Unstable. We are seeing extremism. We are seeing a major shift in this region. We are not dealing with iran in a vacuum. The decisions we make have to be decisions for the region. We are dealing with a United States that is tired of war. It has not gone well in the two big wars it conducted in the middle east. It spent trillions of dollars, a lot of mud and blood and treasure. It is very clear that the americans are more interested in nationbuilding at home. These are important context to bear in mind. Hopefully the Iranian Regime will change. Hopefully, the administration will take diplomacy very seriously. Or that sanctions really change the koran and governments mind and they change course the iranian governments mind and they change course. It is quite likely and possible that iran may go nuclear before any of these things take effect. Before sanctions, as rigorous as they are, produce a result, or before there is a democracy movement. Then, we are really left with two choices. We either find a way to contain and share a nuclear iran, or we go to war with it. If we go to war, then we have to be prepared for what that war would entail. It may very well be far more costly and far more destabilizing to the region than the wars in iraq and afghanistan war. The shiite sunni war with our doing. It is another war that is equally intolerable. Thank you. [applause] charles krauthammer, you have three minutes on the clock and the final word. So little time. I would address two points. Yes, i believe in every word i wrote about deterrence in 1984, dealing with the us and the soviet union, and it remains true today. But the idea that some technique like deterrence, because it worked in one context will always work, is mindless. I would say to my friend, f areed, wake up to the reality that israeliran is not us soviet. Unlike the atheistic regime in the soviet union, iran has an apocalyptic idea of history. It sees itself as the instrument of that. Wake up to the idea that in the 70 years of the soviet union, they never sent out a suicide bomber. For iran, martyrdom is the royal road to heaven. Wake up to the idea that were fighting around the world, you love life, we love death. Try deterring that. Wake up to the idea that the nature of the dispute is completely different. Russia was an ideological contest with United States. It never sought to wipe it off the map. Iran believes that the existence of israel is a crime against humanity that it has to cure. Lastly, wake up to the idea that the iranians themselves have told us what a intend in a nuclear exchange. Again, the president said, the application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in israel. The same thing would just produce damages in the muslim world. In other words, israel would forever and instantly be wiped off the map, whereas the muslim nation of 1. 8 billion people would indoor with some damage. Endure with some damage. Y that itssly applie worked in the past, it will work in the future is unwarranted. We are assured by the other side that deterrence will work. They do not know, and we do not know if it will work or not. Imagine the risk if they are wrong. 6 million jews are dead. The eradication of israel. Hyper proliferation in the middle east and iranian domination of the middle east and the oil economy of the world. Do any of you want to live with that . Thank you very much. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, it is clear why people have called this debate one of the toughest global foreignpolicy challenges of a generation. The have had to sharply contrasting arguments tonight, eloquently presented by both of these debaters. A big round of applause for all of them. [applause]well done. Let me reiterate something that peter said at the debates in the past. It is different to come in front of an informed audience to make your case with passion and conviction. The question in front of all of us is, which of these two teams of debaters has been able to sway Public Opinion in this hall . I am glad i do not have a ballot. I think it is going to be a tough vote. He for we make that second vote, lets quickly remember where Public Opinion was at in the fall, at the commencement of tonights debate. Lets have those results up on the screen, the percentages of those who supported the resolution. 60 , undecided was 33 . The next slide, the number of you who could potentially change your vote. This debate is very much in play as you go to check off your second ballot. We will announce the result in the lobby before 9 00 pm. Because this is our 10th semiannual debate, a glade a great accomplishment. We have included a complementary drinks ticket. Enjoy responsibly, but have one on us in the lobby. We will gather together shortly before 9 00 with the results of the second audience vote. Thank you again for coming, it was a great debate. [applause] next, a discussion about the influence of the media. After that, the weekly addresses by president obama and michigan, xmen dave camp. Michigan congressman dave camp. Then the british arms export policy. Tomorrow on washington journal, discussion with john feehery and jim manley. Then a look at the perks of Congressional Service with daniel shuman. And a discussion about president obamas foreignpolicy agenda. Washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. On cspan. The big discussion that i remember was, what is Richard Nixon going to do . I remember going home that night, scared to death. This is like a time bomb. If this thing gets into the press, it is a disaster for all of us. He came to me and said, the president s council has just brought me a list of 50 names of people. He wants a full field investigation. That is a very unpleasant thing to have happened to you. It was shortly after the farewell speech. I cannot remember exactly what he said. He said, we forgot a resignation letter. I will be interested in reading it. He said, you do not get it. You need to write it. I thought the best way was not for me, as a historian. I thought it was for the players, the key People Living to tellt area era that story themselves. I thought the best way would be to start a Video Program that would involve the nixon players, but also players in the watergate drama, from the left and the right, to have them tell the story. And to use portions of that story in the museum, to let visitors understand the complexity of this constitutional drama. The former head of the nixon president ial library and museum, timothy nattali, discusses the museums oral history project. Rooks gladstone is host of the show go on the media. The show on the media. This is an hour and 20 minutes. Our moderator tonight is a professor of media studies at fordham university. He is the author of four books on cultural programming. For 15 years he was the head of special projects at the directors guild. He frequently moderates events around the city for have to, the screen actors guild, the producers guild, the academy of Motion Picture arts and sciences, and for us. Hes welcome brian rose. Rose. Ase welcome brian [applause]next, we could not be more honored or delighted to have Brooke Gladstone with us tonight. She is the cohost of nprs on the media. It also wrote a very entertaining book called the influencing machine. We will be doing a signing of her book, its just came out. She has been at npr for many years. Including a threeyear stint in moscow where she covered the last years of president Boris Yeltsins term. I know that all of you diehard o the media groupies will tell you that there is something about brooke that pulls you in. Ira glass, host of this american life, put it right when he wrote, just like welcome gladwell, michael pollan, and michael lewis, brooke can take any subject, even something you do not give a damn about, and make it of interest. Please welcome twotime peabody award winner Brooke Gladstone. [applause] thank you, catherine. Thank you, brooke, for coming tonight. I would like to start with your book. You talk about a number of media biases. One of favorites is the narrative bias. That the media takes a story, no matter what it is, they have to come up with a beginning, a middle, and an end. We have just gone through an election in which there were thousands of just such recorded events. I am wondering, do you think we have a lot when president ial elections are treated as a four year heavyweight battle to the death . Beginning the day after the less election is held last election is held. We miss something. I do not completely condemn horserace coverage. That is a big part of the story. The problem is, what isnt covered. One gets completely fixated on the gaffs. Who said this, how did that have an impact, some of these are really quite revealing. Even those, i cannot entirely condemn. You have your 47 remark, which anyone would argue could possibly be extremely revelatory. He said he did not mean it, then later, after the election, pretty much said the same thing again, speaking about governor romney. It did tell us a lot. It had a great impact. At least for a while, the poor first debate performance. This is part and parcel of american life, part of democracy. The problem is, we are wired for narrative. We like stories. We organize our information in the form of stories. There are lots of breaking news items that do not let themselves to narratives. But we have to use it anyway. It is part of what is wired in to the way that we organize and interpret information. It is wired into the business of journalism. For instance, discussions of tax policy. Obamacare and so forth. It is just antithetical news to keep reporting the same thing over and over again, every time somebody this represents it. Speaking of the election, how would you characterize the way the press handled this election, compared to other elections you covered . They all suck, lets face it. I cannot remember a single election where i went, wow, that was a truly satisfying experience. On the other hand, i have been criticizing and analyzing the media for the last four elections, at least. So, i and there, looking for it, waiting for it. There it is. So it goes on election cycle after election cycle. Your show itself played a role in covering the election so extensively. You, yourself, faced one of you faced one of the great media john sununu. I wonder if you can share what it was like. It was one of the most contentious interviews i have ever done. Just a truly train wreck sounding interview. When he said, when i questioned one of his remarks, he said york public radio, you are just there to kiss the president s butt. Public radio is always so civil. A way, it is kind of refreshing. Here he is, here is the guy unvarnished. It was very edited. I never edit to win the argument. But he was who he was. I thought it was really useful, even though i was all the way through it. You bring up the notion of npr, and why are npr and pbs such a target for people like sununu or romney . Particularly where fairness and of the activity seemed to be so rigid why are you such a target for people who you would think would embrace fairness and objectivity . Who would that be . Why is big bird such an enemy . It is not big bird. Big bird is the savior. Every administration has collided with npr and complained about it, republican and democratic. It is only republicans that want to zero out the budget. The only thing that comes back every time is a big bird. He is invincible. He just slices right through the opposition. Why public radio and Public Television is such a target is, public radio is increasing, and 10 of public radios money comes from the government. That money were not there, if they did not have the taxpayer banner to wait, that would not have a case to make. We would just be anybody else that they dislike. It is not as if the New York Times has not been singled out over and over again as well. It has been 30 years of this notion that Mainstream Media reports in a liberally biased way. A lot of people feel ill served by Mainstream Media. There was one completely dead form of media that was single handedly resurrected by rush limbaugh, and that was a. M. Radio. It was a place people unserved by Mainstream Media could go and be angry. I watched fox news almost exclusively on election night. Who didnt . I wanted to see how they covered it. Shepherd smith was a very fair guy. It was more diverse than msnbc by far. You had the great moment when karl rove produced that primal scream and you saw flocks trying very hard to address this in a clear and open way as they could. I understand that roger ailes, the head of fox news said to his staff before the election, it looks like obama is winning. Dont act like somebody ran over your dog. Some did, but mostly they didnt. We live in an age now where this is possible to be sealed away from it be that does not agree with your own. Is it really that different from the way the press used to behave . We live in an age of cable news network. Is it now possible for one point of view it ever really except another point of view . View . Cept abonother point of you are right about history. A big part of my book recounts the history of journalism from the invention of the written word to the year 2042. What i find is over and over again that golden period that so many people refer to is basically a golden age of media. Contrary to media trends of the media getting cheaper and cheaper, there with the creation of a medium that was slightly more essential. Required assembling enormous audiences, and how do you do that . It marginalizes outsiders and appeals to a broad middle. If you want to watch television, you will have to find yourself identifying with that great middle, no matter that your life has nothing to do with the life that Beaver Cleaver lead. That is on television. There are a lot of people that who are not otherwise represented, people with all different colors, immigrants who never saw themselves on television who were forced, more or less, to subscribe to this great middle. Likewise, at the time that television was being created, television newscasts were being created, the government was in the midst of a political moment that was far off existentially. It created the style of objectivity, which basically was leaving stuff out and creating a big, Central Point of view. That made everybody happy, especially the governments that would like to see television regulated. To get back to your question about can we ever find voices that reflect the views with which we dont agree . Of course we can, if we want to. There is a study that was done at harvard that found that people who worked incredibly well informed before the internet were even more informed after the internet. And people who were not interested in news before the internet where now even less informed after the internet. It just shows what i have always believed, and what i think all the evidence bears out. The new Technology Just makes me more of what we were going to be anyway. If you are naturally curious, and you are willing to venture out of your comfort zone, the environment is so rich. By the same token, people who might be liberals or conservatives do at least have an enemy they can identify with, which was not always possible in the age of walter cronkite. With one solo voice. That had enemies, they just were not on television. When you think about it, consider walter cronkite, known to many in the day as uncle walter. It would be ludicrous to call any newscaster a relative today. Can you imagine anybody trying to get away with a presumptuous Statement Like and thats the way it is. Everybody craved the comfort of that dinnertime slice of consensus reality. I think that the more media do you think cable tv and that that kind of comfort . I think that the more media sources you have dividing up the audience, the smaller the Public Square becomes. Less consensus, but you are exchanging that comfort for the comfort of knowing that there are other people like you in the world who care about the things that you care about. I am always in favor of more speech, rather than less, even though everything has a side effect. Speaking of more speech, a lot of cities in the country, cleveland is next to be the target, or facing the prospect of having their local newspapers disappear. I think going to three days a week is the same as disappearing. It is only a matter of time before they say, do we even need three days a week. What do you think the impact will be when there is no longer any central voice of a particular locale . One study found that the biggest black that the new media era has created is local accountability. There are some of blogs that have tried to rise to the occasion. Certainly that is true in denver. There is a database, public online site. Partners with local television and everyone else. I think you will see a lot of partnerships coming up to fill that gap eventually. The public has to value it. It is really up to the public to value all these things. Everybody says you cannot monetize online. Everybody has viewed the information for free. When i was a kid, i was used to tv being free. You get used to paying for things once you realize how much they matter to you. I also found that people love their gadgets and they will pay for content on their gadgets that they will not necessarily pay for on the internet. They love to have the special apps on the phone to make the consumption of information very convenient. There are pay walls that never worked before that are working better now. There is the old italian communist wrote in his prison diaries that famous statement, the old world is dead, the new world is yet to be born, and in between there is much morbidity. Welcome to morbidity, folks. Your book devotes a considerable amount of time to talking about the development of objective reporting, fairness in journalism. I am sure a number of people in this room undoubtedly hope to follow in your footsteps and become a journalist. I wonder if you could talk about what you think are the major challenges they will be confronting in terms of trying to practice serious, unbiased reporting. Unbiased, objective, fair, they are all slightly different. I think that the obligation of the journalist is to tell the whole truth, and to tell both sides barely, not to be invisible or pretend to belong to some order of passionless beat that does not really care. That you cannot bring any judgment you have accrued to that experience into your reporting. I think that we are entering a period of more reflective reporti