he had wives. what do you have? see, you playing women. ishmael, where is he? front and center, move here. rustling, move here. abdullah yas seem, move here. cammal mohammed, move here. i want you to see the sons.

and ahmed mohammed, where is ahmed? come on up, son. come on up, billy. i'm still looking for ishmael. oh, you must be somewhere counting money. no, he's not. he's been very busy. but these are elijah mohammed's sons. where's marie mohammed? medea mohammed.

see i want to show you not an evil man but a good man. this is marie mohammed, one of elijah mohammed's daughters and my former daughter-in-law, still my daughter-in-law and her children are my grandchildren. this is madea mohammed and her children are here. right over here, son. this is cammal mohammed, a scientist. each of these are spiritual

giants. look at them this is elijah's son. look at him good. see, a man that want to have fun with a woman want to hide the fact that she becomes pregnant. where's ahmed? now, these are with me. >> yes, we are! all day. >> that's right. right. >> every day. >> that's right. and they are champions in their field and in helping me feel a nation. you talk about passing the torch, you got to be careful that there's some light on the stick you got in your hand.

'cause if you passion the same madness stick, you got -- you've fallen in the ditch and the one you gave the torch to is going in the ditch right after you. hell, no. you got to have wisdom to lead our people today out of the clutches of a deceitful, satanic mind. yes, sir. we war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness in high places. these are the children from elijah mohammed's lives and the

mother of madea, ahmed, ishmael, a spiritual scholar. known all over the world, mother tynetta mohammed. where are the grand children? see, if it were not for elijah mohammed's marriages i wouldn't have these i willustrious helpe none of the first family helped me. in the rebuilding of their father's worth.

but these that he had from the wives who loved him. >> yes, sir. yes, sir. are committed to this cause of the liberation of our people all over the world. >> yes, sir! >> he planted these in mexico. >> yes, sir! >> because he wanted the union of the black and the brown and i have done the same. now you playas. let me get in a little word to the playas. women are not to be played with. they are sacred.

and because there are more women than there are men, their stock goes down and the male stock goes up, so men walk around like peacocks. how many reverends have girlfriends in the church? and how many reverends -- oh, i ain't going there. see, may i say to my lgbtq family, let me tell you something.

those of us who are students of elijah mohammed, we are in love with our people. we don't ask you what your sexual preference is. we love you. we are not your judges. we want to work together to free our people completely. so to my family, this is my family, you will never find me or us condemning you for what has back of used in our sojourn because all the holy ones who will point to a gay brother or sister are fornicatofornicators adulterers, freaks and

everything else. so who of us can throw a stone at the next one? none of us. and the greatest example of that is jesus himself. he said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill what was written in the law, yet, they brought him a woman found in adultery. i'm coming to the end. and they said to jesus, we found her in adultery. i don't understand how you can find a woman in adultery and she came by herself. when y'all figure that one out, let me know.

but after jesus was supposed to witness her stoning to death according to the law of moses, the people got their stone in they hand, they ready. and jesus knelt down and wrote in the sand. the one of that you is without sin, you cast the first stone. and they held their stones and dropped them by their side, 'cause they weren't clean enough to stone a woman found in adultery. jesus was clean enough to do that and look at what he said.

woman, where are your accusers? and then he said, neither do i accuse you. go and sin no more. dr. ben carson, running for president, made a statement about sharia law. it's a very harsh law. but the man that came to teach you have as guide he never told us to cut off the hand of a thief. or chop off the head or kill

someone who's a homosexual. see, jesus is a saif or. jesus does not come to condemn us for our since. he comes to save us in spite of our sins. now, to my father's family, i'm really honored to have them as my help eers and we are part of the family as well. this is our imam, imam sultan rahman, the great grandson of the honorable elijah mohammed and he is the imam of the nation

of islam. now, as i close today, i don't want you to move yet, 'cause this is instruction time. america is under divine judgment as we speak. elijah mohammed fault us 50, 60 years ago of what we were gonna face and he said there would be four great judgments. rain, unusual rain. snow, unusual snow. earthquakes, hail and he would use the forces of nature against

america. what you see going on in charleston and south carolina, very serious. they have never seen rain like that at all. how? why? that's divine judgment. when i leave you today, the calamities are gonna get stronger because god wants america to let us go. not integrate us, but let us go and give us a good sendoff. those of how are scripturally sound, moses was not an

integrationist. and neither are we. let me be clear, america has no future for you or for me. she can't make a future for her se self, much less a future for us. the scripture says come out of her, my people. and we gonna have to come out, but don't worry. god says he takes the kingdom from whom he pleases and he gives it to whom he pleases. america, you have a chance to stop the judgment or delay it. did you hear what i just said?

this judgment can be delayed butted's a very narrow window of opportunity. i close with this before instruction. brothers and sisters, they came to jesus and they asked him, when is the end coming? he said look at this. you can look in the sky and see by the redness of the sky, you can discern that it's gonna be a good day. but you cannot read the signs. he says this wicked and adult rouse generation seekth after a sign, but no sign shall be given to you except the sign of jonah, as jonah was in the belly of the

great fish three days and three nig nights, so, the son of man be in the heart of the earth. now this scrip ral scientists, i want you to study. who is the son of man? he is a man of man. don't you be looking for no spook. the believers in spooks don't understand the law of cause and effect and that's why your seeds that have not shown forth the glory of god so your food for the blood suckers of the food. 85% of the people in every

nation are in poverty. and 10% of the people have knowledge but they will not share it with the poor so they live off the poor. in america, 85% of white people don't understand the law of cause and effect. but their 10% among them that do understand. and they work for the rich and they work against the poor and the poor are poison animaler ats. they eat hog flesh, sounding their mental powers and robbing them of their beauty,

appearance. they don't know the law of cause and affect. they believe that all that you see is happening from a mystery god. but there's 10% that know and they are sucking you the blood of the poor. in the black community, we got 85% that are in bad shape. but you got 10% who rob the 85%. bad lawyers that take our money but won't fight for us. everything is a plea bargain. bad lawyers that want a third of the money from those killed but

wouldn't fight for justice. bad doctors. bad pharmacies. bad people. they hustle their brothers and sisters. so, when si ask for 10,000 fearless men, god stopped me short. i said 10,000 fearless men. when we put it up on our facebook page, white folks said, oh, he wants 10,000 to start killing white people. do i sound crazy to you?

i said the next day, why -- why would they sayhat unless they think they deserve the justice of god? and then the next day r, they c my words and said that farrakhan said they deserved to die. i didn't say that. i said that's what you must be thinking when i say 10,000 fearless and all you can see is a bunch of black people out there killing white people. i didn't say that. a few days later, i said we got to go into our community because our war is on two fronts. we got to stop the killing in the inner city and stop the killing of us from police

wickedness. i need 10,000 fearless. i want 10,000 men that we can train, 'cause we've got to stand between the guns. but you know what? when we go in our community to clean it up, guess who we gonna run into? we gonna run into rogue cops and wicked black people working together to suck the blood of the poor. which means we got to be strong enough to stop the killing but the moment we try to stop it

those who benefit from it will come against us. so we have to sit with the police, we gonna expose all your rogue policemen. because you know where they are? they are in the black community. you know why they there? darren wilson said, i don't want to do police work in the white community. i want to do police work in the black community 'cause that's where the fun is. there that a-- that's darren wi. what is fun about your work in the black community, rogue police? see, you profit from the drug that's going on. you profit from the prostitution. you profit from the drug trade. you do. you kill us and blame it on

another gang. that's the fun. but your days of having fun on our suffering is about to come to an end. i need 10,000 fearless black men. [ applause ] we got to clean up our community. and there's no way we can make a good people and leave them under the the educational system of white supremacy. we have to take over the educational system. 'cause the education that you're receiving has not made you a good people or a better people. it made you a more willing to a slave for your oppressor.

your system has to go in order for black people to be set free. all educators, i'm calling on you. we got to take over. we got brilliant educators. we don't need to accept this poisoned doctrine of white supremacy any longer. we need a ministry of defense. we need a ministry of justice. 'cause we got to resolve our own conflicts without going downtown, spilling our affairs in the presence of those who make merchandise of us and laugh at us and make mockery of us. yes got lawyers, we got judges. we can solve our own problem in the inner city with justice. and the last thing i will say, of the ministry, but the last thing i want to say is

preachers, you are the most important. i was with dr. martin luther king, iii. and he said, farrakhan, what can we do to turn this around? i said brother martin, we have to take your father's philosophy of non-violence and redirect it to black people. see, you been working all this time to use your love to clear up the hate that's in the hearts of white people, 50 years after the, it's still the same. turn your attention to yourself.

come home and teach love for one another. teach love of the neighbor. teach us to forgive each other for our acts of evil done under the oppressor's mind that he put in us. i would like to have 10,000 fearless women. you know, i wish i could show you the women in the nation. these are warriors. these are scholars. but they know how to cook. they know how to sew.

they know how to rear their children. and they know how to -- oh oh. oh oh. look at them, brothers and sisters. now, brothers and sisters, if a sister came up and stood beside them with a miniskirt and a low-cut dress, that's beaconing nursing babies, which one of these sisters would somebody say, hey, baby? see, they don't talk like that to our women. and if they do, it's a terrible

mistake. now, when women are clothed, they earn respect. the beauty of your form is for your husband. and if you don't have a husband, keep it covered. 'cause the one that you get as a husband will be the dog that saw what he wanted and it wasn't you. it was the beauty of your form. them beautiful hips. those duck cue lent lips. lord, have mercy. now, my sisters, all of them, they are very highly intelligent. you can't come to them with weak

conversation, 'cause they see right through you, brother. they know how to cook. they are food scientists. and lit me tell you, sisters, you know you're beautiful. but a woman who's beautiful and can't cook is a killer in the kitchen. and i don't think you would be wise marrying a killer and she kill you in the kitchen with a whole bump of gracy food. these sisters know how to keep theirself alive, their family alive, their children alive. thank you, sisters. oh, that was really nice. where's the young men? bring met young soldiers.

i hope you're not slow. quick-moving of, fast thinking, cleanliness in and out, right down to the modern time. well, they are all on post? oh, okay. but we got some fine young men that we are training. i'm 82. i don't know how long i got. but i'm not worried. 'cause i got a torch lit with the wisdom of god that i'm giving to every young person who will listen, 'cause when i leave, i want to leave somebody that will gift enemy hell until justice flowed down like a river and righteousness like a mighty stream.

now, i'm gonna close with christmas. now, did you know that we spend almost half of the money that we take in in a year during christmas? we have $1.1 to $1.3 trillion and 400 billion of it is spent during the christmas holidays. now listen, listen, listen. dr. king wanted us to redistribute the pain. now, suppose we decided, okay, this christmas, we kicking santa to the curb. this christmas, you not gonna lie to your children, telling them that this caucasian from

the north pole brought them this gift. you gonna tell them the truth. i brought you the gift, baby, me and your daddy, we hustled, but not this christmas. this christmas, we're gonna sit around the table and we gonna bring christ back to a day that was supposed to honor him. you put the beer down, put the regard down,ed a get around your table with clean food and teach about jesus and then show love, forgiveness and reconcile your

differences within the family and this will be the best christmas that we've had in a long time. a and if you can put $400 billion and keep it in your pocket, then you've got a little money to invest and what we want to do is buy up as much land. and we asking the government for 100 million acres as a start. that's about the size of california. we can provide a healthy meal with milk on the table, whole wheat bread, if we pool our

resources. look at these figures. we got about 30 million people. now near 40, eating a slice of bread per meal, 90 million slices of bread per day, 630 million slices of bread per week, 32,760,000 slices of bread per year. how much land must we have on the wheat cultivation to give our people our daily bread? then elijah mohammed said, well, move to milk. how much land must we have? how many cows must we have? how much grazing land must we have to give our people a class of milk a day? 40 million black people having three slices of wheat would

require 1,222,935 acres of land growing wheat to provide an eight-ounce glass of milk each day to 40 million people requires the milk -- the production of 7,305,000,000 pounds of milk by 389,102 cows on 389,102 acres of grazing land, one cow per acre yielding 18,774 pounds of milk per year. and to provide 40 million people with the daily bowl of soup, bean soup, requires 3

million,261,161 acres of land of navymillion 261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivation 261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati 261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati 261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati 261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati,261,161 acres of land of navy bean cultivati cultivationall these figures, milk, bread and beans, he said we could live these figures, milk, bread and beans, he said we could liv these figures, milk, bread and beans, he said we could live 140 years. these, bread and beans, he said we could live 140 years. off of that simple food. now, if you want to lengthin' the days of your life, you got to eat better and you won't eat better if you allow your enemy to feed you. we gonna have to feed ourselves by buying as much long as we can. so tonight, as i leave you, tomorrow morning, i'd like to see the scholars. [ blows nose ]

at the jw marriott, we got to talk about what we gonna do after today. i would like engineers of every kind, navigators, pilots, farmers, i want college presidents, especially the black colleges. you have got to know that you are not a plantation to produce more dumb negroes with degrees. you have got to make the colleges teach the things that will make young people builders instead of beggars. meet me tomorrow at the jw marriott, 10 -- 11:00. and we want to talk about what's next. until then, oh, god, you have made me so happy today just to look into your beautiful faces.

i want you when you leave here to go home to your wives and your families and before you leave, i want you to greet the people around you, hug them and tell them i love you. embrace your native indigenous people and tell them we love you. and our mexican family, embrace them and tell them you love them and from this day forward, this day of a demand for justice will never end until justice is ours so t so today is the beginning of that movement that will never end. all local organizing committees, you got to stay focused and keep

working. it's not over. it's just begun. thank you for listening. asal asalem alechem. >> justice or else. thank you almighty god for the honorable minister louis farrakhan, the message that he gave. let's not break apart before we pray, 'cause a family that prays stay together, right? so what we want to do everybody has a cell phone, let me see all your smartphones and your cell phones shall put them up. put them up. i want you to text this number right now, 99000.

99000

[ ambient crowd noise ]

[ albee yent crowd noisembient ] [ inaudible ]

>> and text unity, 99000. text unity right now, if you're still watching on the webcast and your computer, why you're watching on television or hearing us still by radio, text right now, 99000. that is unity. let's keep the movement going. let's continue to organize

effectively so that we can force the justice that we force those to give us the justice that we seek. it's in our unity. i it's in our love of one another. get your personal copy of today's message between 3rd and 4th and 6th street on jefferson and on maryland for your personal copy of today's dvd. ♪ those of you who wish to join your native american family, they are going to have a special prayer service at the teepees to my left and your right. please join our native american family for prayer.

inmate carlos cologne at the montgomery correctional facility for over three years in violation of parole on an assault and battery charge talked about skills he gained in programs at the facility. >> the skills i'm able to take basically one is how to explain my charges, how to explain my

situation, how to write a letter of explanation of, you know, just learning how to get a job and learning how to speak to an employer and explaining my charges before they judge me before i get a job. so explaining the job, how to dress, how to talk, how to hold back some information that does not need to be given. they kind of help me out, bringing the employer here to the jail and the employer basically we talked and he already knew more about me, so i feel more comfortable basically explain to him what i'm here for and what my goals are and when he came here, you know, he kind of, like i said, he already knew some stuff about me, so like now, i'm working, i got the job, as soon as i got out, a week later, three or four days later, i started working and i had the experience in one job and i can take that same experience and go to the next one and then i know that i can still go back and connect with the workforce and work source, i'm sorry and ask them to help me out and they will gladly step up to help me

and they have already given me suggestions just, in case, in the future i want to change jobs, do something different, even going to school, finding jobs, finding even -- even finding like areas that can help me with other problems that i may have or anything, other stores are opening. >> "washington journal" is live from the montgomery county correctional facility in maryland on tuesday for a look inside the correctional system and efforts to prepare inmates for reentry into the community. correction department director robert green talks about what's working and what's not in the corrections system. kendra yocam tells us about rehabilitation and job training and athena morrow on mental health and substance abuse treatment in the prison. that's live, tuesday, starting at 7:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's "washington journal." coming up this afternoon at 6 eastern, cia director john brennan will join national intelligence director james

clapper and current and former cia officials as they discuss the history of the daily briefing and the importance of intelligence. this is part of a symposium co-hosted by the cia, part of sd we'll show the discussion again tonight at 10:30 eastern here on c-span3. here is a look at what some members of congress are doing today on this columbus today. carolyn maloney marched in the columbus day parade with qu governor cuomo. an ohio republican spoke at the call to duty deployment ceremony. and thanked them for their service and told them we look forward to welcoming them back next year. and pete sessions says he enjoyed talking to a.p. government students in wiley,

texas. congress returns to capitol hill next week. "new york times" chairman and publisher along with the paper's executive editor discuss the "time's" future in the digital age. about half the newspaper subscriptions are solely for digital content a shift for the 164-year-old organization that began offering digital-only subscriptions four years ago. this event took place at the roosevelt house in new york. >> good evening. i'm jennifer rabb and have the great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution hunter college. it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you to this evening's discussion on the future of "the new york times." this event is hosted by our roosevelt house the public policy institute located on east 65th street. but thanks to the drawing power

of arthur salzburg jr. and dean baquet and mr. rosenthal, we moved it here to the "k," tonight we celebrate hunter's connection with the roosevelts as well as the roosevelts' long and complex relationship with "the new york times." when he was in the white house, franklin roosevelt began each day by reading five newspapers and the first one he usually picked up was "the new york times." "the times" was largely supportive of his programs especially during the early years and strongly endorsed him in 1932 and again in 1936. it turned against him, however, in 1940 endorsing his opponent wilke. "the times" had become increasingly critical of roosevelt especially over the court-packing episode, his deficit spending and his failure to pursue what "the times" considered sufficiently pro-business policies. the last issue irritated fdr since "the times'" own financial pages were reporting strong economic growth that prompted

him to offer what was so far as our research has determined his only public criticism of the paper. quote, he said, wouldn't it be nice if the editorial writers of "the new york times" could get acquainted with their own business experts? "the times" returned to roosevelt in 1944 as he ran for a fourth term and while the endorsement did not back off from the earlier fault-finding, it did offer this eloquent assessment of what the new deal had meant to america -- these measures, it wrote, were aimed at correcting abuses revealed by the depression of reviving the hopes of millions of people thrown out of work through no fault of their own and at establishing this country a larger degree of social justice. fdr was, of course, one of a long line of presidents who had their ups and downs with "the new york times" from abraham lincoln to the current incumbent. this extraordinary history is what makes a discussion of the paper's future during a period

of revolutionary change for the media in general and newspapers in particular such a powerful draw. i want to express hunter's deep gratitude to richard and romaine menchel who are the underwriters of so many of roosevelts programs. i want to thank jack rosenthal who has done a superb job in the past year as the interim director of roosevelt house. this evening's program is special for jack because he spent 40 years at "the new york times" winning a pulitzer prize and serving as the editorial page editor and the magazine editor among his many roles there. in 1987 when arthur salzburger jr. was the deputy publisher he asked jack to chair a group looking ten years into the future. jack's report can be summarized in three words, become platform agnostic. that is, give the reader "the times" in any form they want. this was denounced at the time by old hands, print mandarins

jack called them who dismissed digital as a passing fad. to his enduring credit salzburger jr. resisted the scorn and took the committee's advice and has constantly pressed "times" to be as excellent online as in print. they recognized the question for "the times" is not print or digital, it is what it has always been, did we get the story and did we get it right. the platforms may change but "the times" has always remained dedicated to those goals which is why over the years of it has won walls full of prizes. the questions before us this evening is how they will carry on this mission in the future. we are here at hunter college with a real affinity for this question -- our motto is the care of the future is mine. we, too, are trying to see what is around the corner and prepare the next generation of leaders

for it. fortunately there could not be a better team to lead "the times" in these challenging time than arthur and dean. all of us here this evening are interested in their success because we know our nation cannot be a successful democracy without a strong and active press. so, our gratitude to you, arthur and dean, for engaging in this roosevelt house conversation and all you are doing to protect america's democracy. and to jack rosenthal a very hearty thank you for your leadership at roosevelt house and for putting together this wonderful program. welcome, jack, arthur, and dean. [ applause ] >> i want to begin by thanking you for agreeing to accept this invitation.6tv i want to recall late one night

probably around 1980 when i encountered arthur in "the times" lobby wearing a leather jacket and carrying a lunch pail. he was cheerfully headed downstairs on his way to work in the press room. his first job at the times was in the washington bureau in 1978. later he sold ads, worked on the metro desk and eventually became deputy publisher, then publisher and then chairman in 1997. in that time, as jennifer mentioned, he was determined to make the digital times as excellent as it had been in print for more than a century. you in our audience tonight reflect that public concern for

excellence. this program sold out overnight. the executive editor of "the times" did work his way up the ladder, twice. after winning a pulitzer prize in chicago, he came to "the times" in 1990 as a reporter, became national editor and hired away by the los angeles times where he served as managing editor and as the editor. he came back to the "new york times" and in may of last year as executive editor. that means he's the number one among some 1,200 jobs in the

newsroom where he's known for his approachability and personal interest in staff members. our topic tonight is the future of "the new york times." for many in this audience, i think that means concern about the future of the times in print. and am i right to believe that print subscriptions are dropping 4 or 5% a year? and if that's right, how long will the print "times" continue. >> well, thank you so much. first of all, thank you, jack, for having us here. it's a pleasure to be in this auditorium and thank you for starting off with such a nice, easy question. jack has always been good at that. so let me take those in pieces.

i will start with what i think is one of the most interesting of these. jack, when you and i were in our positions of earlier life, editorial page editor and that period of time, roughly the revenue breakdown for "the new york times" was 90% advertising, 10% circulation. now because of both print and digital, it's more 60/40. 60% circulation, 40% on advertising. and that is actually a strength. i know it sounds like it's not, but the strength is the stability of the circulation

revenue gives us a firmer footing on which to build our future than many of our traditional and non-traditional competitors have because so few of them have had a digital subscription plan that has succeeded the way we have. and when i say succeeded, we're somewhere around 950,000 digital paid subscribers. >> compared with what in print? >> compared to, i'm struggling a little bit with the numbers, i'm going to say around -- there is public information on this, but i think it's around 800,000 daily and more than that on the weekend. and what's interesting is you see print circulation declines, all newspapers have, but where most of it's really been hit is on street sales. not on home delivery. what we have seen over the last

10, 15, 20 years is home deliveries shockingly stable. if you have two years subscriber or more. so getting people to two years to subscribing and i'm including weekend as well as weekday. we find people stay a significant period of time. we have them more or less for life. so that's a great base. now the digital revolution continues. people are moving to the website. they have moved to the screen. i'm struggling here. they have moved from the desk

top, is what i'm trying to say, and now they are moving increasingly from the desktop to mobile. what we're seeing more and more is that people come to a variety of devices over different periods of time. so that people will see us on their smartphone first thing in the morning. they will see us on the desktop at lunchtime. they will see us on their ipad later at night and print is woven into all of that so people are cross multiple platforms now and that is the future. >> that raises a question for dean. with such a large proportion of younger readers especially online, can "the times" display its traditional high quality on the tiny screen of a smartphone without dumbing down?

>> yes, actually can i back up one second because at the heart of the question, which is a question i have been asked a lot before is what's the life span of the print "new york times" and i also think that the question of print versus digital has become sort of a distraction from the fundamental questions about journalism. i think the fundamental question is what institutions will survive, how will they survive, i guess i don't buy, at all, that the phone means that readers of "the new york times" want to read something lesser or dumber. all the evidence is that people read long stories on their

phones. all the evidence is that people read -- if the goal of a newsroom and the goal of the leader is to be read, which has got to be my fundamental goal, the number of readers we have in the digital era is just astounding. it's unimaginable. if you take a story like the story we did a few weeks ago on the conditions at nail salons across new york, 5 million people read that story. that is astounding. if you go back to the print era when you only had the readers of the print paper, that would have been unimaginable. so my view, people want to read smart, sophisticated stories in every format and my job as the editor of "the new york times" is to figure out ways to make stories in every format as smart, as thoughtful and hard hitting as possible. boy, all evidence says we can do that on the phone too. >> let me come back to the nail salon story. you received a report of your innovations committee that called for many changes.

a main point was stop being so complacent about your readership. for decades "the times" has worked to provide the highest quality coverage confident that people would buy the paper, but that's no longer good enough in the internet era. the innovations report urged what it called audience development, finding a variety of ways to reach out to potential readers. how have you responded to innovations in business terms and in the newsroom? >> that's a great question for both us of. when i gave the 800,000, i can clear that up. it's 1.1 million print subscribers when you include the weekend. so i wanted to get that number back to where it belongs with the weekend sunday paper as well. so the innovation report was a wonderful wakeup call in many ways.

as you might recall, it was written by dean and jill, who was the executive editor. they empowered a team of our best journalists to look deep at ourselves and then it was leaked. and it was never written to be leaked. and at first we thought, that's just awful. it was only a few days later that we suddenly realized the power of what had just happened. because people around the world embraced the fact that the times had the courage to do a deep dive on itself, which we have done and to say here's what we have done right, here's what we must improve on and within a month i can't tell you how many calls i received from other newspaper publishers around the

world asking for -- to come and meet with the people who had done the innovation report because it was a wonderful wakeup call. when dean became executive editor at the same time, one of his first steps was to reach to our business side and take alex and make her an executive in charge of audience development. as you noted, one of the great findings was that the journalists must take greater responsibility for building their audience. welcome to the world of social media. as fewer people come to a home page and more people want to engage with our journalism on facebook and other platforms, how do we get people to engage in that way with us. and i dare you to name the last business side person to become an executive on the news side

because there isn't any. so it was a bold move. we have done subsequent work to say here's what we're doing right, here's what we need to push harder. there's a lot of work ahead because as soon as you catch up what has been going on, the digital universe shifts. and you have to start saying, okay, it's not as much about search as it used to be. it's now more about social. how do we adapt. >> the audience of the "new york times" has risen by 25% and growing. but from where i sit, and i'm an editor who wants a journalism of the "new york times" to have impact, i don't want to be big stories and have them go into a vacuum where nobody reads them. i think we have tools to make

sure people read the stuff we do and that's terrific. >> when you look at "the times" reach globally, you're talking about 75 million users. >> let me get back to the relationship between business and news side. traditionally "the times" has tried to maintain that trust by scrupulously maintaining a chinese ball between news side and business side. but now they are not just two

sides. there are three. news, business and technology. a recent example is the wonderful series on nail salon workers. in my day when the "the times" would launch a big investigative series, it would be with a splash on page one on sunday. yet this one was launched online and on thursday, which led some sprint readers to complain why are you giving us the stale stuff on sunday. >> very few print readers complained. and we're in a a mode now of testing learning and adapting. if you don't have the courage to try new things and grow, you're going to fail. and that's just the reality of the world we're in. so i applaud what dean and his colleagues did, which is to increasingly say let's put the story out when the story is ready. and there's some people who are going to read it then and other people who are going to read it

later on a different -- in print but it's not about the device. i mean print as well as you so eloquently stated some decades ago, we must platform agnostic. go to where the people are. and increasingly that means mobile. and we're doing a fun test right now at the "new york times." you want to talk about that? >> i will. just to say one thing, i think there's a myth about what's remarkable to me as much as people look at journalism and newspapers so closely how ignorant we are of the history. when i ran the l.a. times, if i had a big project that's going to run about orange county government, they were the giant place next to l.a. that we were in the middle of a life and death competition with the orange county register.

if i had a big story that was going to run about orange county, i would go to circulation director and i would say, please tell me which day you're going to have the most papers distributed in orange county. and if they said to me monday, i would run it on monday. because to me the question that i ask myself is i want a story to be read. you want it to have impact. i'm still fundamentally an idealist about journalism. and the idealist says i want as many people to read it, i want investigative stories to have impact, you want things to change as a result of hard hitting stuff and the only way to do that is to be widely read. to make sure that everybody in the building knows just how many of our readers are on the phone. we made it so if you type on to your laptop, it automatically takes you to the phone app.

just so you can think about it. >> which side of the chinese wall does audience development lie on? >> it lies -- part of it lies on my side and probably a little bit lies in advertising. can i back up one thing? the chinese wall has never been in newspapers between newsrooms and the entire business side. it was never the case. >> there's always been promotion. >> but also the wall is existed between newsrooms and advertising. not newsrooms and technology, not newsrooms and circulation. that's always been the case. >> talking about audience development, what new forms lie ahead? i would be especially interested to know if your experiments with instant articles on facebook and apple's new news app.

>> you mean what kinds of stories? >> i can make it a complicated question. >> you're risking a lot when you give these articles away for free. >> there's a risk, but here to me is the biggest risk. i know i keep coming back to wanting to be read because that's what all journalists want. the biggest risk is to not go where your readers are. the biggest risk is to not go to places where there are millions and millions of people who want to read you. the biggest risk is to sort of stay out of that world. that's why we felt we had to experiment with people like facebook and apple. i think the point is as the

world is evolve, if you don't have the courage to risk knowing sometimes your going to fail, you will fail automatically. if you just say, you know what, i don't need to -- you know the famous case. i'm blocking on the name. you know the titanic fallacy? it's a question that says, what was the fatal flaw of the titanic? some people will say it was a captain trying to set a world speed record through ice fields. some people note they didn't have enough lifeboats. some note they didn't build the walls actually high enough to ensure it was unsinkable. the answer is none of that.

even if the titanic had safely made it to new york harbor, it was still doomed. because a few years earlier two brothers had invented the airplane. must shift. the mode is still there, it's great, we have berths for all of you. but we must become an airplane company too. that means trying things, testing, having the courage to invest in things. and not just financially and say that works, that didn't work, next. that's a lot of what we're trying to do. to the key point, you've got to increasingly go where the audience is and the way the audience wants you. that doesn't mean our journalism

is going to change, but that means our presentation may change, the way we scroll on small devices is totally different than what you have on a laptop. we have to adapt increasingly to those issues. >> let me go off your airplane metaphor. there are a lot of other airplanes in the air now and they are faster and more nimble. >> but they are not better. >> with all of "the times" tradition of careful editing going way until late night dead lines, there are a lot of nimble startup sites including what could be called parasites. >> i like that. nicely done.

>> how do you compete? >> first off, whenever there's a big news story, people come "the new york times" by the millions. they don't go to the other sites. they come to us because we break the stories. secondly because we don't make mistakes. >> we are a human enterprise. the question is do we own them. keep going. >> "the new york times" is as fully edited as it was in print, but people still come to us for news. i don't -- if you ask me who my biggest competitors are, largely they are the same competitors we had in the predigital era. i would add in some of the european eras. but largely the guardian, "the washington post" and the "wall street journal" are the news organizations that keep me up at night now and are the ones that

kept me up at night 20 years ago. >> i want to go back to the thought about the mistakes. what dean is saying is really important in this sense. we have all seen speed to market being such a critical element in a digital age. more so than in our earlier print era alone. because everyone wants to be first. and so all of a sudden you have competitors throwing up the photos of the boston bombers. oops, turned out they were not the boston bombers. they were innocent kids. or people saying the supreme court just ruled on the health care bill and then going out with the wrong ruling. and what dean is trying to say is that we pride accuracy so

much that we are prepared to be -- we're not prepared to be first and wrong. we're prepared to be fourth and fifth and right. that's a core value. >> let me inject a a little humility into my answer. i didn't mean it to be glib. of course, we make mistakes. so the supreme court issues its ruling on the obama administration's health care plan. e we knew it would be a huge complicated ruling. we knew if we tried to assess it quickly in realtime we would get it wrong. we wrote a memo and put it on the website and said that. we said please indulge us. give us time to read it. what other news organizations did is they read the first half and if you recall from the ruling it sort of flipped in the

middle. and we waited until adam said now i understand it enough to write it. my main point is that we work really, really hard not to make mistakes. i understand that the greatest currency we have is that we work hard to be accurate, edited and truthful as possible. i understand that i can't squander that. >> acknowledging that, i talked to some talented tech people who said they left "the times" because the news department people patronized them as service assistants rather than recognizing them as innovative partners. is that fair criticism? >> i bet you that's a fair criticism. i bet you that there was a period -- i'm going to hope that the assessments would be

different now. but i bet you people would have said for a long time in the life of "the new york times" that we didn't quite understand how much the technology people in the news and "the new york times" had to offer and say that wouldn't surprise me. >> dean has made another important hire in wilson. so dean hired a new head of digital. she used to be at npr and a variety of other places. she came to "the times" it seems a nanosecond ago, but what happened is after he settles himself in the newsroom as head of digital, our new ceo, mark thompson, recognized, yes, that's who we need on the business side as well.

so wilson now is a joint report to dean and to our ceo mark thompson with technology reporting to him across those. that's a critical because what we need to do is we need to be faster and we need to be more nimble. we need to make decisions less complex. i don't have to have seven bosses. so that speed to market issue is a critical one. and to your point of who you spoke with, it does empower our digital teams on news and business to feel equal. >> you mentioned two different people. what's the relationship and do they have revenue obligations?

>> alex does not have direct revenue obligations. hopefully if you increase the size of your audience, you increase the number of subscribers. if you increase your audience, you get more advertisers. she doesn't have direct revenue obligations. kinz si does because he oversees technology and product. product is the part of the business side largely, though the newsroom has a window into it that tries to design stuff for the future. product would have created the food section. but now we're likely to try to create essentially products out of the journalism we produce. he has revenue responsibilities. >> to the point of the creation of that section, let's not pretend when they started to rethink the paper in the '70s that there wasn't fundament need for revenue that they recognized they had to meet.

they did. this is not unique. this is just transferring that to a digital era. >> what papers do you read in the morning? >> me or him? >> him, he's the editor. >> i read -- so i start out by looking at "the new york times" on the phone to find out what i missed at night. partly just to get a sense of experience. then i read "the new york times" pretty thoroughly in print. i read "the journal", i read "the post." >> be more specific. >> "the washington post." >> no, but then when i'm on the subway i read ""the new york post."" i don't pretend i read every paper, but i spin through some other sites that have specific stuff. i look at courts for some business stuff and some media stuff.

if there's a big -- a lot of it depends on the big story of the day is. >> but do you routinely look at buzzfeed or other sites? >> no, i look at facebook pretty regularly, which also gives me a glimpse of a whole nother realm. >> do you tweet? >> i have tweeted once. so i don't tweet. but i post to facebook often. >> do you tweet? >> no, i don't. >> i write too long to tweet. >> you remember the famous quote, i think it was from sally. you can work for "the times" or you can read it, but you can't do both.

i sometimes feel during the course, because i go to it first on my phone. that's how i'll catch up on some of the morning reading stuff. what i have learned is i go to a lot of the pieces that are journalists suggest we go to. >> i want to ask another business question. why is digital advertising so relatively little revenue compared with print, even though it reaches many more readers? >> that's a great question to ask google. i think it's quite frankly for a variety of reasons. the first is the cost it much less. the cost of producing digital advertising is less and distributing it.

obviously, there's no paper, no trucks, no pressmen and mailers and drivers. so the cost of getting digital advertising is significantly less than print. so that's one reason. the second, obviously, is there's so many places to go. and what we're learning over time is how little effect some of those places really have on affecting actual purchasing. it's a constantly evolving process. many advertisers recognize the value of both. that there are times you want to be in print because it does have a much greater sale possibility. people actually will focus on it and make a purchase decision. and other times if you're telling a story, digital is a remarkable tool. and one of the great creations of our head of revenue officer is the creation of it in house in a story telling lab for advertisers to use.

and that has been that branded content has really become a great tool for advertisers. and that's just not a little pop up ad. we're seeing people really do gravitate to that. so there's lots of new digital tool that we're using and getting better at. that leads to the ultimate financial question. >> how is your pension doing? >> about the same as yours. >> even assuming you succeed in developing a large and larger digital audience, given how cheaply people can buy digital advertising, can you generate

the serious revenue that's necessary to pay for quality journalism? >> the answer is yes. the mission of "the times" has not changed since it was founded in 1851. and that mission has to be funded. and that's to produce the quality journalism that attracts a quality audience that we in turn sell to quality advertisers. but the value of our subscription plan, the digital subscription plan has made it such that it's as much up to getting the readers to engage with us in such a way they say, yes, this subscription is worth it as it is to build that advertising base.

both are critical. but as we go back to the original numbers, the subscription value of a lifetime subscriber print or digital is one of the core that's going to give us the ability to support that journalism that dean and his colleagues are doing so extraordinarily well and, again, dean, congratulations on your three pulitzer prizes. >> the short answer is is paid digital subscribers. >> and advertising. let's not pretend that advertising is not a critical part of the picture, it is. but it's increasingly a

combination of the two. and the final thought i have is as we continue to grow and continue to grow our base of readers that advertising is going to play a deeper and deeper role. it's an evolving -- digital advertising is an evolving picture and it's getting better. >> i want to ask dean a question as a sometime victim. how is the public editor's job working out? >> it's interesting. if you had -- i used to think when i was at "the l.a. times", we had a discussion about whether we should have a public editor. i think having a public editor is a great thing. i'm surprised i feel that way. i think it's a great thing for a bunch of reasons. first off, i do think it gives people -- even though in the digital era many people can criticize you, it's not hard to

get to us. it does give people a sense that the institution is listening. even though i have no power over her, she can criticize me and often does, i think people feel there's some place to go in the institution. i think she's often right when she beats us up. i think even when she's wrong, she's reasonable and fair. it's probably not a bad idea for newspaper editors find out what it's like to be on the other end of criticism and questions. so even though there are times when i would like to lock her in

her office and unplug her computer, i think in the long run it's good. i'm speaking largely because she's been the public editor for my time as editor of the paper. i think it's a good institution. it's been helpful for the paper. it's just -- i support it now. >> let me ask one more question and we'll turn to you in the audience. arthur, critics sometimes cry nepotism about the fact that you and your son and half a dozen other family members -- >> i thought you were going to be attacking my father. really, you're going to say something nasty about punch? >> let me enlarge the question then. the fact is that that kind of criticism has always seemed to be really misguided. it ignores the fact that other famous journalism families like the chandlers in los angeles, the bancrofts at the "wall street journal," when it gets into second or third generation,

they get greedy or some members of the family start wanting to sell shares and the papers consequently lose the determination to put out quality product. how does the family now into a fifth generation manage to assure that the same thing doesn't happen to the "new york times." >> it's a very good question. it's one my family has been working on for many, many years. there was a story in the paper yesterday that noted that only the number of family businesses that are able to move from a

third generation to a fourth generation, and i'm fourth generation, is 3%. only 3%. >> not just newspapers. >> no, a all family businesses. and we're now looking at the transition to a fifth generation, of which there are six members of the fifth generation currently working at "the new york times," which is very exciting. they are working in the newsroom, they are working on the business end. and doing amazing work. so the family has a fundamental commitment. we have a wonderful trust created by our great grandfather that lays out the mission of the company and the mission of the company is to protect the quality journalism of "the new york times." the mission makes no mention of profitability. so there's eight family trustees and we're responsible as trustees to vote the b shares, which are simple.

they elect the majority of the board of directors, that's it. we meet as a family at least twice a year. once for a two-day meeting at "the times" to learn about how is the business going and to engage with your successors and their colleagues and to hear how the business is going and then we have a meeting, a family reunion just to remind ourselves we're a family and we have great love for each other. so it's something we have invested an enormous amount of time and effort in in making those connections deeper as the family grows is something we all take extremely seriously. >> safe for another generation? >> there's no question at all about that. there's no question about that. >> great. let's turn to the audience. you'll observe there are

microphones on both sides. let me ask that you keep questions short because there are going to be a lot of people who want questions, and number two, in order to maximize the number of questions, please let's take three questions at once and then we'll answer them successively. >> my name is victor houser. i'm a member of the community. i started reading "the new york times" in junior high school when they used to give us a discounted copy that i would bring home and you suckered me in. then i started working and reading the "wall street journal." i was in england for a year. i read all three every day. my impression is that every year i read that "the new york times" is doing buyouts, head count is going down. i know sections have disappeared, style section, gone, metro folded into the first part.

i think bridge is gone. culture seems not as deep as it once was. "the journal" since it's no longer family owned seems to be growing. they have added a new york section. they have added a section my wife likes to read when i come home from work. the names i used to read in "the times" are going over there. why the difference? >> we're holding off for three questions. >> jack mckenzie, i used to work for some of you. i thought i would hear in the course of this discussion some kind of emotional commitment to the print paper other than the kind of business this and that.

i desperately want to keep the printed paper. now i'd like to be assured that the digital paper on the screen at home will look like it does now like a newspaper on the web so that the model is the paper. the paper that we started with. >> i'd like to know why "the new york times" signed an agreement with a right winger to promote his book and i'd like to know why amy chosack, another right-winger, covers hillary clinton. i thought "the new york times" is supposed to be fair and balanced. >> actually, that's fox news. but we get the question. >> can i start with that one? that's not accurate. amy is not a right-winger. she was a reporter who covered media.

she worked for "the wall street journal." >> i detect a a right-wing bias in her reporting. >> i would disagree with you, with all due respect. she was a reporter for "the wall street journal" and reporter for "the new york times." we did not sign an agreement. that's been mischaracterized. we took information from him, as we take information from many others -- >> from a crock pot like him? >> we take information from all kinds of crack pots. that's called reporting. when i spent my time as an investigative reporter, you take information, check it, use it and use what's accurate. but i really, really think that's an inaccurate portrayal. >> the first is there are a lot of excellent journalists at "the wall street journal".

i don't agree with their editorial page, but "the journal" is a a good journalistic institution. i had lunch today -- a meeting actually with about a dozen of our new hires. three of whom were from the journal originally. had come to us. so maybe three. we lose people sometimes. they go to bloomberg or "the journal" or elsewhere, but remember this is a circle. we get people also from "the journal" as well as others. but the quality of the journalism and their integrity is the critical part of their being hired. can i say that we have made -- to the first question, we'll get to print in a second. we have made a lot of

adaptations to "the times" in the last 15 years. and we have been forced to. sometimes it's been cuts because of the financial pressures we're under as we adapt to a new era. but we have more foreign journalists today than ever in our history. we are investing in our journalism to have their cuts in the newsroom. but by the way, have we been hiring back, yes. we have the same number of journalists today as we had ten years ago. we have more national correspondents than ever in our history. so we have created new sections. >> how many bureaus? >> 40, 18 national. >> 22 national bureaus.

>> so as a time when our competitors like "the washington post," which i love and ""the l.a. times" have cut back on their foreign and national -- having people there, we have been investing in that. we have created new sections. we have created teen magazine ú was a famous section. we did a men's fashion. so we are finding ways, but it is a bit of a change and change can sometimes be tough. >> but i'm not going to say anything critical of the news coverage of "the journal", those are good, worthy competitors. but i think you'll find, to be honest, they have also had to cut. i think you'll find they have also had to close sections. this is a really difficult time in the life of newspapers.

and i think the core of what we try to do is to hold on to the stuff that defines us and the stuff that i suspect most people in this room care most about and that stuff we haven't cut at all. but i think every news organization has had to rethink how it does business a little bit. but what we protect mightily is the core of the coverage of "the new york times." >> now if we can go to the print. >> there are many people who adore print and it is our responsibility to keep print going for as long as we can. we're not thinking that print is going to be going away any time soon, so please don't walk away thinking that.

but obviously, the degree to which people subscribe to print and get home delivery really matters. so if you people want to keep print alive, get more of your friends and family to subscribe. home delivery, thank you so much. >> i thought you were going to >> i thought you were going to say the number, 1-800 -- >> ma'am? >> my name is alice. i'm former department of state foreign service. i live in harlem. i'm a home subscriber. and for awhile i was really writing letters to you all that would be answered about please get to the five w's in the first paragraph please. >> the five w's are the who, what, where, when, why. >> so now i just want to say two accommodations. one is thank you for the nice stories on my law enforcement, the nypd. and second of all, thanks for giving me more stories in the travel section on america, thank you.

>> thank you. that's very sweet. >> ma'am? >> during fleet week i had a conversation with a press representative from the marine corps who had traveled through the middle east with secretary gates and he was very candid in saying that the military has and will ask national press to hold stories because of the sensitivity of the u.s. relations with arab countries. i wondered what kind of criteria "the times" would apply holding a story? and how high up in the organization does the decision go? >> very good question. >> can i take that one? >> my name is john wallace. none of the questions so far have really addressed except the last one the future of

journalism at "the new york times." i wondered what your thoughts about that are. is the constitution of news going to be different ten years from now and what role do you see "the times" playing in that new constitution? >> that's a good question. can i take that one and then maybe that one. the way it works is any time anybody from the government wants to ask that a story be held or that anything be taken out of a story, it has to come directly to me. there are some obvious cases in which all news organizations don't publish things, and i'm wondering if that's what your friend was talking about. that's the basic stuff like if you're embedded with a military group because you're covering

the war and they are about to do a land invasion on tuesday at 6:00 p.m., nobody is going to put in the newspaper land invasion expected in three hours. hours. keep an eye out. i mean, that's been a basic tenant of journalism for longs reporters have covered war. i think what you're talking about is when somebody wants to ask national security, it always has to come to me. i would say 95% of the time, i say no. i can think of a couple of times when i've said yes. in fact, i can think of a couple, at least one time, when i said yes and came to regret it. because it was a mistake because i think i was -- didn't consult enough reporters and just didn't. there is a very, very tiny number of instances in which it is very, very clear that it

would jeopardize a life. that's pretty much my criteria. i don't buy the argument that it's going to jeopardize relationships with a foreign government. in every instance, you know, when that's become the -- that's the reason, i always say no. the times i've said yes, which would have been years ago, i've come to regret them. my rule is, you really got to make the case that it would put somebody's life in danger. there are a small number of cases in which i've said yes as a result. i always insist it come directly to me. there are very -- i think there's a mythology that, somehow, the government comes in and wields its muscle with us. these are really difficult decisions. >> arthur, would you like to tell stories about being summoned to the white house? >> no, not particularly.

although it has happened, yes. most obviously with president bush. not herbert walker, george w. this was the case of the internal wiretapping, in effect. we had held off on that story for a while for, i think, good reason. over time, we saw that the reasons that they had given us to hold back on the stories, national security. it's a serious issue. let's not pretend it's not. the reasons seem to have less and less value. as we got to the point where we were ready to go with the story, that's when the president called and we had a good discussion. we ran the story. that happens on occasion. it's happened that we've held off on stories. the famous jack kennedy discussion with the publisher in

1961. >> bay of pigs. >> we knew about the -- that the bay of pigs was being planned. the president asked us not to print the story. to be fair, we printed the fact that we were training, that there was the training process going on, but we didn't say and, by the way, we're going to be invading the bay of pigs. when it failed, of course, we know it was a terrible failure, and he yelled at the then-publisher afterwards. if only you printed that story, you would have saved me from this. occasionally, that happens, too. >> let's go to the future of journalism. >> before i take the future, because it's an important one, i want to give a specific example. this is one of those questions that is really important, especially in the post 9/11 era. i think there's a mythology that big news organizations like mine sit on stuff all the time. let me give you a real example of one we held that later came

out. because i think it's important to understand the context. so i led our wiki leaks coverage, when the "new york times" and "guardian" got together. the agreement we had is the "new york times" would take the lead in going to the government to show them stuff we thought was sensitive, so the government could make their case, if there was a case to be made, that someone could get killed. there was one particular cable that i thought was one of the most remarkable cables ever. it was a cable that described qaddafi's visit to the united states. it was this richly detailed portrait of what his requirements would be in his hotel. he wanted a tent on the grounds, if you remember. there was a controversy. it was really richly detailed. who he traveled with. he traveled with three female

nurses. how he was in such bad physical shape, that please don't give him a hotel room with stairs because he would get out of breath. really richly detailed. we were about to put that whole cable in the "new york times." the "guardian" was going to use it. then the government called up and said, okay, take a look closely at that cable. do you see the names at the bottom that describe the various people who are accompanying qaddafi on his trip? who do you think gave us all that information? what do you think is going to happen to them when qaddafi sees that cable in the "new york times" with a description of how he's in horrible shape, little bit of a nut job, et cetera. what's going to happen to those people? so not only did i agree to hold that cable back until later, when qaddafi died, but julien

agreed to hold it back and the "guardian" agreed to hold it back. that's the stuff you wrestle with. to the future of journalism question, i think, honestly, that journalism will look profoundly better ten years from now than it looks today. i think, if you look at the coverage, i'll use ours, not to be arrogant, but it's what i'm most intimate with, if you look at the coverage of ebola, and you think about what the coverage of ebola would have looked like in a pre-digital era, it would have been fine, fabulous. you would have had great newspaper stories. you would have had great photography. courageous journalists. all this stuff. but you wouldn't have had the videos on the "new york times" website that described, for instance, one young man writhing outside of a hospital with his parents screaming because there wasn't room for him in the

hospital. you wouldn't have had the video in the "new york times" website, produced by us, in which an ambulance driver drove through the streets of monrovia, looking for ebola victims whose families didn't want to touch them, so he could pile them into his truck and try to find a hospital that would take them. journalism, let's put it over here, the debate over print versus digital. journalism is better today than it ever was because there are many more tools. i mean, i grew up in new orleans. i grew up reading afternoon newspapers. i only had access to one newspaper. the same kid who grows up in new orleans in a working class family now has access to as many newspapers as he can push a button for. he has access to video and access to the whole world. we shouldn't get so caught up in the debates over the form, we shouldn't get so caught up in some of the romantic aspects of

journalism which, believe me, i grew up in, to forget it's better will be better ten years from now, too. [ applause ] >> i'll add a p.s. to that. can you talk about the influence on future journalism of iphone cameras? >> the fact that reporters can take their own pictures now? >> anybody can. >> boy, just think. i mean, if i can keep -- i'm sort of, to be frank, passionate about the future of journalism. i mean, my god, we are now seeing an upheval in the way police departments are covered. just for those interested in history, just imagine if iphone cameras that existed during the civil rights movement, just imagine what we would have seen, how that would have changed the

course of history. this stuff is better for us. it's better. it may be hard, may give me a headache, may give us all headaches about how we're going to finance it, but this stuff is better for the country. it's better for society. >> say i learn more about the "times" and video. >> i think we turned the corner this year on video. a guy named bruce, who we put in charge of video, pulled it off. if you look at the videos when they were first introduced, it was loalmost like "wane'yne's ." it was heartbreakingly bad. not because of the videographers. we put two not attractive editors, including myself, to sit at a table, talk clumsily as

they looked at their watches. >> if one was david carr, it worked very well. >> that's true. >> i was speaking of myself. i think we produced video for ebola, you're allowed to submit ten things for pulitzer. at least two, possibly three, of the stories we submitted were videos. i think the "new york times" has cracked the code of journalism and video. not just us. the "journal" and others do a great job, too. it's made us better. >> if i can quickly note, our editorial side has also done extraordinarily well under andy rosenthal, with video. there are other elements we make use of now that are also fabulous. the retro report. the one that went up today, on transgender and the history of that. i mean, there's a really