, we serve multiple platforms, as we say. >> you say. those words have yet to come out of my mouth. >> the fiber version would be the news pulled up version you get on the desk a moment ago. the fiber version would be the

electronic version. we serve fiber readers and cyber readers. >> how do you get paid? thseveral things are happening. not only do we have no way of paying people out of these new ways, we're losing jobs, and the job is better there that were never roll paid to begin with now have terrible pay scales. so bright people -- i use to run a publishing company and we had been entered every year, just one. some of the brightest people i have ever seen, and they all wanted to be lawyers. but they told me they loved journalism, but we do not pay any money. if we do not get talent, that industry will be in trouble. >> you put your finger on it. we do not have a real problem. we have an advertiser problem or a business model problem. that is what is going on right

now. >> there is a larger problem for society. a the same time there is this argument over which platform, which medium we're going to use -- by the way, i tried to picture you're holding in ipod instead of the newspaper. i could not make that work. of course, you take that as a complement. in any case, i think the larger problem is we have gotten away from them the model of reporters covering everything. having people who cover police departments, bureaus, people station debris were strategically. because there has been a loss of revenue, that is where they have cut back. i think the audience, the readers, viewers are no longer a well-deserved. they do not know what they're talking about when it comes to special expertise. >> jeff, you have been successful as an internet publisher.

you came out in the world with the generation of the internet, not the generation of hop type. i loved that, by the way. i left the factory, the excitement, big things happening. thank you could smell the ink. >> the smell of being. the whole building rubble. you knew there would be in new paper the next day. how do you see all this? >> i read the "wall street journal" and "new york times" this morning on my ipod. they also go to my kindle. i enjoy reading the mayan prince as well. often, they have new platforms and electronic media as well. it is somehow hurting newspapers, but in fact, i think they're the savior of the traditional newspaper media brand. the challenge for newspaper companies, in my opinion, is to grow those other platforms

faster, fast enough to offset the losses that are happening on the print side. without those other platforms, these ships would be sinking very, very fast. >> the big metropolitan newspaper, "washington post,"you name it, has a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, a huge overtaking. they have overseas computer -- reporters. big expenses to reduce this thing in the factory. all of that that goes with it, we're not going to see hundreds of millions of dollars a year in a hurry off the net, are we? >> first of all, the cost structures completely different. you do not have a lot of those costs. just because there's not as much revenue does not mean there is not as much profit. eventually, marketing dollars,

which lets face it, marketing drivers -- dollars is the driver of most media. the widows are allocated will increasingly reflect the way audiences distributed across media. there is a big disconnect right now where we have 17% of all media comes on line. i do not know the percentage of advertising dollars that goes on line. there is a huge spread. both >> television and radio and print have always been rather pick seriously balanced on advertising dollars. >> that is also based on a very inefficient model. the theme is jon department store quote, i always have my advertising dollars, but i do not know which half. we have had at least the '50s and inefficiency, and the internet is designed to squeeze in efficiencies out. >> of course, newspapers got

bigger and became more graceful themselves, partly to keep competition that. the man who owns the "daily mail" in england, said how many people does it take to produce the "daily mail," and he said about a quarter. the publishers did not mind. this program can be heard every saturday on sirius/xm radio, and for the benefit of those listeners, and will reintroduce our panel. chuck lewis of hearst newspapers. brian kelly of "u.s. news & world report, kobold franklin, syndicated columnist, and jeff giesea, a newspaperman. he is from the new media and has actually made money on the web.

he is sold successful companies with fierce marketing and is looking for new opportunities. i shall see him afterwards with my proposal. [laughter] >> i would like to come back to something, the cost structure of the web. one reason that it is cheaper for google or yahoo! to of content is the they do not pay for content. they have links to another news organization that is paying a reporter and a photographer and an editor to sit through the trial or go through the court records are to cover the movie review or whatever, and then the link to a website is free. so there's a disconnect in terms of the people being paid to generate the content like some of us around the table, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the web sites better linking to us and there is not a financial relationship there. >> i would like to get to the

politics of this. here at "white house chronicle," when i mentioned politics, it would seem seemly that we're going to suffer. we do not have congressmen getting the scrutiny they used to. we do not have the local courts in getting the scrutiny they used to. and the state capitals, where there are often shenanigans, are not getting the press scrutiny. in maybe pompous about these, but these freedoms are disappearing, and that is not good. i was in the courts in virginia last year as a witness, and i walked from courtroom to courtroom to see if there were any reporters there. most of us have been in the business a while and of the court reported. not a reporter and the whole building. i started asking and found that they do not come any more.

they do not come anymore. which means judges, who we all know get up to the most bizarre things sometimes, witnesses, a collision with the poll is a process -- prosecution, nobody is sitting there to write it up and a to see that justice is done in the conduct of justice being done. >> i saw a survey that showed that the press corps in all 50 state capitals is greatly diminished in 2009 over just the last 10 years. there's some state capitals like one that had one reporter in it, that is to sit covering the governor, the legislature, and the courts in the capital. this is a huge loss in terms of the watchdog role of the news telling the public about what is going on. >> it is the business model. the problem was that people wanted that, maybe they needed it, but what was paying for

that? it was not i want to pay money to have somebody at the state capital. it was the sports section or the classified. newspaper have this marvelous pre-fixed menu. now it is all a car, and people will not pay for courthouse coverage, necessarily. >> you think about a lot of major stories that broke during the election. many came from the blogosphere and online media. much of the scrutiny of politics and other activities in our society have been from online venues. the second. i want to make is that it is easy to sit here and talk about the good old days in journalism or media, but the writing from the wall, things are moving -- >> it is not on the wall and not in the newspapers. >> to build and ship the future. >> we do not want to fight it, but i would point out that there -- you cannot cover three

wars in asia which is what is going on and on the blogosphere. you need seasoned, local, familiar reporters, and that is very, very expensive. and essentials. >> it is easy to discredit the good old days. are you worried about is the record for fact, context, institutional knowledge? is that what you mean when you did with the good old days? while the blogosphere might have accounted for some validated stores, most of the important news stories come from mns, mainstream media. then the blog picks it up and runs with it for free. one of the things i think we will have to deal with, and this will disrupt the business model, is the fact that the internet sites often times, in effect, is still the hard work of other news organizations. it is easy to say that is so old school except that people are disserved if they do not get the

information. >> you brought up google and google news and how it is free riding on the content of other newspapers and media outlets, and i can see that point of view. but the fact is that google gives each of those media outlets the choice to opt in or out of google news. and they have all made the choice to the most of them have made the choice to of debt into that. >> they have no choice. >> the disconnect is what brian was saying earlier. figuring out the right business model among the traditional media players and embracing the change rather than fighting it and demoting it. >> he's a lot of stories were broken out on the web. those stories may have appeared first on a web site, but they were generated by a member of the mainstream media. it just happened to appear publicly on a web site. >> but the web is mainstream in

this industry. >> i am talking about an aggregated that is not paying for the information that is leaking to a mainstream media constituent. you're paying a reporter to be on the campaign airplane and to cover the war in asia -- >> there are sources of the website already. they are linking the story. >> what is the value of the link? that is what is changing in such rapid time. the premises just 18 months ago is that coming from google was valuable to you because you could sell advertising. now the price of that advertising has been driven so low that it does not work anymore. the premise people were operating under a year ago are not the same now. it is so efficient that it drives the price. >> i can argue on your behalf. what "u.s. news & world report" has done, i think, reinforces what he is arguing. to say that we're using this new

platform -- i hate the word. the new medium to good the product out. bless you, by the way, because we have watched the abandonment of "news weekly" and they have gone in a new direction. but "u.s. news & world report" is now saying that the internet is a reality, and we're going to take our product. by departure is, companies like yours and things like "the huffington opposed" do not pay the money to staff the white house coverage and those types of things. you get to do it without having to wash the dishes financially. i do not think it is proper. it would not have been allowed on the old days because it would have been a concept of copyrighted material that has been amended in modern times. >> i will give the two juries -- two stories that show year-old media is still essential. first is the convention of d.

cunningham, largely from the work of the san diego newspaper bureau. in washington, the bureau is closed down. had it been closed down all along, he would still be in congress and nobody would know about the bravery. another one is an enormous story broken by the "washington post" about veterans. it is a giant storage, and huge public interest story. it did once in a lot of resources and lots of people. the other thing which is more difficult in the age of the blog is accessed. if you are the "washington post" didn't want to talk to the secretary of energy your secretary of defense in this case, you cannot. if you are the clearest liberal blog on the earth, you knock it to the telephone operator. there's a certain amount of leverage that goes with large print. it actually exceeds the leverage

of television in some ways. some people fear television and of the editing. but it will talk to reporters from newspapers. until you get a concentration of wealth and fame for particular blogs, and it is coming with the public would huffington post", but you might give that kind of reporting. in 10 years, we may have only skeletal newspapers compared to what we have today. they will have the resources to go or to the white house and write down what the man said, but will they have the resources to turn over the stones and a to go through the data and to hammered day after day after day until they get this story and the evil is revealed? >> i have never been at a conventional hearing in a turned to the person next to me and found that they represent

google. there has never been a reporter from yahoo! sitting next to me covering a hearing. but still, they may have some of the material on the website because they have aggregated it from some member of the mainstream media that did pay to have a reporter. >> there will not be newspaper is doing what you're talking about, absolutely not. very few organizations will be big enough to do that, but there will be some. bloomberg is a very interesting company. >> bloomberg is interesting because whenbecame from nowhere. >> but with the business model. he gets paid a high price of the stock brokers who buy that terminal, and there is descending value for the content. at the end of the day, the extra congressional story is almost free to the consumer. >> there is a vulnerability in that. they must have been hurt by the collapse on wall street.

>> let me share an anecdote. earlier on, the company had built and ran, we did some abrogation, i call a smart aggregation. >> inside is very admirable in media. >> we just call it writing off. >> thank you. >> let me tell you would write him off was. there is a story. you do not have it. you say this is happening. according to an article in the "new york times today," and then you are writing or rewriting it. >> a couple of articles released to reuters, and they said a -- they sent as a cease and desist letter. they did not want this link into their content. so we said fine, we will not do that. every media outlet has the choice to cut that off if they choose to. fast forward five years, and they called us up saying that we would like you to link to us.

will you link to was? there were lobbying us to link to them. i think the challenge for traditional media outlets is to make sure that their business models are catching up with the changing economic media. because they are changing rapidly. you can try to fight it all you want, but that will not make you any money. >> trade publishing have been much more successful at protecting, and i used to be a trade publisher for 33 years. i ran a publishing company that publishes business-to-business newsletters. and we see people that this step on the internet. it started off with the "new york times" which was stealing from us in the database. if you are a small operator, do not try to go to the "new york times" top lawyer. i went to my friend from the "washington post," and he had one of his reporters to a story which red, "why would the "new york times" have to steal from

lew king?" that is made. but it stopped immediately. i did not get any money, but it stopped immediately. we probably would not have one in those days. but nobody has sued the aggregate years because it cannot find them. many are of little fixed abode. " there is a tradition such as fair use which allows some of this stuff out there. but your message seems to be but whether you're getting abuse or not, get over it. >> it is. >> what i say is, you can do that, you can make it say it -- same argument for any number outrages in our society, but wouldn't it be better if we had some sort of model where you paid for your content? >> i think there are possibilities for that. i expect micro payments to increase. >> that is exactly what they said.

>> traditional media alice can sit around and talk about this stuff all you want. but what is going to happen is that new entrants will go create new media always that are pure play on line or multimedia platform and eat your lunch. >> we are running out of time. jeff, you're talking about this as a businessman. we're talking about it as the role of media in society. >> that is probably important. but my question is, if you destroy all traditional media, where you going to get the material? >> let me share another anecdote. >> a very quickly. this is traditional television. the clock is running out. next time, come back. we thank you for watching. so nice to have you with us. you can see this program and rely " -- read my column at whchronicle.com. and you can listen to this on xm radio/sirius.

we're glad to have you viewers and listeners. cheers. ♪ "white house chronicle" is produced in collaboration with whut howard university television. from washington, d.c., this has been "white house chronicle" -- a weekly analysis of the news with insight and a sense of humor, featuring llewellyn king, linda gasparello, and guests. this program may be seen on pbs stations and cable access channels. to see the program online, visit us at whitehousechronicle.com.