tv Reliable Sources CNN October 30, 2011 11:00am-12:00pm EDT
eston estonia. the imf estimates that we've grow by 6.5% in 2011, more than any other euro zone member. go to our web site for ten more questions. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. stay tuned for "reliable sources." there are so many presidential debates these days that it sometimes seems they are the campaign. and one candidate at least is pushing back. >> these debates are set up for nothing more than to terry down the candidates. >> it rick perry right? are these faceoffs more about the networks choreographing conflict, building their brands and chasing ratings? a hunan events -- human events reporter ambushes vice president biden at an event. >> let's get it straight. don't screw around with me. let's get it straight -- listen to me. >> what happens when you mix ideology with deception? and undercover activist james o'keefe has a new media
target. >> we discovered something else interesting about "huffington post" reporter sam stine. >> he accuses the reporter of getting his sources drunk. is this the new face of conservative journalism? plus, as facebook reveals more and more about us, is privacy passe? why is blogger jeff jarvis revealing so much about his personal life? we'll ask him. i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." every week it seems there's another one, and there are at least a dozen more to go -- televised drama featuring mit and rick and herman and newt and michele and the rest of the gang. but these primetime programs, are they really about chris wallace and anderson cooper and wolf blitzer and brian williams and charlie rose? >> it's time now to meet the 2012 republican presidential contenders. >> here's the format for our debate tonight. >> let's get to it and meet the
candidates. >> good evening, candidates. we're going to get right to it tonight. >> the next question is for you -- >> we debate this evening about spending and taxes. >> it's no secret that rick perry has had a tough time during the debates and his campaign has been hinting that he might just take a pass in the future. >> these debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates. it's hard to lay out your ideas and concepts with a one-minute response. if there was a mistake made, it's probably ever doing one of the campaigns when all they're interested in is stirring it up between the candidates. >> perry's camp said yesterday he will attend the next few debates at least. joining us to examine television's role in these debates and, i'm afraid, the press coping with the birther issue, here in washington, jennifer ruben, author of "the right turn" blog for the "washington post." roger simon, reporter for "politico."
and john aravosis, author of americablog.com. why are there so many debates? >> the debates are media driven. they're not driven by the candidates. the candidates do hate them not just because they're afraid of each other but because they take over the schedule. you have to go to where the debate is, even if you'd like to go california instead to raise money. you have to study. you can't afford to make any mistakes. what really benefit from the debates? the branding of the media on the backdrop behind them. we are pushing these debates. >> i would not quarrel that at all. the ratings pretty good this season. cnn got 5.5 million viewers for the most recent debate, fox got 6.5 million. in the sound bite, saying nothing more than to tear down the candidate. is he right? >> that comes from a candidate who's been torn down at the debates. >> he has the expertise on the subject. >> exactly. i wouldn't choose anybody else in that department. i think actually these have been some of the more interesting
debates that we've had in any recent election. i think they've been substantive. we've heard economic plans, we've heard about a little bit of foreign policy, we'll have a complete foreign policy debate coming up. we've talked about some social issues, talked a lot about the economy. i think they've been very beneficial. there's a relatively large field. most of these people were unknown to the vast majority of voters. that's how they got to know them. and this notion that in retail politicking that's how you get to know voters i think is a misnomer. you don't get to see that many people even in iowa shaking hands one by one. >> these debates are about selling conflict. when the debates are seemed successful by the rest of the press, it is when they're beating each other up. >> but the lincoln-douglass debate wasn't about the two agreeing. you've seen gingrich and a couple of the others saying, oh, you're here to make us argue. and rick perry as in the piece you showed, that's sort of the point of the debates. we always complain about voters that debates are never real. the candidates never go after each other. they never have to do
point-counterpoint. i think we've been seeing more in the debates recently. i agree with jennifer, i found it interesting. >> let me say if i could. one thing that perry said happens to be correct. since i get so few moments to say that about what perry says, it's ridiculous that the responses are limited to one minute and 30-second followups. i mean, you know, tell us your plans for the future of the middle east. you have one minute. >> yeah. >> that is totally media driven. it's a good tv show. >> good pace. >> it's snappy. >> i have the impression that candidates are doing fewer events and debates have become the campaign. am i right or wrong? >> well, someone did analysis saying that it is the same number of debates this cycle as last cycle. i don't know if that's true. we're certainly paying more attention to the debates. but they are not having the desired effect. they are not shortening the field. only one candidate has dropped out. >> i don't think that's the point of the debates. the point of the debates is to educate the voters. >> the point is to get ratings,
according to what i'm hearing at this table. let me move to interviews that perry has been doing. the texas governor had been staying off the interview circuit. it began last week with "parade" magazine. he was asked it president obama and the birth certificate, which i thought was an issue that was dead and buried. he says, i don't know, i don't have a definitive answer. trump thinks he's not -- wasn't born here. then it came much in a sitdown with cnbc. >> middle mitt after the president released his birth certificate said that issue is done and settled, i accept it. you chose to keep it alive in your interview with "parade" magazine over the weekend. why did you do that? >> it's a good issue to keep alive. i'm really not worried about the president's birth certificate. it's fun to poke at him and say, hey, how about -- let's see your grades and your birth certificate. >> it's fun apparently. has the press let perry off the hook for raising this birther nonsense again? >> you know, a little bit. but i think perry did take a
hit. legitimately. either he showed a little bit of a lack of discipline by going there, i think, or he actually maybe believed some stuff and is desperate to get attention. i think either way, i think perry did take even more of a hit now by giving a gad answer on the issue. >> i said on bloomberg that perry was badgered about the birther issue 20 times. he could have shut it down in the first question, right? >> absolutely. this was a bad time to do this. this was the week that he was rolling out his economic plan. a new team. this was supposed to be i turnaround. for three days the media talked about this issue. it also brought out of the woodwork someone like jeb bush who has been really silent and staying back from the race. i spoke to him during the week, and he was perturbed. this is not what the republican party should be talking about, he said. and he did take perry to task. >> there was a piece on you in roger simon's politico, saying you're rick perry's worst nightmare. said you've written 60 blog posts about him using words like
hostile, provincial, buffoon, know-it-all husband, i saw the other day. and that the perry camp can't persuade you to give their man a break. >> i think perry is his own worst enemy, as we've seen this week. the number they came up was 60. i write about 200 blog posts a month so that's a small chunk of things. >> what about the notion that you seem to have good relations with the romney camp, romney gave you an interview. and seems like you have nothing good to see about rick perry. >> well, i think the proof is in the pudding. what i was writing one or two months ago, the entire media is writing now. i think i was ahead of the curve a bit. he's at 7% in iowa. there are a lot of people who think he's not doing very well right now. >> can i say one thing about the birther issue? it's not a fun issue to poke somebody on. it is more than a little bit racist. it grew -- not everyone who believes it is a racist, but it grew out of the belief that a black man could not be legitimately elected to the president of the united states. now why would perry use that in
the primaries instead of saving it for the general when he's running against president obama? well, it's because being extreme perhaps and a little bit racist perhaps gives you good bonafides in a republican primary. shows him you're on the same side as they are. >> it's a dog whistle. >> absolutely. >> and that's why i wondered why it was just -- i thought it was kind of a one-day story, the fact that -- he stretched it out when he came back to it with harwood on cnbc. but perry has now been courting the conservative media. he did the o'reilly interview we showed you on fox. he was on "fox news sunday" this morning. chris wallace on that program said, where's mitt romney? he hasn't done a sunday show, said chris wallace, for a year and a half. i go guess he doesn't feel he has to. >> he's not done it for the reason perry hasn't done debates. he sees no upside in them. he thinks he's going to get
slammed on his -- >> what about the responsibility to deal with the media and share your views on the issues with the american, blah, blah -- >> sarah palin got away with it during the last campaign. we on the left -- >> she was running for vice president. >> one might argue that that's still a pretty important position -- >> it is? >> when the presidential candidate was 72 years old or however old he was. she got away with not doing a lot of press. and she got away with it. >> how about herman cain, who's done a million interviews and keeps digging himself into a hole, karl rove at fox has been hammering cain. and i wrote about this where, you know, he -- it wasn't clear what his position was on abortion. he said he was joking about an electrified board defense, then said he wasn't joking, on and on. his campaign says he's tired, they're going to slow the pace. the media criticism -- he seems impervious -- >> in national polls he's doing well. it's scaring romney and perry. >> i think for now he's the receptacle of the not-romney vote. i think it's more about the
reticence of the base to accept romney as the lead candidate, and it may not be anything he has to do. and the other candidates have already wiped themselves out. he's a relatively new face. he is a pleasant person, he's a good guy. they don't have a problem telling a pollster, you know, i like herman cain. >> i agree but with the issue of pressing him on taxes, foreign policy, maybe people don't think, particularly republican voters, that the media have much credibility either. >> well, i think you're right. and i agree. but i think there's a little bit more. it's hard to make fun of a candidate who accepts the role of a buffoon. who put out -- >> buffoon? >> who puts out a commercial with a guy smoking and blowing smoke at the camera, who puts out the yellow flowers commercial. afterwards -- >> you're saying he's been an entertainer? >> consciously. he used to do that for a living. used to be a promotional speaker, an inspirational speaker. that's what he's doing now. and it's hard to --
>> but he's entertaining, i would argue. look, i'm not going to vote for the guy. but he is doing better in the polls. i have to admit the first time i saw him, i thought this guy's more interesting than i thought. i thought he'd be a nut -- >> if you said you were going vote, that would have made news. we'll break here. president obama hits jay leno's couch and challenges him about an article on libya in "the new yorker." a look at the leak in a moment. . and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor, they had prepared for even the unthinkable. and they danced. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. [husband:] getting cold out here. [wife:] in here too. we need more affordable energy in this country. we need to protect the environment.
what about the economy? what about our planet? [announcer:] at conocophillips, we're helping power america's economy with cleaner, affordable natural gas. more jobs. less emissions. a good answer for everyone. so with affordable energy that we can get to safely... we could afford to eat out more often. our daughter likes my cooking. don't you lori... lori?
president obama was on jay leno this week, and the talk turned to a famous phrase that popped up on "the new yorker" during the intervention in libya. >> you took some heat for the whole leading from behinds tactic with libya. explain that. >> the truth was this was a phrase that the media picked up on. but it's not one that i ever used. >> no one said he said. "the new yorker's" writer adistributed the words to an unnamed adviser. tommy veeter told "usa today" that no one in the white house uttered the phrase that adviser
could be one of hundreds of people, maybe someone at a party. he responded on twitter that his source was in fact a white house official. jennifer rubin, does the white house have a legitimate beef with that loaded phrase being attributed to an unnamed aide? >> i don't think so. i think this is a legitimate credit sis of the administration, that they had this idea they that they would rely more on multilateral institutions, that they didn't want the united states "isolated" in the u.n. security council. they wanted -- >> whether leading from behind is true, a fair characterization, should journalists be quoting unnamed aides as saying this is what we should be doing? >> any journalist wants somebody on the record, the best is someone in the background. it's always best to attribute sources. if it was used as it was in the piece, to describe -- the identity of the source was not as person as the description going on in the piece, a substantial piece, really detailed this phenomenon. i didn't have a problem with it. >> you interviewed the white house chief of staff, bill daly.
he was contrasting himself with his predecessor, rahm emanuel. he said, i'm not going to be the leaker in chief. then he also said, "i'm all for leaking when it's organized." >> that's what white houses do, that's why they have giant communications staffs. when you have a phrase like ryan lizzie used, that important, the piece becomes about the credibility of the reporter right writing it. fortunately, he has impeccable credentials. he's -- i believed it because he wrote it. if it had been some other name on it, i don't know. >> what did you take away from that sit down with daly about his view of the media -- i understand you have more. >> it will be in tuesday in "politico." what's interesting to me is that the democratic progressive white house views the press as a filler it must -- filter it must get around or penetrate exactly the same way conservatives white houses have felt. the press is still not so much the enemy but a burden.
a barrier to get their message around so they can get to the people directly. >> i wrote a book on the clinton white house being obsessed with dealing with and communicating through the media filter. >> even during the campaign, we saw that a lot. remember, this white house or campaign was going to youtube to do all of their statement. and they're just trying to get around the media completely. i think that's not unheard of and not shocking. it's just the way it is. >> i've got a lightning round here. "the new york times" wrote that the following about the 20 2 campaign, we can put it up for three months, the press will engage in an extended mask raid designed to persuade readers and viewers that the republican presidential namz is actually up for grabs because barring an unprecedented suspension in the laws of american politics, mitts mitt has this thing wrapped up. is this right? is the press engaged in some giant pretense as a competitive race? >> i think there is a desire to have a horse race. and on one of the worst weeks of the campaign for the perry people. journalists were writing
columns, comeback time. wasn't a comeback time. i think there is a desire to have a horse race. they want competition, and the other hand, they should look at the real competition which arguably might be newt gingrich now. and certainly at least in the polls, herman cain. >> it sounds corrupt. creating a fake race to keep this thing alive. >> no. we haven't had a single vote yet. >> that's right. >> no. usually the criticism is that the media's already decided. to wit, president hillary clinton. i came on this show a lot that year. we kept hearing about, oh, hillary's going to win, awed of a sudden hillary wasn't going to win. the media and everybody switched. it's a little premature. >> it was a well written but dumb column for two reasons. one, how would you do a press conspiracy today? i've been in 1,000 press rooms after a debate or after a speech. usually in the basement of a high school gym. and all you hear is the tick, tick, tick of fingers on laptops. you never hear someone standing
up and saying, "okay, here's the line for tomorrow. we're going to say that romney is still not a winner." >> no, but i thought -- you build up one of the other candidates, not that we got in a room and decided this, and say perry is coming back. and -- >> that's the opposite. and i'm -- sorry to disagree. i'm taking my life in my hands here. but what the press really wants is not a horse race. they want the horse race to be over. they want the field to be narrowed. they can't cover eight people. they can't write a debate story with eight people in the lead. they tonight have the money to -- they don't have the money to cover eight people. >> and that would affect your expense account in iowa and new hampshire. i know you're dying to spend the winter there. thanks for joining us. coming up in the second part of "reliable sources," vice president bide send ambushed by a human events newspaper writer and james o'keefe's latest undercover scheme targets a "huffington post" reporter. is gotcha journalism helping or hurting the conservative cause?
plus, blogger jeff jarvis on why we should be sharing more, much more about ourselves on line. ♪ we're centurylink... a new kind of broadband company committed to providing honest, personal service from real people... 5-year price-lock guarantees... consistently fast speeds... and more ways to customize your technology. ♪
delivering mail, medicine and packages. yet they're closing thousands of offices, slashing service, and want to lay off over 100,000 workers. the postal service is recording financial losses, but not for reasons you might think. the problem ? a burden no other agency or company bears. a 2006 law that drains 5 billion a year from post-office revenue while the postal service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts. congress created this problem, and congress can fix it. when you're a sports photographer, things can get out of control pretty quickly. so i like control in the rest of my life... especially my finances. that's why i have slate, with blueprint. i can create my own plan to pay down large purchases faster... or avoid interest on everyday items. that saves me money. with slate from chase, i'm always in control. financially, anyway. get slate with blueprint and save money.
for "human events." on his web site, he portrays himself as an ambush artist. he initially acts friendly toward congressman barney frank and asks him about a 20-year-old scandal in which the democrat had a relationship with someone who turned out to be a male prostitute. >> pleasure to meet you, sir. >> where are you from, jason? >> brooklyn, new york. with the bad economy and all -- with the bad economy and all, can you give me advice on how to start my own brothel? i know you have experience in these matters. make i have make extra cash on the side. >> no, it's silly -- >> too silly? [ inaudible ] >> you have one running out of your apartment. >> when joe biden was in a senate hallway recently, mattera started by asking him for a photo. >> no -- >> do you regret using the "rape" reference to describe -- >> i didn't use -- no, no, no. let's get it straight, guys. don't screw around with me.
>> do you think using the "rape" reference -- >> no, listen to me. >> was this a case of unethical journalism? joining us to talk about the episodes with biden and more, glynnis macnichol at "the wire," and paul farhi, media reporter from "washington post." was that -- >> he had a badge that said he was a reporter. >> not clear whether it was visible. >> we're not clear whether it was visible. >> he says it was. >> he certainly presented himself as somebody who wanted a photo. i think we're seeing this as sort of a repeated over and over again. they know they can get a good video clip. they know it can go viral on the internet. they might get a prominent person in an awkward situation. so yes. >> on the other hand, it was in a public hallway in the senate, paul farhi, he asked an aggressive question, certainly. did he sandbag the vice president? >> well, it's kind of hard to sandbag the vice president vice president. joe biden's been around for decades. he's a big boy, he can handle
himself. in this case he didn't handle himself particularly well. the confrontation depends on getting a response that's a little outraged, a little angry so that you can make the clip and make the viral video that you're seeking in the first place. biden gave it to him. >> i didn't see anything particularly wrong with biden's response. he got a little testy. let's hear what jason mattera had to say, he was interviewed by john king. >> journalists can't take pictures with the vice president. >> i think it's unethical. >> i'm looking to get politicians who are used to spin and their messaging teams, i'm trying to get an honest reaction, frank answer, gut reaction, amen -- >> especially because so much of the media is made up of drones what gave biden a pass. >> so the explanation seems to be that anything goes when it comes to penetrating the bubble that does indeed surround high-ranking public officials. >> right. you want to get a face to face with somebody. he's thinking the media is not questioning the vice president enough. i think it's -- i think the vice president actually handled
himself fine. i watched that clip and thought, well, that's typical joe biden. we're not seeing a different person than we see every day. >> and how did mattera handle himself? >> i don't find the sort of journalism sheds the greatest light on the reporter who's trying to implement it. you sort of think, well, why can't you just find a better way to get face-to-face time with the vice president. so i always think they come off sort of looking unprofessional and silly. but -- >> unprofessional and silly. was there anything wrong with mattera's question? >> not at all. in fact, biden confirmed the substance of the question. it was a reference to a speech that biden had made earlier. he asked him if he was using rape as a way to justify passage of the jobs bill. >> basically he's suggesting that if the president's jobs bill did not pass congress, crime including rape would increase. a number of journalists have asked about that, including candy crowley when she interviewed the vice president last week. and i didn't think the question was asked particularly rudely. >> i didn't think so either. i thought biden basically said, yeah, you're right, i did use that reference. and i'm now telling you again
that i'm using that reference. >> this story got a second life when there were a number of news stories that portrayed biden's office as seeking perhaps to yank the credentials of jason mattera. i misstated something earlier this week based on stories that i saw which left me with the impression the vice president of the office had initiated this. in fact, our reporting shows that the capitol hill committee, the credentials reporters was looking into this matter. contacted, we got a statement saying no formal complaint was submitted by the vice president's office. you know, if the hill contacts the vice president's office and says what happened, there were security concerns, of course you would answer questions. it was a misimpression, i think, that biden was looking to retaliate against this reporter. >> there were no security concerns. he was in a public place. he was in the capitol building. there were secret service around. he was wearing a press credential. would he have gotten the same interview if he had said "i'm jason matt era from human
events, i'm here to ask you an objenoxious question" -- i don't think so. >> i don't think there are too many reporters who try to sneak in and ask a question -- use would say john king, cnn, paul farhi, "washington post." he didn't say that. but as you say, biden is not new to this game. >> if you look at what mattera has done, he will walk up to people on the street, just as michael moore will, and say, "i'm jays oh mattera," and ask his obnoxious question and get a testy answer every time. it's a public place and fair game. >> what is the goal here? is the goal to get the public official, target to say something revealing? or is the goal to draw attention to yourself so that you get to be interviewed by john king on cnn? you get to do a bunch of interviews with "politico," et cetera? and it is a way of making a name for yourself? >> right. i think probably more the second than the first. but i think what we see over and
over again is they're trying to create these embarrassing moments which then turn into these great viral clips that go everywhere and change what the conversation is about. >> when you say "they," do you mean certain conservative activist journalists or journalists of varying political stripes? >> i would say more the active iflt journalists we've seen renal e recently. but i would say a lot of people are interested in creating viral clips. it's the easiest way to promote yourself, your argument, to gets yourself out there. we're talking about it on a sunday show now. clearly it's changed the conversation. >> it used to be you had to cover city hall, the state house for years and work up. now have to have a viral video clip. this is what i'm hearing. >> i think remember mayhill fouler who caught bill clinton in that off moment and that turned -- during the 2008 campaign and that turned into a huge thing. >> she was a blogger for the "huffington post" and identified herself -- semiconductor into the obama fundraiser. the rules are changing.
next, james o'keefe accuses a reporter of getting his sources drunk. i'm serious. the evidence pretty watered down. need. and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor, they had prepared for even the unthinkable. and they danced. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. see? he's taking his vitamins. new one a day vitacraves plus omega-3 dha is a complete multivitamin for adults. plus an excellent source of omega-3 dha in a great tasting gummy. one a day, gummies for grown-ups.
and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today.
undercover stings against acorn and npr has hidden camera footage of a journalism professor talking about one of his former students, sam stein, correspondent for the "huffington post." >> sam goes out drinking with people. he gets booze in people and suddenly the stories flow. >> he called to ask about this dastardly charge. >> you're asking if i get my sources drunk? >> specifically to get information out of them. >> no, i don't. i appreciate the question, but i don't even know what you're talking about to be honest with you. >> is this something we should take seriously, the suggestion by a former professor of sam stein's that he like to go out drinking? >> no. as gotcha journalism goes, there's not much journalism and there's no gotcha that i can see. somebody asks you what someone else said about you and you say, no, that's not the way it is --
even if sam stein did buy his sources a few drink, for which i have no evidence by the way, isn't that something that thousands of reporters have done over the years? >> i think it would be something that makes him a good reporter. the face to face, taking him out, we're going to have a conversation, that's the crux of good reporting. i think people over the past few years have complained that that sort of reporting doesn't take place enough. >> people e-mailing -- >> yes, e-mailing, chatting. >> going to bars where the real journalism takes place, in the bar. >> i had to look to see f that was an "onion" ohio. >> he spoke with tommy christopher about the tactics he used and the wording of his questions. take a look at that. >> my question is if he didn't say that sam gets his sources drunk, why would you tell sam that that's what he said? >> well, i mean, i believe -- i interpreted what the professor said. it was a one-take phone call, and he made that statement and i said what i said. so that's -- i'm providing you all the facts. i'm showing you the video.
so you can draw your own conclusions." >> now it is true that when the question was asked to sam stein, he didn't -- o'keefe didn't use the exact wording. which the former professor never said he got his sources drunk. he just said he likes to go out, have drinks, and the stories flow. how hard is it to read the exact quote? >> yes, you can read the exact quote. but what are we going for? what are we trying to prove? what is the point that a reporter uses methods to get some information? well, yes, that's what reporters do. and i can't see that even if he did get his sources drunk that that would, you know, blow the cover off the journalism professor -- >> nor is there any specific example of a specific person who said i had ten drinks and, therefore, i couldn't help myself. o'keefe also got footage of two nyu journalism professors, hidden camera footage. they were talking about "the new york times" and the -- one quote
of "chardonnay-swilling so-called media elite." then o'keefe erroneously described the professor as a new york times consultant, which is not true. >> not true. they've denied that he's ever consultsed. i think he's written a couple of op-ed pieces but has had no consulting with the new york time. >> i didn't see what they said was so bad either. >> i didn't either. i think they were trying to show that "the new york times" has a bias. there was something about the 1% -- it didn't make much sense what they were trying to -- s>> let's pull back the camera. are these tactics helping james o'keefe's cause? saying basically this is a nothing burger. he has a label for the series, "to catch a journalist." you know, a lot of people would say, sure, journalists should be held accountable. but on the basis of what evidence. >> and that's exactly right. what are you getting -- what's the proof in your pudding, and there seems to be no proof or pudding here. you know, jail o'keefe needs an ed -- james o'keefe needs an editor, someone to say, you know, you don't have it here.
you don't have the goods. let's drop this one, move on to something else, whatever something else is. and try to prove whatever point, preconceived notion you have. >> unless as you suggested earlier it's about making a splash, getting your basic side in, raising money, that sort of thing. >> i think he's taking the lazy shortcut, trying to get the big scoop and splashy coverage for what he's doing. he's not actually as you say getting scoop. there's no pudding there. he's not sort of revealing anything of interest to anybody. >> right. i mean, he did in the case of npr where the executives had to resign over those very biased comments about the tea party. >> yes. >> that was different than what we seem to see here. >> right. and i think -- you know, it's worth pointing out that clay shirkye and jay rosen aren't even journalists. they teach journalism. he seems to be more interested in the coverage of himself at this point than really at anything he's investigating. >> 2000 need to fight more -- you two need to fight more next time. thank you very much. with more and more personal information on facebook, blogger
for fastidious librarian emily skinner, each day was fueled by thorough preparation for events to come. well somewhere along the way, emily went right on living. but you see, with the help of her raymond james financial advisor, she had planned for every eventuality. ...which meant she continued to have the means to live on... ...even at the ripe old age of 187. life well planned. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you.
its rules, we look at it on line. jeff jarvis who work at the graduate school is a reporter when it comes to tweeting and sharing on the web. "public parts: how sharing in the digital age improves the way we work and live." we spoke about the passing of steve jobs. here's the second part of our conversation. jeff jarvis, welcome. >> thank you. >> facebook again is under assault for eroding people's privacy starting a timeline of everybody's page so that people can see everything that you've ever done while you've been on facebook. that's -- makes a lot of people uncomfortable. >> i'll turn it the other way. you don't have to put anything on facebook. facebook is not a place to hide secrets, it is a place for sharing. indeed it's the beginning of an entire industry built on sharing. >> what if you shared things five years ago and now you're not sure you wants your potential employers to see it? in other words, there's no going back once you have shared. >> there is -- on facebook you can go back, it's laborious to
go back and trim your lifetime. we have to look at what this means for society. if you're seen holding a glass of beer once and you're fired, do you really wants to work at that company? >> all right. news organizations obviously are getting more involved with facebook. the "washington post" and applications that you can put on so that you automatically share with your friends what you're reading. some people think it's creepy. >> well, i think it's the opposite. i think it's an important change in the structure of media. we in media made readers come to us. you had to come to our site, buy our paper or magazine. now media's going to the people. "washington post," "guardian," "wall street journal" are on facebook. it's important. even bigger than that, what mark zuckerberg sees is a new structure for media. >> you talked to him for this book? >> yes. and he saw that -- media used to be all about brands. you had to buy the paper. then it became search and google won. you had to ask a question. now it's sharing. now the notion is that if people are sharing what they're reading, what they like or don't
like, what they're thinking, that is probably the best recommendation service we're all going to get. and he's in the middle -- >> i heard about an editor at an online swlooit didn't wants to share everything he was reading because, maybe like a lot of people, he would click on the story about the celebrity's wardrobe malfunction. you want to broadcast that to the world. >> but facebook and google have shifted to a structure where at the moment you share, you can decide whether or not to. the "washington post" app, yes. it will tell you what you're reading, you choose as a blanket at the beginning whether to share or not. but what's the big deal if you read stories and show you have interest across? it's not that big a deal. not like you're reading a porn site there. >> you've been accused of oversharing when you were diagnosed with prostate cancer. your first instinct was to blog. you decided to tell your family first. your son of away. and then you provided lots and lots of details. was that therapeutic for you? why so much information about the private life of jeff jarvis? >> it was very therapeutic and very helpful. people gave me information i wouldn't have otherwise gotten. friends who had the surgery -- i
didn't know that -- only knew that i was going to have it because i went public with it. they gave me incredible advice. i also think that we got some people inspired to test for psa. i hope that you've tested, as well. these are important. if you think about it, why is health so secretive? there's a fear that you're not going to get a job or insurance. that's a problem of society and law. there's a fear of stigma. look what women have done with breast cancer to break out and put up pink ribbons and say this is important. well, why not men with their prostate cancer, the testicular cancer? >> jeff, you went on howard stern's radio show. he said you were being do graphic about your private parts. >> i did go into detail about the -- what i got. i'll spare you that, thanks. >> clearly you've become this pied piper of sharing and living your life on line. and i can see where for the news business there's a lot of information out there now, for example, you write about twitter and a lot of journalists are on twitter. and you say that people on
twitter are more interested or have a longer attention span from journalists who flip from one thing to another to another that can be valuable for us in the news business. >> it can be. again, it's even bigger than that. i think if we look at the arab spring, i'm not going to suggest that twitter made the revolution, but the revolution occurred through and on twitter, and what we see is the world was starting to mimic the architecture of the internet. the internet is end to end. anyone can talk to end. well, in news now through twitter, witnesses can talk to the world. and that's a pretty remarkable thing to happen. is that we can see new visions of news as it happens. and everyone's going to have a camera. and everyone's going to have a portal to the whole world. we as journalist then have to ask, how do we add value to that. andy carvin at npr, tweeting the arab spring under the handle a.carvin brilliantly. he doesn't need to do anything. he looks and sees who's good, who's there, who's not. >> you talk about witnesses, there are services like foursquare where you can broadcast where you are at any given moment. i never saw the point.
you make the point in the book that that can be help when suddenly there's a crisis somewhere, maybe not in a major media market. >> imagine if the assignment desk at cnn could say who's near this editor at cnn, who's near this event? >> reviewing and editing, how can we trust these millions of people? >> nothing will be absolutely sure. but there are lots of signals and ways. if they can get past the privacy block ads that you have. i'm working with a researcher right now, who's researching twitter right now to see if this friends is there. >> coming back to living your life online, you write in this book, exactly how much money you have made. you dent deny having gone to the porn sites. you're letting it hang out there. no part of you who obviously grew up in a predigital area, that feels that this is a bit too much information?
>> i do have my limits. i still have privacy. i also don't want to bring my family into my glass house. >> but you love the glass house? >> i recognize the value of the glass house. right now, i think we need to look at the other side of prism, what's the benefit of publicness. the internet is an incredible tool of publicness. if we go too crazy trying to regulate it down, we may miss the best that could happen. >> journalists had tv cameras, we had printing presses, other people could only communicate through us. that's no longer the case. >> we can talk to witnesses everywhere as news is going on. it's also an economic benefit. we don't have to send out five-person crews everywhere. we can add value to that, we
verify the persons there. add context 37 journalists now have to recognize that information will pass through tools of publicness. we have to add to that process. media monitor, the madoff tv blitz in a moment. i had a heart problem. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen. i just didn't listen until i almost lost my life. my doctor's again ordered me to take aspirin. and i do. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ mike ] listen to the doctor. take it seriously.
delivering mail, medicine and packages. yet they're closing thousands of offices, slashing service, and want to lay off over 100,000 workers. the postal service is recording financial losses, but not for reasons you might think. the problem ? a burden no other agency or company bears. a 2006 law that drains 5 billion a year from post-office revenue while the postal service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts. congress created this problem, and congress can fix it.
♪ first off, due to a brain freeze last week, we interview jim lehre and foshlrt to mentio the title. i would be perfectly happy if bernie madoff and his family would just leave us alone. nearly three years after the massive ponzi scheme that cost investors tens of billions of dollars, books are coming up. bernie's wife ruth will be on 60 minutes tonight. ruth madoff has said that there was a suicide attempt. >> we decided to kill ourselves. because it was -- it was so horrendous what was happening. we had terrible phone calls. hate mail.
just beyond anything. and, i said i can't -- i just can't go on anymore. >> excuse me, we're supposed to feel sorry for a woman who lived an extravagant lifestyle with a man who stole millions. >> he has terrible remorse, he said that he knows that he ruined his family. >> he's had therapy. so glad he's many treatment. madoff told the new york times had to know what he was doing. doesn't sound that remorseful to me. there's staff knee madoff mack whose husband, one of bernie's son committed suicide. >> i hate bernie madoff. if i saw bernie madoff right now, i would tell him i hold him fully responsible for killing my husband and i would spit in his face. >> this is news, these are big
gets as they say in the tv business. what a sorry spectacle. michelle norris has co-hosted npr all things considered for a nearly a decade, she's giving up that job for a spot. after careful consideration, we decided that broderick's new role could make it difficult for me to host atc. recusing herself from political coverage, norris' doing exactly the right thing. while her radio career is separate from that of her husband the perception, the host married to obama aide. walter isaacson new biography contains all insights about steve jobs. the late apple chief let rupert murdoch have it about his cable news channel. you're blowing it with fox news, the axis today is not liberal
conservative the axis is constructive-destructive. he singled sean hannity and glenn beck. despite the blistering critique, the two men kind of hit it off. speaking of steve jobs, new york times, like all newspapers, writes corrections. of angry birds. i quote, slingshots are used to launch birds to destroy pigs and their fortresses, not to shoot down the birds. i thought everybody knew that. finally a personal note, today's the last day for senior executive producer tom who's joining brian