tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 18, 2015 10:00am-11:01am EDT
best practice in new zealand to prevent invasive oftentimes they will have guests scrub their gets so plant seeds don't communicated into new environments. having some sort of screening or recommendation for when guests enter i feel might be a good catch for potential hazards early on. ian with his suggestions for the national parks service in their 99th birthday. the national parks service celebrating on tuesday of next week, the official birthday. we appreciate your calls this morning. that will do it for today's show. join us tomorrow morning for a special show from richmond, virginia.
one year after the shooting of michael brown in ferguson. a closer look of policing and trust.ing we will be joined by alfred durham, richmond, virginia upon police chief. captain harvey powers, police training executive. we'll be joined by dwight jones, the mayor of richmond. tomorrow morning on the washington journal. ♪ >> this month marks the 10th
anniversary of hurricane katrina. join us in about an hour for housing and urban development secretary julian castro. that will be live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later today with new orleans mayor mitch landrieu. remarks. lots of 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. a daylong symposium evaluating borland's'-- evaluating new orleans'. that will be live monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. congress continues of their summer break with work on the iran nuclear deal continues.
corker focusing on why he is opposed to the nuclear deal with iran. he concludes by saying the -- thetration has agreement should be one that allows us to maintain leverage and ensure it is enforceable, verifiable and hold iran accountable. this deal leaves the united states vulnerable to a resurgent iran, more able to work its will in the middle east. congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president. that from the washington post today. toator bob menendez is set announce his position on the nuclear agreement. announceenendez will how he will vote on the agreement that curtails iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. he is scheduled to speak at seton hall in what his aides are
billing a major address on the iran nuclear a demon -- nuclear agreement. >> our coverage of the presidential candidates continues live from the iowa state fair. as the candidates walk the fairgrounds and speak at the des moines register's candidate soapbox. at 11:30.rco rubio wednesday, republican rick perry will speak at 11:00. on saturday, republican governors chris christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1:00. join the conversation at #dmr soapbox.
>> washington post executive editor marty baron and new york times washington editor elizabeth mueller discuss power and influence perceived by the media. under two hours. admit this is a special treat for me today because in addition to being a news junkie, i am a former newspaper reporter and i truly value great journalism. disruptive of digital communication, it is gratifying to know that we still , fabulousfascinating newspapers like the washington post, the wall street journal, the valley news, among others. honored to introduce our
first speaker. marty baron grew up in miami. .raduating from lehigh since then he has been a newspaperman. he is worth at the miami herald, los angeles times, the new york times, the boston globe and since 2012, he is the executive editor of the washington post. as editor of some of these newspapers, particularly the miami herald and the boston globe and the washington post, his team at these newspapers have 110 pulitzer prizes for excellence in journalism. was earlierent one this year when he and his team
won the pulitzer for the series on the secret service lapses in protecting the president. a great series of stories. is a fine journalist. he also has keen interest in art . altogether, i am very proud to be able to present one of the best newspaper editors in the nation, marty baron. [applause] marty: thank you very much for that kind introduction. i'm delighted to be able to speak with you all today are you i am please to be able to share the stage with elisabeth bumiller. we started our careers together in the late 1970's at the miami
herald as reporters. it is wonderful to be with her here today. the subject i want to discuss today is close to my heart, critical to my profession and i believe vital for democracy, human dignity and personal liberty. freedom of expression. the case for freedom of expression was made long ago. among the most eloquent proponents was john milton and his ideas help set the course for our own principles today. road, -- milton wrote, give me the liberty to know, to utter and argue freely according to conscience above all liberties. today in much of the world that liberty is either nonexistent or in jeopardy. let me start by telling you about two recent encounters of mine. in january of last year i spoke
with a leading figure in the governance of the internet. we talked about surveillance by the national security agency and taps voraciously into data networks. this is a subject we cover at the washington post and for have won a pulitzer prize. i was interested in what this official was hearing as he traveled the world in the aftermath of disclosures that originated with edward snowdon. leak had revealed some of this nation's most sensitive secrets. much of the reaction to this point had fallen into the category of outrage. government officials and activists decried the u.s. government's intrusion into the privacy of citizens of other countries.
foreign governments have tested that even the privacy of residence and prime ministers in countries who are our allies had been reached. the nsa had listened in on their conversations. as this internet official traveled asia, outrage was not what he heard. what did he hear? jealousy. leaders told him, we have excellent computer scientists, why haven't we been able to do this? they aspire to monitor their own citizens as skillfully as the u.s. government has. that is story number one. earlier this summer, i was visited in washington by the owners, editors and legal counsel of a leading newspaper in ecuador. they sought to bring attention to the ways in which the
government of ecuador was strangling the press, dictating what it prints, threatening fines, pressuring outlets in hopes they would become dos i'll -- docile. they were fined $350,000 on the grounds that it failed to satisfy all requirements for publishing a response by the government to one of its stories. a two-year-old communications law provides that individuals who feel that it midi or honor has been damaged by a media report have the right to respond. universo had el published a headline, $1.7 billion in federal debt impairs health care system. the requests went unanswered.
when the story was published, it was criticized by ecuador's president, raphael perea. ,e questioned the statistics statistics that came to record from the health care system itself. his secretary of communications universo to publish a rebuttal. headlinet carry a crafted by the secretary that accompanied its rebuttal. the secretary ordered its summary published and ordered its headline published and el universo complied. the headline read the health care system will improve more in the coming years. that, the newspaper
now had to pay a fine for allegedly noncompliant with the law regarding rebuttals. the fine equivalent of 10% to its average revenue from the previous quarter, $350,000. with each recurrence of a particular event, the fine is doubled. it can continue doubling without limit. the fines and pressure are having what seems to be the intended effect. into this and 14, four media -- in 2014, 4 media outlets closed. in short, in ecuador, the press will either apple to the government or the government -- will either buckle to the government the government will break it. the stories i have told show something about free expression.
it can be threatened from many directions and that is what is happening. not long ago the world hoped for better. we seemed to be entering a new era of free expression on by social media, the internet and smart phones. some concluded communications would flourish in a way previously unimaginable and that thernments would be denied tight control that kept them in power. this idea took root during the arab spring which began at the tail end of 2010 with the tunisian revolution and spread through the arab world. with protests against the regime of hosni mubarak, the world modern -- marveled at the impact of social media. how it might overcome depression. repression.
truth moves faster than lies and propaganda become flammable wrote paul mason in 2011. he said, not only is the network or powerful than the hierarchy but the ad hoc network has become easier to form. in a book entitled "democracy's fourth wave." howard noted social --ia alone did not information technologies altered the capacity of citizens and civil society actors to affect domestic politics. to be fair, hopefulness came with caution. the authors of those commentaries recognized the
technology also gave governments the opportunity to monitor citizens and ultimately extinguish their voices and movements. cup --or howard noted a card-carrying regimes have come services too. how democracy act -- activists were using -- developing strategies that allow them to entrap protesters. just the other week in the washington post the published a series. reporters documented how the security establishments of the arab world exploit sophisticated surveillance technology to suppress dissent. egypt is implementing a social network security hazard monitoring project that allows for trend analysis from
facebook, twitter, instagram, and other sites. a minimum of 30 analyst will monitor data according to a request for proposals linked to the egyptian media. this, who will prevail in a competition that is deploying technology as tools and weapons? will it be activists and ordinary citizens who aim to outwit autocratic governments or will it be the governments which possessed the capacity to monitor communications as never before? in the new digital age, eric schmidt leans toward optimism. authoritarian governments will
find their newly connected populations more difficult to control, repress and influence while democratic states will be forced to include more voices, individuals, organizations, and companies in their affairs. and yet, they noted, how often terry and governments -- how often authoritarian governments will have powers of their own. have an enormous amount of power over the mechanics of the internet in their own countries because states have power over the physical instrument -- physical in the structure connectivity requires. switches, they control the entry, exit and waypoints for internet data. they can limit content, control hardware people are allowed to use and even create separate internets. regimes may compromise the vices
.efore they are sold protect their most private information, objects of suspicion. authoritarian governments can apply a norm is pressure. schmidt and colin noted states will be able to set up raids to certain people's devices for encryption. everyone who is known to have downloaded circumvention measure will certainly find life more difficult. they raise the prospect that countries will create their own domain name systems. no government has achieved an alternative system, they write, but if a government succeeded in doing so it would effectively unplug its population from the global internet and instead
offer only a closed national intranet. already blocked filter information. turkey has blocked thousands of sites and its prime minister once ordered twitter shutdown. intube has been blocked pakistan and the government has demanded hundreds of times that facebook remove content. company unitas, a that exists to support free expression, government attempts to censor the internet are seen as falling into three categories. what they call service side censorship. this often consists of service not inconvenient voices off-line. censorship on the wire.
this consists of national firewalls that block access to undesirable content. this can also include state leveraging control of domain name systems and internet service providers to try to hide content. client side censorship. malware attacks to monitor independent journalists and activists. this is becoming a popular technique for national governments. at the core of the battle over the internet is a philosophical and legal dispute over hugh has dominion over -- over who has dominion over the internet. year, a visiting law professor at ucla laid out the issue in the georgetown
journal. competing visions of cyberspace , russiarged, she wrote and china advocate a sovereignty based model of cyber governments that prioritizes state control of the united states, united kingdom and allies argue that cyberspace should be governed by states alone. in the early days of the internet, its creators should not be governed by states alone. in the early days, its creators, advocates, protectors in many internetued that the had superseded governments. the internet belonged only to users, they insisted, and governments had no role. barlow, john perry cofounder of the electronic freedom foundation, issued a so-called declaration of the injured -- of the independence
of cyberspace. governments of the industrial world, he claimed, you giants of flesh and steel, i come from cyberspace, the new home of mine and on behalf of the future i ask you of the past leave us alone. you are not welcome among us. you have no sovereignty where we gather. withision collided inconvenient physical facts. this was noted by legal academics, jack goldsmith and timothy woo. they took on the notion of the internet as a place of its own. the internet relies on fairly mundane things. wrote,ath it all, they copper wires, fiber-optic cables
and routers and switches that direct information from place to place. the fact is, governments do regulate the internet and we are now faced with the question of how far they will go in asserting control. should the internet be regarded like other domains that fall outside national boundaries? high seas? outerspace and antarctica? should the internet be regarded as a global comments -- global commons? or instead, should it be viewed like every nation's airspace? that would put the internet under each nation's total control. in the absence of consensus, some countries are not waiting for one. russia and china are the leaders in treating the internet more as an intranet, and internal system that is theirs to rule.
that is emblematic of what has become of free expression in those countries. if there was once the spark of freedom and there was at least that, it is now being snuffed out. russians get their information from state-controlled broadcasters, disseminating propaganda, conspiracy, jingoism, in ways big and small. shoot down of the malaysian airliner in ukraine, intelligence pointed to rubble troops as the source of the missile. in russian media, alternative explanations. each one more far-fetched than the next. russian media claimed the ukrainians shot down the plane. they claimed the cia provided help. they asserted that the plane
might have been mistaken for vladimir putin's making it a target. they claimed bodies on the ground were planted. at the time, the editor and chief of russia 24 said, as a state tv, our mission is to support the interests of the state. official opinions are determinative for our programs, for our channel. state control and manipulation of television stations and in newspapers is one thing, but the internet and russia have long been largely uncensored. that is the longer the case. early last year, russian authorities were given the power to block websites without official explanation. almost immediately, four opposition websites are blocked. by the summer of last year, speech on the internet was constrained further.
rules required anyone with a daily online audience of more than 3000 people to register with russia's internet oversight agency. names and contact details were to be provided and bloggers will be held liable for misinformation. including comments from members of the public. last year a required russian users be stored on-site -- data from russian users would be stored at way russia would have easy access to information about usage of services. as anssian government arsenal of laws it can use against people speaking freely. numeral's created additional risk. bloggers were likely to muzzle themselves for fear of prosecution.
any of the rules are considered confusing, but ambiguity is often a weapon in the hands of government and that is the case in russia today. , vladimirpacker wrote putin has been masterful at creating an atmosphere in which there are no clear rules so that intellectuals stifle themselves in order to not run afoul of vague laws. until this point, i have only talked about official suppression of free speech. the threats are more menacing than that. nonstate actors can be a greater danger. two images last year cannot be forgotten. he images of james foley, executed by the state.
the risk that journalists now face in telling the world what they see. this year, terrorists slaughtered staffers at charlie hebdo in reaction to caricatures of mohammed. there is what happens behind walls. now of the washington post correspondent in tehran, held in iran's worst is an suffering physically and -- worst prison, suffering physically and emotionally. endure a sham trial where the basic principles of due process clearly do not matter.
these are the publicized incidents. the committee to protect of 10lism notes, nine journalists killed our local reporters covering local stories. in the past three years, violence against journalists has soared. an average of more than one journalist is killed every week. in places like mexico, reporting on drug cartels, crime syndicates and corruption is a deadly business. in the week of june 28 this year, three journalists were killed there. rarely are killers found or prosecuted. much of the world, rarely are they actively pursued. all of this imposes an obligation on journalists for news organizations in the united
states. the spite our concerns, we enjoy freedoms unimagined in the rest of the world. we are able to write what professional colleagues in other countries cannot. their lives and those of their families would be at risk. longtime correspondent for the new yorker put it well recently. him.ncluding, i will put "as correspondence who enjoy the freedom to write but we know, we have a responsibility to do it, not only for the sake of our readers but for the sake of reporters who don't enjoy the same privileges." thank you very much. [applause]
>> that was wonderful. the next speaker is also a distinguished journalist. elisabeth bumiller, born in denmark, grew up in cincinnati. journalist.r as a she has been a reporter and correspondent for the washington post. was in new delhi, tokyo, joined the new york times in 1995. she has had many different assignments, covering the white house during the period after 9/11. also covering the pentagon. she became the washington editor of the new york times in february of this year where she organizes and direct coverage
from 30 or so reporters in the washington bureau of the times. while doing all of this, she has also managed to write some books. in india, she wrote a womenelling story about having sons. the exact title escapes me now. you can do it later. in tokyo, she managed to write a book about family life in japan while being the mother of a four-year-old and an infant. that was real juggling on her part. her book about condoleezza rice, the biography, is available in the rear of the. here.
welcomingn me in elisabeth bumiller from the new york times. [applause] elisabeth: thank you, tom. the title of my book is -- expectations that are placed on women in india. it is wonderful to be here. a beautiful place to spend a day or two. it is great to share the stage with marty. we crossed paths at the new york times. you can see how small the sorority and fraternity of journalism is in this country. we all know each other.
ago,tle more than 30 years i arrived in new delhi with my husband to begin our first overseas assignment. i was then a reporter for the washington post and my husband had just finished five years as a white house correspondent for the new york times. remember stepping out of the door of the plane. this was long before the completion of the modern indira gandhi airport. the dense fog and overpowering smell of burning cow dung fire people used. , i wrote my stories for the washington post on a manual typewriter. certainly not the computer i was used to because of all the power failures. my -- i took my copy
to a local office where was punched out and sent act washington. there was no internet in those -- there was no internet in those days. there was one television station back then in india. it ran documentaries on for -- on fertilizing plants. indian was not -- india was not the economic powerhouse in asia that it is now. to a lot of people in the united states, india was an afterthought. there were a lot of american newspaper correspondents covering it. the wall street journal, the los angeles times, the baltimore
sun, the philadelphia inquirer, time magazine, we wrote about the new prime minister, about politics, poverty, economics. today in new delhi the situation is different. india has emerged as a major player on the stage -- on the global stage and yet, time magazine, the philadelphia inquirer and for much of the last two years, los angeles times are all gone. , in 2003, theture american journalism review reported that 10 newspapers and one newspaper chain employ 307 full-time correspondents. in two dozen 10, that number had -- in 2007, the number had fallen. newspapers have
said euros overseas entirely. -- sent bureaus overseas entirely. true international news coverage is in a handful of big tapirs, handful of big papers. foreign -- coverage is seen by more people than we imagined back in the 1980's. the associated press has grown employees, many of them local hires. bloomberg news has a global staff of more than 2300 and 101 foreign bureaus in 72 countries. national public radio now hast 17 overseas bureaus.
the new york times has more overseas bureaus. about 80 full-time correspondents. on top of that, there have been new entries like global post which james foley worked for which pays freelancers around the world for coverage you not always see. post wonglobal peabody awards. every young person wants to work for vice, the new online international news organization. last month they interviewed president obama. they take their cameras to some of the world's most dangerous places. they have a five-part series on isis which they sent -- they
spent a lot of time in iraq and syria. as feet and the huffington post have begun to do for an coverage. and huffington post have begun to do for an coverage. -- foreign coverage. available in endless quantity if you know where to look for it, which is on the internet. let's look at these news organizations that cover the world, specifically how they cover america's projection of power around the world and whether that feet and narrative of an america in decline. it is a cave you cannot do the reading. two of confront and
conceal. chapter two is a smart look at the three-month review process obama went through in late 2009 ahead of the afghan surge to send additional troops to afghanistan. that march,dy spent the first batch of 17,000 troops. he felt pressure from military commanders. the white house had come to the realization that the war was being lost. i think the title of david's chapter, how obama's afghan policy came to be known as afghan good enough. mcchrystalnley wanted far more troops, as many as 80,000, but obama sent less.
there was no rejection of american power since obama -- projection of american power. the idea was that the after anne's would be better trained by the united states in the meantime -- the afghans would be better trained by the united states and would have to learn to defend their country on their own. in the spring and fall of 2010, when i was still a pentagon reporter, i embedded with a group of female marines in southern afghanistan. women were not allowed in combat in the marines but an experiment that year skirted the regulations. the marines sent small groups of women out with all mail infantry put controls -- all mail infantry put controls.
the united states was still engaged in what was called the counterinsurgency strategy, trying to win over the local populations by protecting them, meeting with village elders. the thought was that if you had some women on the ground, female marines, they could engage with afghan women, half the population, which was of course off-limits to american males. for two weeks in may and later in september of that year, i was with the marines as we set over endless cups of tea and dangerous foot patrols and talked about what the marines could do for various villages. health care center, a school. it was the ultimate projection of american soft power.
bringing the population over to the side of the united states and the afghan government was going to take a very long time. decades obama did not have. i next ask you to look at a chapter in my book about condoleezza rice. the news crawl across the bottom of the television screen she was watching said, in wake of hamas victory, indian cabinet resigns. she decided the news had to be wrong. the crawl continued. she got off the elliptical machine and called the state department. she said, i asked the state department what happened to the palestinian elections.
she said she got back on her elliptical trainer. might as i thought i will finish exercising because it will be a very long day. the united states pushed hard for the elections to consolidate power and is a symbol of the new hadcracy the bushes promised. she jumped again about that election and how it reflected limitations of american power. fataink there are things could have done but not every problem is amenable to a u.s. solution. eric schmidt and michael gordon
in a story about saudi arabia's airstrikes that were killing hundreds of civilians. the obama administration has chosen to work with and help allies from the west f -- from west africa to the middle east rather than putting large numbers of american troops on the ground. when one of your allies, in this case, saudi arabia, is airstrike -- use airstrikes as a cudgel, you have much choice. -- you don't have much choice. the lead in her story says it all, at a time when president obama is under pressure from congressional republicans over negotiations to iran's nuclear ambitions, a paradox has emerged. mr. obama is becoming dependent on iranian fighters as he tries to contain isis without
committing american ground troops. a former special adviser to president obama put it, the only way in which the obama administration can stick with the strategy is by assuming that the iranians will carry most of the weight and win battles on the ground. , not asthese examples evidence of an american retreat but as an example to the purpose of journalism. people have often asked me when i talk about political reporting if i think the press is biased. press has a bias towards conflict in trouble. we focus on what needs fixing. that is our imperative, to expose problems. this year you read in the new york times about the
exploitation of massillon of nailin new york -- salon workers in new york. coverage andeas foreign policy coverage is much the same. we write about the big successes . we ran a headline and multiple stories the day the iran deal was announced. , we focused on the resistance the deal is meeting in congress and how obama is fighting hard to win democrats. , everyrt kagan said tolure of the united states get its way in the world tends to reinforce the impression of a nation in decline. , china hackse rise
into the office of personnel management and exposes millions of records of federal workers. the u.s. is still the richest economy in the world and has unmatched military strength. i know this from covering the pentagon. this year's budget is $600 billion. china's economy is idea thate, but the we now have less power in the world has been around for decades. the fear in the united states of a rising soviet union in the 1950's. the iranian hostage crisis. i lived in tokyo in those years and i was there when president george h w bush came over with
automakers to convince the japanese to buy american cars. instead, he ended up getting sick in the lap of the prime minister. .errible metaphor as the japanese made fun of our cars and informed me americans were actually lazy, that was our problem. took foreign correspondent page-one stories from that trip. i think the media does a good job of covering the day-to-day setbacks, crises and conflicts that reflect power overseas. often it is dangerous awe-inspiring work. the work dexter filton did in iraq, john burns, great
facedpondencts all astonishing dangers. typically do a less good a job at the deeper stories that show long-term systemic change that indirectly reflects american values and influence. stories.se look at how much coverage there has been on the improvement of status over the last 25 years. the pulitzer prize-winning coverage of people in africa -- of ebola in africa. she is now the pentagon correspondent for the times. did very brave, courageous work in liberia.
the stress of going back to her own country and having to see it through americanize in a way. -- in american -- through american eyes in a way. as an americans success story. you could say that the rise of -- today the u.s. economy is 19% of the world economy compared to 25% 25 years ago but the result of the rise of the asian economies and also latin america is that millions of people have been listed out of poverty. i don't see how that does not benefit the united states. it is a story you don't read about so often because it is harder to get a handle on and
cover than the war you will -- you might be right in the middle of. i think it is important for us to step back and go beyond our imperative, the first chaotic draft of history, and put all to conflict in context reflect on america's larger place in the world. thank you. [applause] tom: that was wonderful. it will take an early break now. don't forget to submit your questions. when you return, will sit on these chairs and start the process. hackings like russian coming up. we will see you soon.
elisabeth's book is available for sale in the atrium. tom: i think we are ready to start. .o many questions here it will take us until 3:00 to get finished. i'll ask each one of them a question and there may be some questions both of them can respond to. sabeth.st one to eli is it true the obama administration is the most secretive and most manipulative of the press? elisabeth: i can tell you that our previous executive editor
said it was the most secretive and history. she is no longer with us. [laughter] elisabeth: i think there are special challenges. tom: they can't hear you back there. elisabeth: is that ok? ok, over to you. that, sheaid is quoted jill abramson, the former executive editor of the new york times. elisabeth: is this any better? say the obama administration presents a lot of challenges. -- is this at
name the senior officers who were running the cia drone program. there was a great deal of controversy and criticism at the time. that is therongly pentagon program is public and the officers who run it are public and since this was a huge part of american's power in foreign policy, the officers should be named. there is a great deal of secrecy . i think it has become -- we have four white house correspondents. they will tell you how difficult of the problem i had with the bush administration. getting access to their
thinking. the debate inside the white house about policy decisions. that is hard to get at in real-time. i used to have a problem of getting in to see somebody and you would just get talking points. you had -- there was no real conversation about why they were debating certain points. they don't want to have you write it as conflict. access to their thinking is important. it is getting easier now. like any administration, they see the end in sight. the president himself has been much more open about his thinking. that is a long way of answering to say, yes, there are serious challenging -- serious challenges in covering any white house.
here's a question for you, marty. you have been an editor for many newspapers and have experience with owners and publishers. be the editore to under jeff bezos? bezos bought us over a year and a half ago. he was an unusual buyer for a news organization like ours. wholly unexpected. nobody knew he had any interest in our field. nobody expected the graham family would sell the washington post. a revered family like that. it has been a good experience. jeff brings to the post, some things we need.
he brings questions about the way we do things and a different way of thinking about it. some hard questions about how we approach our work. he brings ideas for new things we could do and an openness to our ideas but he also brings his own. we need fresh ideas in our field. we need some people from outside the industry who understand he brings capital. he is one of the wealthiest people in the world. he is willing to invest. that has been great because we have to make the transition from a print era to a digital era. we live in a digital and mobile society. need to fund experiments and he has been willing to fund all