tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 27, 2013 1:30am-3:31am EST
more hydrocarbons. you see more heart -- hydrocarbons flow from the persian gulf to east asia. the connections between regions is becoming -- is increasing little by little. because it is a gradual development, it does not make a news story. the indian ocean is the maritime organizing principle of this. you cannot deal with the middle east unless you understand russia and vladimir putin. you cannot deal with energy and asia unless you understand the persian gulf. the fact that china and india are going to need more of their hydrocarbon resources from the persian gulf while the u.s. may need less and less. there is less of a distinction.
in the extreme cases of getting involved in a land war somewhere or setting a bad example that leads people elsewhere to question your power, the assumptions of your questions are correct. >> i want to follow up on that. there is a perception that there is not another actor like the united states if the united states is not act, it is not clear who will act. if it looks like we are retrenching, if it looks like we establish red lines but do not act on them, that does send a message. the point you made about the increasing dependency upon energy from the gulf area and the understanding that we are
the ones who have been made sure that the sea lines of communication have remained open , where does that leave us? there is a desire for us to be smart about how we use our power. there is a concern that if we begin to retrench and we appear that our dependence on our end up -- it is not a source of great reoccurrence -- reassurance to those in asia. one other point i want to throw out there, it is true putin has been playing effectively on the chessboard. i would also note that if the price of oil is high, that is good for putin and russia. particularly given their economic situation. if it is low, that is bad for putin and russia. you don't have an effective rule of law there because companies
cannot know what they can repatriate him because the capacity to innovate and russia is not what it ought to be. in a time when we have increased by about 3 million barrels a day what we are adding to the global energy pool because of what we are doing with our own developments, one of the reasons the price of oil has been relatively stable at a time when there is a lot of disruption within the middle east and because with -- because of what our policy has been, has been because we continue to increase. if you put iran to the side, in terms of iraq not increasing the
way we anticipated, other disruptions like nigeria, if some of those disruptions were to disappear and are continuing to increase energy from here, russia will not be in a great position. i am not sure he is as well positioned as he rephrased to the rest of the world. >> he is playing a good game now. the next half decade looks good for him. after that, it gets more complicated. >> every party has to have a pooper. every conference, it is cassandra.
i will be the knuckle dragger. if you had to compare, from my perspective, one of the measures for comparing the united states and the world today to five years ago is that there is much less military power and that there will be less capacity, less capability, less modernization. we are not substituting in an adequate way more modern systems for obsolete systems. even things like the asia pivot, there may be a larger slice of the u.s. navy in the pacific, but the overall size will be so much smaller that there will be
fewer ships. in doing our tour, we have not looked at ourselves and our capacity to achieve the goals to remain something of a guarantor or a balancer, whether it is in the middle east and if the pacific pivot is to mean anything, it should begin with establishing a more or less ad hoc set of security arrangements than currently exist. if bob is right, we have to worry about europe again. after hoping we solved that in a lasting fashion. essentially, we do not have the capacity. as we change the character of our economy at home and what we
spend money on, our inability to mobilize -- our ability to mobilize will take longer. i wish you would look at the questions of american capacity, particularly military capacity and ask -- and answer the question -- what will the middle east look like without much american power there if the pivot does not materialize. it is not like we have a lot of ships in the indian ocean in the first place. >> i think we have 11 aircraft carriers and the chinese have one. >> not even one. it is a ukrainian piece of junk. >> 11 aircraft carriers takes a long time.
what do you imagine war would look like? >> whatever the capacities allow. any student of military history would not rule out a particular kind of war. we have always thought that technology was going to change the character of war. it never does. think of the early rounds field rumsfeld years. they came into office saying that we will not escort balkan schoolchildren -- they ended up in a large nationbuilding -- what was the endgame in syria? the idea that we could've have launched a couple of cruise missiles. >> the indians announced a week
ago that they are going to build their third aircraft carrier. they will be doing much better than the chinese. their ambitions, or lack thereof, has any impact on what we have just discussed -- >> they are building missiles to try to destroy our carriers. they are developing means to project their own power around the region. the first order of business for them is to trump our investments. >> it is not so much surface power, it is undersea power where the chinese are surging ahead.
the indians, regardless of what their position is, they help balance against china. there is something we are missing in this discussion. we are talking about our vulnerabilities, not other vulnerabilities. look at china. if you were to ask me what the single biggest question is in the world today, i would say that the direction of the chinese economy. i think their economy is in much more dire straits that has written about. they are on a credit bubble, they have ghost cities, expansion is slowing down. >> you can't breathe the air.
>> there may come a point when their economic slowdown causes social and political unrest that crimps the advance of their military budgets. that is why i said do not believe in linear thinking. it is interesting to know, but i do not -- to say that the chinese are going to have the greatest land-based navy in the mid-2030's is a stretch. things will happen to intervene. it is not just our vulnerabilities. it is china's. the threat in europe is not going to be a new cold war. what is happening is the eu is different trading --
differentiating. the further away you get from germany and the low countries, the worse the economy tends to be. the threat in europe is not going to be the cold war threat. it is a much more specific new wants threat such as may be protecting poland and the baltic states and things like that. >> nobody else can project power the way we can. nobody else has the kind of, mostly because of the experience of last 12 years where we fought these wars, we have a capacity to integrate intelligence with battlefield management, fuse our capabilities because of our experience the way that nobody else has. it has contributed to the point you are raising. we are not prepared to continue to spend the kind of money on the military that we have. we will have to think about what that means for our place in the world. it is not the first time we have had a period of entrenchment. some of them may come back. it is hard to imagine right now
because there such a sense of wariness and weariness with being involved in conflicts that look messy. they never quite produce an outcome that are suggested they will. it leads us being cautious about what we want to do in the rest of the world. the question becomes -- let's not focus on the current snapshot. i do not think things will remain static. i think the chinese have enormous strengths, but they have enormous vulnerabilities. one of the jobs i had was in the office of med assessment. one of the things that you focus on is how do you compete? where are the vulnerabilities of
those that you are competing with? there are different measures of power now. with you, i am not prepared to write off the role of military power because sooner or later, it has a place. does diplomacy work without the credible use of coercion to back it up? it is hard to find examples of six -- success without that. if it becomes clear that we are not capable of projecting power because we have become too hollow, it is going to have a diplomatic consequence. my larger worry is there is nobody out there who fills that vacuum. vacuums do get filled, and not by useful forces.
>> we are an hour in five minutes and then we have not mentioned the word al qaeda. that is a form of victory. we have a group of very serious people who do not mention it. >> it is, although had i had 18 minutes, i wouldn't have mentioned it in large, but i would have mentioned it in syria. it is an illusion for those who think syria is a humanitarian catastrophe, which is, i think the pitcher -- picture is much worse than anybody knows. the stories of torture being used against babies in front of their parents is so unspeakable. it is not even out there. the bigger strategic worry that we should have about syria is that the number of al qaeda that are going to syria because
bashar al-assad is a magnet and the idea that somehow they will not embed themselves, i think that is an illusion. >> what can be done, other than recognizing it as a problem? what can be done now? what is a reasonable thing for the obama administration to do? is it a waste of time? >> i will follow you up. >> to start on your al qaeda point, i think we have to continue thinking that anywhere there is a major power vacuum, it is basically we should be thinking of it as a place where al qaeda or affiliates can set
back up. it is a network and it is a network where you can suddenly have a more active node. we can never not pay attention to ungoverned spaces. i just meant in terms of the kinds of forces we need, we are going to need the forces that can fight those networks more than huge, land-based conflicts. i think our best hope in syria for humanitarian reasons as well as strategic ones, it is a disaster on both fronts, is something like geneva where we can broker a political settlement that includes safe
zones and u.n. forces to police them. i only thing that can happen if the united states and other countries make clear that if we cannot get that agreement, we are willing to use force in some way. whether it is using force to cripple the regime, i understand the dangers. i understand the dangers of doing that, but my point is, we have nowhere -- we have gotten nowhere unless we say to assad you have to remember from the beginning, it was not a
secretarian thing. they took bullets, people were snipers, the works, before they set up their own forces. assad wanted to be a secretarian conflict from the beginning. he did everything he could to fan the flames. now it is a secretarian conflict. you will not get anything unless you make it clear to him that the other side may not win, but he will not win either. we are willing to take the measures that will stop him from doing what he is doing. if there were good answers, we would have done something. i think the alternative to that is watching this thing go for years and possibly looking at the changing borders around
syria and turkey, iraq and much worse. >> al qaeda seems to be preoccupied with killing shiites and is less focused on larger, x essential american threat. that could change on a dime in that years to come. i cannot imagine any kind of agreement in geneva that does not involve putting large-scale troops on the ground to police it. i do not see how you get to orchestrating a peaceful settlement in a country that is war-torn, divided among dozens of groups, with 20 million people.
>> i don't think -- that is why said you and troops -- u.n. troops. i agree with that. >> i don't see how you produce a political settlement unless you change the balance of power on the ground. it is shifting in the wrong direction because of iranian backing assad. the syrian's use all of their firing power from a distance. if you don't change the balance of power, assad does think he is winning. he cannot put syria back together. at some point, we will have to define an objective in syria. we want a political outcome and that is the best result, but it
is impossible to produce it unless the balance of power is change in the ground. you have to ensure that it is clear that assad cannot win, that those that align with him know that he is not going to be the future, and that there can be assurances for them if they split from him. if we can do that, the war will continue to grind on. at some point, they will embed themselves in parts of syria and then we will face in syria what we face in yemen today. it is a matter of time before it gets to that point. you are looking at a war that will grind on. today, you have 600,000 syrian refugees in jordan.
it has a huge effect on jordan. you have a million in lebanon. it is raising the level of violence in iraq actually was in 2008, sharpening the divide, making it harder to come up with a lot of understandings within iraq. this is a cancer that is not going to be contained within syria. unless the objective becomes containment, which itself requires building up localized leaderships within syria. you make a decision to ensure that the reality of localized rule produces fragmentation in syria, but then you invest in localized leaderships and have them become buffers.
even that because -- even that requires safe areas. >> i was struck in the reporting on the timeline aspect of the iran negotiations, it put a different set of colored lenses on our serious strategy and arguably our strategies more broadly. if a nuclear deal with iran becomes the prime directive, how does that affect our approach to syria? does that constrain our ability, our negotiating position in syria if these things are linked? we cannot afford to tick off the iranians as we are trying to lure them to their nuclear destruction. >> i am a believer in negotiations. you cannot achieve anything if you do not have leverage.
if it looks like we are prepared to concede what iran might seek in syria, i wonder, those who think -- in the arab world, i like to say that conspiracy is like oxygen and everybody breathes it. there's this big fear that we will do a deal on the nuclear issue and in turn will give the iranians what they want in the rest of the region. we make it clear that, no, we have a set of clear objectives in syria and elsewhere. we're going to do things with our friends. we will shore you up because we are committed to that. iran becoming a threshold nuclear state is not acceptable. if there is a diplomatic way to
achieve that, we ought to try. iranians should understand that they can have civil nuclear power, and we are prepared to accept that, but the way we approach that is not going to be linked to everything else. if we link it to everything else, our ability to negotiate would disappear. >> with all the various conversations about the iranian deal, i have heard experts saying that syria is getting out of control, even for iran. iran supports hezbollah, has below supports -- hezbollah supports assad. this starts destabilizing other countries and it is not a prospect that iran can --. one thing that we do know is
that iran wants to be recognized as a major power. i would agree with no linkage, but i imagine that if you can get a deal and it is a real deal , we can then engage iran, the prospect of them being part of negotiations on syria and on other key areas is something that seems to be leverage. that is something iran wants. that is at least think about. -- thinkable. >> as long as they are prepared to play by a set of rules. if they won a set of rules that gives them hegemony in the region, that is not an acceptable set of rules.
it is one thing to have a respected place in the region. they have a set of interests. it is possible to accept that they can have interests respected by others, provided they are prepared to accept others' interests in the region. >> just because you open up a dialogue with a big power that you are estranged with does not mean you neglect your other allies. once you do that, you lose the leverage. right after dealing with the chinese in beijing in 1972, henry kissinger flew to moscow. even though his deal in beijing was against the russians, to reassure the russians.
i would imagine in the coming months, if secretary kerry were make -- were to make a trip to tehran and then he were to fly to tel aviv -- >> i would suggest he needs to go to those other places first. if he goes to tehran first, i will put it this way -- surprise in diplomacy works if it is such a transformational surprise that everyone sees the benefit. surprise in diplomacy does not work if it is anything less than that because your friends will read the substance of what you are presenting through the lens of their suspicion. they will already have their defensive worries built a very high and what they hear is interpreted through that lens. they may not hear what you are saying. they will hear only their fears.
>> we will throw it to duende to the audience -- q&a to the audience. we will start with this gentleman here. >> b-55 bombers just through over the east china sea. china just announced the air defense identification zone. could you tell us how you think about the motivation of the u.s. action and what is the -- behind china's annoucement. could this lead to escalation of tension between the three biggest economies of the world? >> they are from which country? >> from long, i would assume.
-- from guam, i would assume. >> given that china is growing at a faster rate than other countries in the region, it would make sense for china to wait and delay and not start crises and incidents. the longer it goes on, the more the balance of power shifts in china's favor. that is not happening. why did china declare an air defenses own? -- air defense zone? they have emphasized more nationalism, more central control. the chinese economy is struggling. tensions are more fraught than they were before.
it is noteworthy how much nationalism has been dialed up in japan as well. if this is correct, i am taking your word for it, if it is correct, it is a struggle of force independent -- in defense of japan. the white house thought it was serious enough that it merited a u.s. response in defense of japan. if this happened, this shows how insecure the area is. if you have to go to the trouble to send your bombers over an area without -- normally you should signal this without having to do it. if you actually have to do it, it shows how much more severe the security situation is in asia.
a region where we had taken stability for granted for too long. we saw for decades that asia is a business story. it is for fortune forbes magazine. it is gradually becoming more than that. >> this is the most dangerous possible crisis we can imagine. it is like when the japanese captured the chinese fishing cap and -- captain. one quick trigger, somebody that had the japanese or chinese fired, the united states has to come to japan's defense. it is possible we are doing is aimed at japan as much as china. we're saying to china, do not think you can do this and we will not be there.
we are also saying to japan, do not respond, we are here. that is important. we do not want japan to respond in a way that could escalate. i would see that message as well. the other point, part of what we have not talked about -- domestic politics. they just announced and enormous set of reforms. if he can carry them out, they are being looked at as fundamental as some of the original reforms. he is really talking about liberalizing parts of the chinese economy that are going that need to be liberalized. he is going after corruption. that is going to cause domestic troubles. nationalism is partially a way of buying off the p.l.a. he has to create space for
himself to be able to do this economically. he is trying to juggle those things. this may not be something he wants to dial up, but that he has to. >> this lady over here. >> hello, lori watkins. i haven't heard anyone mention turkey, except a brief mention. they are a major actor in the region, especially with syria. i traveled to the area and it will break your heart to see some of the refugee children that have traveled there. turkey is taking care of one million people, refugees. who do you think the opposition to assad would be if we were to help them get more developments and what you think of turkey's position, playing in that region?
that is in no small part because they had money and arms. the issue is whether it is too late to try to support the free syrian army in a way that would make it possible to shift the balance of power. one of the things that has happened is that there is a kind of collaboration between the free syrian army and the radical left -- radicalists. it has made it difficult to have confidence that if you provide arms you can count on confidence that you know where the arms would end up. if you want to do something to change the balance of power, you would have to decide that you were going to support the free syrian army. you would have to do something that we wanted the opposition -- you need those who are providing support to the opposition -- you need to have it coordinated. you need to have everything challenged -- channel. you need to have training. that has not been the case. the question is, whether it is too late for that. i am not sure it is too late. it needs to be part of what might be an integrated strategy towards trying to affect the
balance of power. turkey has a huge stake in this. this is an issue of dissonance within turkey itself. you asked about the role of turkey and then you morphed that into focusing on syria. turkey had a foreign-policy that was described by a slogan zero problems with neighbors. today, they only have problem with neighbors. they need to rethink what their approach to the region is going to be. you may have noticed that egypt has hermetically downgraded its relations with turkey. if you look at what is happening to the muslim brotherhood across the region, they were very strong in opposition.
in power, it has been ineffective everywhere it has been. it is not a rising force, it is a declining force. for turkey, the a.k.p., these are sister parties. they thought what was going to be the rise of political islam, it has to rethink that posture. turkey can play a significant role in the region. it is not playing the role that it in vision for itself and it has to rethink that posture.
>> there is another point. turkey tried to manipulate the crisis in syria and iraq. it thought it could be a mid- level power. what happened is that it became embroiled with its own problems. the southeast quadrant of kurt of turkey is heavily kurdish. its own kurdish problem got in the way. turkey is ramped up against its own -- rammed up against its own complications. they have built this pipeline through turkey, but whether they turn on the taps or not is questionable. that would hurt turkey's relations with baghdad. they are at thickly -- ethnically to embroiled in the region to project power without complications with its neighbors.
>> that is right, but one thing we pay very little attention to is that aired want just met with barzani. that is quite extraordinary to have a side-by-side meeting. this get some support among kurds across the country. one turkish experts said this would help in the election. he has done more with respect to the kurds in iraq. it is a historic event. >> he has been trying to use the kurdish issue within turkey as part of his effort as he looks to a change in the constitution, which would empower the
presidency. if he were to swap positions and become president, he would be able to be president with power, as opposed to ceremonial. you are talking about the relationship in china between what is the internal posture and the external posture. we tend to think about what the relationship between our domestic and foreign-policy is. if you look at turkey, this is the centerpiece of what is going on. we are not unique in this respect. >> one more question. this gentleman here. >> thank you for the panelists. i am reminded of citizen kane where he was asked about business conditions. how would you define the relationship between the president and his peers?
on the low merkel -- we know how the president and mr. putin get along. you had dr. rice here in september. she is wrapping up a trip to afghanistan. she and ambassador power forged their reputations. how is secretary kerry doing? >> we will have to have very short answers to those. >> well. >> that is an excellent answer. >> i think both ambassador rice and power are in difficult -- in a difficult situation, having both been active in libya and outside of office. in office, both supporting the intervention in libya and certainly, i think wanting to be able to act in syria. part of what has happened in syria, at every turn, it looks
awful. the action looks terrible and fraught with uncertainty. how are we going to do this and how are we going to get out of this? we are better off not acting until a year later when it looks like we -- if we had acted six months ago, maybe we could have done something. if we do not act now, we are going to be looking at the middle eastern equivalent of the 30 years war. we are going to be wishing -- we have to act now. if i were sitting in the situation room in the white house and the president said lee's lay out what it is we are going to do and how we are going to do it, i am not sure i would have an answer. >> secretary kerry has shown himself to be a risk taker.
he rolls his reputation on negotiations were the outcome is probably below 50%. he is doing it in several negotiations. not just with iran, but with the palestinian and israeli one. this gives them more power than he is gribben -- given credit for. he has been underestimated. >> the key to diplomacy to be effective in if you are secretary of state is to be able to take calculated risks, have a high level of energy and determination and tenacity, and to know how to exercise patience. it may seem like it is not consistent, but there is a key to effective diplomacy. he has the potential.
then, president obama joins us at the dreamworks studio. this is followed with a deal reached on a ran on the new clear program. day before the unofficial start of the holiday shopping season, the consumer federation -- releasednd the their spending results and you can see that on c-span. later, president obama pardons the national thanksgiving turkey. the whiteny is at house and you can see live at 1:15 eastern on c-span. weekend since 1998, book tv has brought to the top nonfiction authors. >> i think that women's identities are tied to work in a
way that we may not like and find disturbing. it is true will stop when i look at marissa mayer, who was chosen to be the ceo of yahoo! when she , she wasly pregnant asked how much maternity leave and she said none. -- that was not the way i would do it because i took funny of maternity leave. i feel that that is a kind of woman that there is space for. the fact that there are stay at home dads who are happy and do not all live in portland, oregon , that is ok to. >> throughout the fall, we are marking 15 years of book tv on c-span two. now, a discussion on the effects of digital history on
journalism. this is one hour and 15 minutes. thank you. that may be a metaphor. i will do my best. i would like to thank alice jones for making this fellowship the best possible the summation for journalists who can have sanctuary, perspective, read inspiration, and great company. i'm speaking from my co-authors when i say that this is a great place. for making it all work so .moothly made itthe whole staff feel like a home away from home. it feels great.
to explain riptide and how it wearyo be, three road executives wash up to the shore of the university and all are looking for a nest on the ground . they're trying to avoid all the work that is involved in writing a 15 page white people. we said that we will not do that. not internet. internet --asn't was a internet ceo and a second- .eneration journalist will stop -- journalist. old publishing executive. what we did was sit around and
argue because we did not agree on a whole lot. we were interested in the digital disruption our question was, what happened. what could have been done differently? we argued about it for a while. we said that we would do this oral history and they thought that we were crazy. we had googled the topic and found that there were 77,000 articles that have been written on the subject. we said that we did not need to write 77,000 articles. we decided to target the key institutions and decisions. our original idea was key moments and we will be in and out of here and in heartbeat. we had a lot of skepticism and we finally found what we were
looking for. he said that this is a great idea and we chose a template that we still from vanity fair. we improved on it. in terms of adding video. we got his endorsement and he steered us to alex irvington. very intense and works at the washington post. people find jobs he led us to josh, who was already been cited, but really the guy who made our fantasy become reality and did a great job. watching over it all was tom patterson. more importantly than his subtle help, his wife, lori, give us the video camera that we used to interview all the 60 people. the video camera that we used to interview all the 60 people. as we learn, we thought harvard
with a fabulously wealthy institution. $30 million or whatever it is does not go to video cameras. [laughter] we got carried away. we did 63 interviews. we wrote a 44,000 word essay. the whole thing, in its entirety, and i don't want to discourage anyone from reading our project or looking at it, but the whole thing totals four 000 44,000 words -- 444, words which is more than gone with the wind, but less than "war and peace." it is doable. martin and his very distinguished panel were all really grateful not only for the interviews but for coming here tonight to help us explain it. covertto give you little -- color from the road with some
awards. david bradley of the atlantic media, huge, sweeping views of the potomac. it is what mobile dumb -- mobildom is supposed to look like in the movie. it is the first and last thing he shows you. we were going to interview eric schmidt. great electronic equipment. impossible to find out how to get electricity come out of the wall outlet. [laughter] we had to have a technician come and he said, it happens all the time. [laughter] i think it is one of the largest users of electricity in the world and they cannot lug something into the wall and it to work or it they do not know anything.
there is a vegan restaurant down the street where a reclusive guy made us meet him for breakfast. the most disruptive workspace award goes to andrew sullivan's apartment in greenwich village. two ancient dogs suffering from copd in the interview. if you listen, you can hear -- [ gasps] [laughter] arianne huffington was the only interviewee that refused to be video recorded. he won the got away was rupert more dark -- rupert murdoch who agreed in principle but think -- things keep coming up. he had a very busy year. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague, martin, to get to the meat of the matter.
[applause] >> [indiscernible] the newspaper association of america. of is the ceo and publisher washington post interactive. she placed two very important roles in this history. and of course, arthur sulzberger , jr., publisher of "the new york times." i want to start with a question about the state of journalism. if you are a doctor and the state of american journalism was
her patient, how would you assess the diagnosis? >> if you look at the data, you would be concerned. the number of journalists has gone down by about 30% in the last seven or eight years. newspaper resonant -- newspaper down by about 55%. you see a distance between the agile landscape. if you froze things right now, you would say, the patient needs a lot of work and there is a continued progress on that work. if you look forward there are some very exciting things on the horizon. one of the things i am most excited about journalism is that your lists are essentially networks on their own.
if you see some of the work that "the new york times" has done from a digital standpoint, you see what can be done. consumers want high-quality content and i think there is a big role for journalism in the future. if you froze a right now, that i would think you would have to say there has been a rough. of time and people need to focus on where the future models are going. >> i promise you, i would not have my lobbyist hat on. i would say that we are definitely in transformation. print revenue. the print circulation has -- since 2006. the revenue is diversified. the audiences have never been larger. fully 70% of u.s. adults in any given week read a newspaper online, in print, or on mobile.
audiences not a problem. it is the revenue that continues to be a real challenge. but the stuff that i read, estimates say it is leveling out. about usingnking dentistry instead of doctors. is that ok? i think we are losing our first teeth and growing our new teeth. it is painful. it is tough to lose teeth. we are seeing that happen. we know that what is coming is to the pointigger of reach, bigger to the point of impact. we are now able to reach impact over on the world. when we started this business,
that was impossible to imagine. >> following onto to that, one of the folks that we interviewed , we didn'tf this know at the time, although if you actually read between the lines, particularly in the part that excerpt it at the end in just sold "the washington post" to jeff bezos for $250 million. paid 350rs ago you million dollars for "the huffington post." it goes to show the relative values out there. do you think bezos got a better deal than you? [laughter] >> i think when we bought it, many people western what the value was overall and how much we had paid for it.
as we talk to investors, they think that "the huffington post" is worth a tremendous amount more than what we paid. ariannaon is that realized something distinctive about how information gets transferred and how people it.ed her in -- wanted the fact wek at have gone from zero to 100 million video views, it is a migrationn -- it is a of what we have bought to being one of the best brands in the world. i experience in newspapers and news started right outside this room. i owned one in boston and we bought something all the square deal. it was a free newspaper that we stand out right up the street at cambridge.
my viewpoint on where news and news points were going, i went down to m.i.t. and saw mosaic. i saw the information coming up on the screen and getting electricity -- electronically transferred. i walked back down and said to my partner, i don't know what the internet thing is, but i am doing it. i have never seen information be able to transfer that easily. a was able toarrian do that in a disruptive way. harry -- john henry from "the boston globe" in the front row. i think the future is bright because that dna will be plugged in and transferred. i don't know how many subscribers "the new york times" has now, but i think i got a
great deal on "the object and post." i think jeff got a great deal depending on what he does with it. on "thet to stay washington post" for a minute. you ran the digital division at the "post" and that it was integrated back into the parent. in retrospect, do you think it was a inevitable that the graham family would sell to someone like bezos or was or something that could've been done at some stage that would change that future? >> i don't think it was inevitable. i am probably not answering -- it is too hard to say. i think it is quite wise to sell to him. they have been friends for quite a time and have similar values.
think understanding the technology and having to understand an audience, which is something that newspapers didn't have to traditionally do but now really have to do it, is quite wise. os understands the subscription model and putting it into a private place. they will not have the pressure of being part of a public company. i don't know that it was inevitable. i admire the grams for doing it. ms.graha it took a lot of courage, in my view. >> arthur, the idea of a paper has changed dramatically over the last century. creators and the dominant distribution channels are company like google, facebook, and twitter. we have sometimes chatted about the nature of an authoritative source in a highly fragmented world.
if there is any one news organization in the united states that still probably has that as part of its dna, it is "the new york times." what is the nature of authority in a world where there are literally tens of thousands of highly vertical eyes -- verticalized publications on every topic? >> i think the nature of authority have not changed. i think authority is about eadth.cy, brett -- br it is about calling at euro mistakes when you make them and having experienced people on the .round they don't perish you to the ground but, knowing the landscape of the story. i don't think that is less important -- i think it is grown in importance.
how many news organizations bureaus around the country or the world where people actually work and live, in egypt or other places? i think that has not changed. era is of the digital the speed of information, the joy is the reach and the ability to take in points of view very quickly and bring that into some story slot. it is a remarkable opportunity for us all. of downside is clear -- all everyone is looking at the photo of the boston bomber. everyone knows it's the boston bomber. he has been clearly identified -- except it is not him.
theuse it is swept through digital world so fast and is picked up. that kind of accuracy is critical. especially at a time when decisions are being made so fast. >> let's go back to riptide for a moment. during your interview, tim, you spoke quite enthusiastically about a well's local journalism local journalism effort. since the interview, several things have been announced but you have decided to downsize the operation. do you talk about why? what is the nature of local journalism and why is it so hard? those of you who do not know, is a product that we rolled out in 900 communities across the u.s.. the theory on it is what arthur just talked about it. it is the authoritative nature of local journalism.
from a platform -- platform perspective, you had the receding nature of publications and news not getting invested at the same level. aggressivevery stance on our standpoint that local people living in local communities will want to local information and it is important to them. patch has basically gone from zero earnings to about 18 million unique visitors. its expansion was very rapid. we took a risk of the company to do it. patch has been looked at from the investment community as something you should do privately. was aeory was that there massive disruption going on in news and information locally. there would be lots of consumer interest, lots of business interest, and from a bold
standpoint we should not do a land grab, essentially, after that audience. what we announced over the summer was basically taking the models. have business there are 400 that have traffic where we don't have the business model where the sales there fast enough. we are going to partner with other companies. since we announced that, we have 10 or 15 companies, large companies, that have off-line newspapers, television stations around those areas where we have patches. the patches are in 900 of the best gdp communities of the united states. traffice equal or more from the large media properties in those regions. there is a lot of interest on patch. i would say from a standpoint of an investment that matters, not a feature, but an investment,
patch is probably the best -- single biggest investment in journalism and the united states and local communities. -- i think fatter the fact is that patch will continue to go on. need forh an acute information locally. looking forward on patch, you'll probably see a few partnerships. aol will probably own some of the patches -- the partnerships. audience and and energyrs what a lot of into patch which i think was very good for the country. i have had more newspaper people stop me saying, the patch is in our city. they were afraid that you are going to get more aggressive. i'm not talking about some of the bigger companies that did that. localk patch helped fuel
communities. they should be investing in it. to --oline, when we talk i don't know if you read his interview, he had commissioned a study and what he found is that the toughest problems economically are on the local side. many of your members are on the local side. can you talk about that now? you have heard him talk about patch from a newspaper's perspective. study?s bad as julius' >> the top 200 metro areas have the toughest time. when you go smaller than that, it is actually stronger. that top 200 is a big number. coververy difficult to what companies covered in the past to my giving pressures on
newsroom budgets and a dramatic cut in advertising revenue. oftentimes, the newspaper, and i'm not disregarding patch, but it shows that 85% of all media tv, radio, start from the newspaper. >> can you point to areas of invasion? what are the bright spots? timtalked about innovate -- talked about innovation. arthur talked about losing your baby teeth. you see evidence of that when you look at the landscape? >> absolutely. >> are people losing their baby teething growing something new? >> hindsight is 2020. walled garden.
if you want to advertise in washington, you had to advertise in "the washington post." the internet changes everything. on the digital side, you approach it as, well, you've just got to sell a bunch of banner ads and maybe that will make up for the major ones. that does not work. we sort of figured that out. we are looking at a lot of revenue streams. a huge change, even in the last five years. some agencies that have been started by companies, niche .rint publications there is no silver bullet. theaw circulation go up for first time in many years last year with 23% print and digital alike.
i'm seeing -- again, there is not a one-size-fits-all. what works for "the new york times" does not work for another newspaper. -- a smaller has paper has to know its market. fitted -- it is like owing to the dentist -- sadly, it is not true. >> we have not gotten to cavities yet. [laughter] i am seeing innovation and it is heartening. it is exciting. thehompson has talked about internationalization of the brand. i don't think there is ever been a newspaper that has been truly international. obviously, the iht was small -- >> we are talking about
something much larger with "the new york times." website went immediately when you turn it on, but turning is hard. revenue the "international herald tribune" is owned by "the new york times." rebranding it "the international new york times." we are bringing back a brand that did exist in the 50's and 60's if i'm not mistaken. this is a digital play. ih te web, if you went to om you ended up at the new york times website. we are trying to reach the international community that we believe is out there for an
international newspaper. journal," have been doing this. they are not general interest. it will be an exciting opportunity for us. our first language was in china. we wrote a story that upset the chinese government. they shut us down for about a year now. the story did win a pulitzer prize, so there is a trade-off there. that really speak to our core values there. we know this story was going to cause heartache for us in a business we had just invested in and opened. but our core values are two critical to who we are and -- r. -- who we are. say, when ick and travel, it is clear that there is a lot more for us to do to
-- to reach our international potential. "the international new york times" is just a step. if you want to subscribe, we to dogive you the ability that. we are fixing that. that is an easy example. there is much more we could be doing, but there is no doubt that the desire is there. heard the short -- a story, but i will share it. when i was china just prior to us launching the chinese language website, i met with a couple of chinese generals. , a woman,m interestingly, began our conversation by really talking in an angry way. she was very upset. we had just begin to charge for the web not too long ago and the
problem was that every morning she would wake up and the first thing she would go to nytime s.com to see what was happening in the world and it would not accept her credit card. did not accept those credit cards. we fixed her problem. the point is that a chinese general, first thing in the morning, would go to "the new york times." if that does not speak to the changing nature of the world and the opportunities we have, i cannot think of what else does. >> i want to follow-up with the other end of it. we had our interview, we talked about the media model. i want to go down the road on that for just the second with you, arthur. we talked in the interview about young people. the notion that young people don't seem to be as willing to
pay for content on the web. music is a good example of that. do you think that, as young people mature, they will be willing to pay for a digital subscription to the new york times? more, young people and all people are showing a willingness to pay for experiences they value on the web or in -- web. thank you, steve jobs. it is now simple to buy games, by something you find of value at a number of ages. that is changing. let's not thing is, attend a 14-year-old spot newspapers. they did not. they never did. people come to newspapers when they find the need for the value equation.
that is often when they get a first job, or they have a family and they start to think about what the community is offering and what public schools -- and they start to engage with the community in a different way. absolutely i think those things are coming together. i want to go to your content strategy. it is really interesting. i think you create some content and then you sell access or you do deals with people like everyday health, provide access to your audience. how you makelaine the decision of what you cover and what other people will cover? at how you do that? toour strategy is essentially -- we have a theory that most people care about a limited set of things. 70% of web users use less than 15 sites a month.
older,le tend to get their time becomes more valuable as well. people start to spend more times on things they focus on. we have started this 80/80/80 strategy. 80% based onwomen, influence events, and 80% on mobile. consumption that happens is about the economy and what people care about. we put a filter on the categories we have from a content perspective and try to figure out where we will have huge influence where we invest in. crunchrunning tech
disrupt in san francisco. i'm headed out there tomorrow. there are 3000 of the most influential engineers in the country, in the world, their right now. almost every major ceo from the industry will be there on the stage. at byunch gets looked anyone around the world was interested in the technology space. there is an example of a space where we have a major share of and we can be successful from a journalism and monetary standpoint. that was the first generation of our strategy, get in a giant space and be influential. the second generation of the strategy has been to build out massive partnership networks around those areas. brands, a number of techcrunch, movie phone. b2bave also built a huge
infrastructure. we service about 140,000 other publishers with content sharing. believe thatly technology will not change humans, that humans will change technology. the first couple of generations on the web has been people trying things. they will start regulating back to things they most care about. last year, i had our interns do the dinner at the end of the summer to get feedback on the company. last summer, i asked them about the changing patterns they were having as a college student. there were three. one is they were following things on twitter. second thing was they were following more influential brands, "the new york times" was one they talked about. they were following the highly level influence of people. the third thing is they were
changing their personal profiles on the web. they don't want their personal profiles to be dictated by a giant social network that has all kinds of information on them. a lot of them had started to migrate information towards linkedin where they want to have solid profiles. not to look for jobs, just to have that level of area. strategy is let's invest in the most important areas of journalism, information, and content, build giant be to be information to around them. it pretty much dictates everything we do. how does "the covington post" get into that? huffington post" get into that? >> it is a triple play for us. we started this thing called serenity saturdays.
we launched the hawaii addition. first blogger we had talked about opera. with "the huffington post" you have a global platform now. i think it is going to be aggressively be mobile information source. >> arthur, are you doing it in language? >> at the moment, it is halted. we are still producing it, getting lots of traffic, but not from within china. "huffington post" is a trusted brand. people want news everyday on a global basis. it,ou look at why we bought it we saw something that looked like it could be indicted by more globalization. with a new pope was elected, we had "the huffington post italy"
putting real-time content on the u.s. and i think we have some of the most unique coverage about the pope been chosen. there are other examples of that. it fits squarely into the content strategy i described. >> i think we are going to turn to the audience now. there are three ground rules. asked to assess them for you. one, all questioners must identify themselves accurately. [laughter] two is that there is one brief question per person. please, no speeches. third is, questions and with a question mark. that is what it says. mics.e for mike's -- four
i will try to get to questioners on each microphone over the next 20 minutes. >> i am formerly a "new york times" reporter for 13 years. i am struggling with the issue of how you find news. one of the things i worry most about is the content that the reporters are putting out there. the amount of time, the amount of interviews that each reporter is able to do produce a story. i am worried that a shrinking. coming up inevitable into shorter, put your stories and not get quite as many .nterviews >> i do not believe it is inevitable. there is no question that on a breaking news story speed now -- bombing,, the boston
we did a better job of covering view bombing better than television network. people are coming to us for video content for immediately delivered -- immediate delivery. that being said, are we still engaged in the wool from journalism? absolutely i will use snowfall as how you can create eight wool for a journalism. a journalist will spend a year working on a story. you can interview -- integrate video and graphics and turn it into an experience unlike anything we could do in the old days. i think it really does depend on the story. this is why we need to invest in the journalist.
you are looking for a different set of experiences. i was on a train coming up from new york and david brooks was in the same car with me. he doesn't teaching at yale. -- he does some teaching at yale. he was talking about the washington bureau he was that years ago and the one he was and now. it is younger, more vibrant heard let's say there is a lot more diversity. you have videographers, you have the technical team that is there to support. it is still a very, very powerful operation. >> i want to ask you one question with respect to "the huffington post." on much of your stuff is red smart phones, mobile devices, and how does that change the form factor? >> a lot. itending on what you're on, iscould be that 30% to 40%
mobile now. you consume more news at mobile. if you take something like "the .ew york times" on the mobile once you switch, they don't switch right away. i think on the formfactor side, i think that one thing is a little cloudy on the web right now is that there is a model of audience development with people writing fast stories with not a whole lot of facts to get an audience and then there is journalism. if you read the first book, he talks about how he invested in the -- sisters. they would write stories so horrific that would make people cry. right next to it, he would have the hard news. >> that is what is happening on the web today.
here's the bad news. you don't have arthur's rand. you have to do things to gain traffic. they will be more aggressive about mixing low quality, high quality together. >> the other thing i would say is that there has been a huge shift in content. --rt from smaller newsrooms 10 years ago, a metro paper would send 15 people to the olympics. a bunch of them. is that really necessary? as you are seeing a lot more information about audiences, another of newspapers -- a number of newspapers are collapsing into radio and a newspaper newsroom. but really investing on the investigative side and being much more specific about the
areas they will invest in from an investigative side. i think that whole area is changing. it is interesting. >> my name is jason gray. i am a graduate student. i want to thank all four of you for doing this in one incredible opportunity. i am appreciative of. i want to follow the conversation on local journalism. my question is around what makes it work when it does and make it -- and what makes it not work when it doesn't. there is reference that some cities or areas it is profitable, and others not so much. mean for us in the future of local journals? >> i think a lot of it is trust and authenticity. i put my newspaper had on. people still trust newspapers. you read something by someone in
the community who knows the community. that is a lot different from a feed of someone who doesn't. i think that is one of the baselines for living and understanding a community. >> thank you. >> i am sam feingold. i am a junior at the college studying statistics. the view has started from when al gore was in the print publication until now. the culture has changed. much of a long -- you have a much larger publishing board. i wonder what is been like culture wise and what you look as far asrnalists skills in the organization. there are so many things on the sites. working at "the new york times" now as opposed to 20 years ago?
>> i love that question. when michael is a just retired that did a lot of hiring at the one of the newsroom -- my colleagues just retired that did a lot of hiring at the time in the newsroom. engineers. that is what we did not focus on fast enough. the need to have engineers building the systems that we are now using, building the tools that would here now using. that was the most challenging skill for us at the time. it was getting the engineers at the time. we are thinking about the product that we are creating. we do not talk much about new product development, but we were in the middle of looking -- why should we be offering "the new york times?" that is the working title.
into the younger audience with a point made earlier in the conversation, giving a different experience. we have two people from traditional sales. because itengineered is going to have to be a different experience and it is going to have to be a effort experience across dividers. that is where i think we probably missed the beat. journalists -- it is not training. it is hiring and training. the journalists on the web are the ones who are now able to ingrained -- to have video. to become part of that experience. some have been doing it well for a long time. that.d more of we have doubled the video amount , the amount of video in the last six months time. we are all doing it. we are all experimenting. to youize that video,
point earlier, is different on mobile that it is going to be on your large screen in your office. so, there is a lot out there. >> tim, do you want to take a whack? who are those interns you are talking about? >> we have a big intern program. i have to do this myself. i give two pieces of advice. you have to actually use the platforms themselves. athink that journalism is in new-teeth growing stage. you cannot be a journalist if you do not understand the platform and where things are going. the second thing that i think is not a bad idea is that instead of funnel -- pulling up a chair next to a journalist every time you sit down, pull up a chair next to an engineer. saw was thatings i
the journalist and engineers sat together. in many places around aol, that was not the case. he engineers sat with the engineers, the journalist who -- journalists with journalists. 20silicon valley, i spent years going back and forth between silicon valley and new york. silicon valley is a more collaborative type environment. what are the five fastest growing platforms, technology platforms for journalists and you have an account on them? -- i need totially know what, you need to know it. it is very important. >> over here, then. >> i am a harvard alum. commissioned a high- profile series called "house of cards."
episodesased all the at one time. they have an plane with the idea of using time effectively. nbc and other affiliates have been giving limited interviews in a broadcasting longer interviews in shows like "the today show. how are you experimenting with more investigative reporting and ongoing and releasing as the content as one entire package or are slid out? -- parcel it out? >> i think we are all experimenting. there was a huge section. it was a story about a terrible tragedy that took place skiing. a mountain in washington state, i think. we printed it, it was a full section.
the sports section was totaled. the experience on the web was so immensely powerful. next thing you know she is under the snow fighting for her life. by the way, there is the video of her talking to you about. it brings to life. a lot of it is experimenting. webut stories up on the before they are in the paper. we put magazine pieces up starting wednesday for the sunday magazine. right.absolutely on the tablet, people come to
.tories at 9:00 at night there is unbelievable tablet because they want to see what's on tomorrow's paper. powerat is part of the and that is part of the answer. >> in a very astute way, i think netflix took the normal the settion windows and up, you know what? human beings would behave different if you gave them content all at once. way, we looked at how you actually disrupt the behavior. at one point, we have the saying internally -- we don't do a lot in sports. i worked at espn for a while. you cannot beat espn sportscenter by being 5 or send
better. better, 100%e 75% better. when we look at doing disruptive things around journalism, it is a disruption point as much as the content themselves. the others distribution partnerships. one thing we're working on also, the googles and the face books, another way to be disruptive is how we actually use those partners to do it as well. have multi tiered strategies. i applaud netflix recognizing the difference between human behavior and how distribution systems were set up. amazing job. >> we have come full circle now. >> i'm sorry. >> i apologize. >> go ahead. >> i'm a junior at the college
interested in broadcast journalism. given the fact there are so many online,tions that offer where do you see the future of tv? >> i have a different viewpoint on this. if you look at the consumption pattern and how people use phones and tablets, the fact of the matter is when you look at the average tv show, if you took 22 minutes of content and date minutes of commercials, when you watch how people basically use , i think in a disruptive way there is a faster way in 22 minutes to get people tones of information. i think you will exceed the faster,nd scale of higher quality content overall. from a maturation standpoint, trusted brand.nt
as much as the world seems it is user-generated content. they are not randomly going out to poke around downside information. they want someone to tell them. i met with someone who was really well-known on friday. think you are successful? she says because i tell people what they want. of televisionture and web video together will be a --ruptive way about how many how much content you get in. there is a major potential for disruption. >> i'm a sophomore at the college and a staff writer for the harvard political review.
about yourted anecdote about the chinese woman who read "the new york times" every day." you able to convince more of the worldwide readers to read your publication? how have you managed to maintain your national reader set? why should i read the nsa news as opposed to going to the guardian, their spiegel -- der spiegel, or somewhere else? nogood question and there is simple answer. as i mentioned, we will be rebranding the international herald tribune. we want to further tighten the .ournalistic ties we will have a newsroom in hong kong, new york, and really what we're looking at is a 24-hour news cycle. people are asleep in new
york and waking up in china, , we want the ability for them to come together to the side and see something may be this point ofto view. that does not mean that the stories will be different. we will put different stories in .ifferent places all of this as being german by the fact that more and more people can create the content experience they value. , theyy care about sports can put that higher. adaptationthe human as well. be an ongoing issue as we learn more and more how to do this. no question.
>> our strategy has been to partner with local news providers. most of our international editions have a local large media partner. we believe we are getting the best at the huffington post plus the best of what is actually local in france together, the example i used with the pope. i think it's really competitive. we plan on competing. >> is it also political? is there a point of view issue? political scientist as well as a journalistic side. i don't know. i'm asking. .> there is no question one of the challenges is how do we get the same and make sure the experience is not just -- we're getting the new york point of view in spain. we have to make sure that we are getting a broader breath than
that. is one of thet beautiful things about the internet. you can go to the new york times and you can get a lot. the guardian may cover a story and that's an advantage that we all have. >> i'm asking this question on behalf of the jonathan kennedy committee.m with regards to social media, how do you view it because many complex ideas cannot be reduced to 100 or the characters. is that a hindrance or has it brought an impetus to cliques and the sharing capacity overruling negative effect of social media? any thoughts. >> a general question.
does anyone have a quote about social, twitter? cliques twitter is a caption to a photograph. find out moreo about what that person has to say. saytimes they use it to whatever they think to get in trouble later so it depends on who is tweeting. it's a caption. >> isn't it just a giant distribution for journalists? >> it is. >> it's a powerful tool for getting information in as well as out. journalists isor to be able to sift through the information you are getting to make the story, generally .omplex, understandable >> the next generation would debate this right now. twitter is launching other things so what started as a
feeder for information quickly, they are now building and more infrastructure in twitter. starting to build a more inclusive pieces of content so you not only get the links but the longer experience. a lot of newspapers are doing it. todays where twitter is and my guess is they will try to build on distribution capabilities overall. >> a lot of journalists use twitter for storage material. did anyone see such and such happen? something that newspapers and journalists have had to deal with for decades. we don't remember what it was ake when you could deal with telephone and you are not dealing with your source one-on- one but it had a big impact.
you cannot trust what people will say over a wire. go back even further. the telegraph. late 1850 costs he wrote that he had just witnessed the death of newspapers. he said that they will survive but newspapers must stay away. he had just meant the telegraph. this is going to feed information in. it's a tool that we are all getting better and better at using. .ocial media is an extension >> i will be presenting the official twitter question for tonight's forum. addresseson primarily
what someone asked a few questions ago. you are talking about choosing or political angle based on what you like online. this addresses because of the combination of huffington post and aol you can expose to people who may not even be using the internet to obtain news and you can feed them political information. how do you go about not butssarily choosing basically choosing the political angle in which you show the information. >> there are a lot of stories from huffington post on aol and there will continue to be. there is a news chooser to customize the news that you want. i think the huffington post started with more of a political angle overall.
one thing that happens a lot as if you look through the huffington post, over time there has been a lot of forearms set up for people with political .iews to share if you go there on an almost daily basis, there is a pretty wide range of views. you have different brands with different users on them and by , weg the huffington post think it is one of the best resources but we also offer a lot of choices as well. from the standpoint of opportunity, this is different from where a lot of their competitive set is going. everything is a feed and there is no voice at all and we said we are going to have an opinion and we want to curate in the
safe people time. we try to give people multiple views and voices but we really like the huffington post. maybe just look at facebook starts or twitter stats. we offer that to aol users but we do give a source on what our users want. sophomore ina winter fell and they work with sam and paul on the harvard political review. have seen an amazing increase in the ways you can pick news. andractive, video diagrams even with the boston marathon, the most sure thing was an interactive interaction rather than describing. what do you see as the place of the written news article in the future of journalism? >> who wants to take that?
>> i will preface arthur's that it provides a lot of contacts that an image or video cannot provide. as i was reading today, the report having to do with the , there's a lot of contacts there that nothing other than the written word can really convey. i think it is context more than anything else. >> if you think about the technology changes over the last 100 years, the internet is the first one to bring us back to the written word. radio took us away. television took us further away from the written word.
the web gave us the ability to integrate the written word act in. a huge fan for a number of reasons because the technology does give you the to engage in all different methods and what we are learning over and over again . it's the multiplicity method integrated with each other that is breeding real success. >> great. i think we are. are again -- i think we full circle again. >> i'm a freshman. mr. armstrong, i believe, earlier if i did interpret, not just anyone could be a journalist is what you said? bloggers and how they have disrupted professional media?
how are journalists working to go around these people whom i just sit around and steal news from different websites, i guess? >> anyone can be a journalistic they want to be. at the end of the day, consumers are smart. they actually know who is feeding real information to them. i will not make it public but there are hundreds of thousands subscribers and i guess if you started doing content that was things people do not want to pay for or see as real, you would not have that ability. disruptive standpoint, let me take one step back. what you see happening in the blogging community and across the internet is people almost like a netflix example of taking being disruptive to
gain an audience and i would not undercut the ability of people building blog specific topics to interrupt the information flow of what's happening in larger publications. reality as we go back to something that i think is about newspapers in new york city and if you read the book, this is the same thing happening there. people are using different forms of content, bloggers, twitter feed, they disrupt people's flow to gain audience. there's a difference between audience development and journalism. there's a lot of tactics and it's about audience development. they turn it into journalism. there are very well-known as arties that started
disruptive, disruptive, disruptive. then they decided they could move it into a business and then it turns into journalism. i think loggers can be very bloggers can think be powerful. if you look at the people on youtube that have categories that are disruptive. bloggersle resemble overall. i think this is a big opportunity for people to do disrupt his things. -- disruptive things. >> for journalist to become very successful bloggers and expand their foot rent not only for the institution they may represent but individually. the journalist brand is something that all of us need to be spending more time with. for onely have time more question. in deference to my mistake for, i will turn to this microphone. >> i'm a freshman in harvard
college. there is a lot of talk about a lunch -- a bunch of new people in the coming decades. some of them from conflict zones and other areas. i'm wondering how that might change the target audience for .nline journalism >> great question. >> right now, we have roughly little over one billion people online mostly from developed countries. in the book, they talked about 5 billion people becoming online and how it changed all of your
to journalism. >> it's a great question and a great opportunity. ago, what wasalf the largest country outside of the united states for people coming to "the new york times?" anyone want to take a guess? after the u.s., canada, the uk .as next, australia you get the thought -- english language. u.s.bile, outside of the -- china. they were number one. this is before we did a chinese language website. this was in english.