Show being lived on facebook. They have their own, to pardon the reference, they have their own peanut gallery and they go through their life stars so being talk radio in la, i walk in the studio and my show was there and all the lights were on, i didnt have to do a monologue, i served those polls i handled them was all i had to do, i didnt have to think of something or get going. Today, being on the radio is not that big a deal as it was. One subject an hour. Breaking news on wednesday, they insist on knowing whats happening at that minute, they need to know what youre doing is true because there is an incredible appetite and we all may do that in the states, they call me up one day after the hewitt show, thank you for your comments. I decided i would talk about my football draft. And the old competition, you know how they do. And if a listener wants, listen. They will dial in to espn, that went on but thats what they want, breaking news, fairly presented. And from a point of view they can understand. From the people who are winning at the top of the wind, to the left, npr did not block it and i want to go back to your greater points, npr blocks the development of centerleft radio because it is centerleft. Its actually way left radio and the bbc exists and of course theyre going to block it so how you make your way is admirable because you are up against government subsidized competition and god forbid the trend comes back because that is just local content, that is just the hand of government telling people what they want and the case of what i give them, breaking news wrapped up with analysis and guess is not what they get for the government to make their choice, that will be a management. You deserve that to go. What tom hartman has done is amazing. Its his own platform, he has a Critical Mass of listeners that makes a difference in an industry that is not fair. I dont want to see the fairness doctrine come back joe because this side of that point, i have to answer it because nobody else did is that when there was a fairness doctrine there was such a thing as a talk radio industry and there were a few talkshows here and there and most of them didnt talk about politics and a rational governmenthand is going to step in and tell them what they can or cannot do. Or worse yet, take away the license. You could this michael because every year you annually hosted a Talkers Convention in new york and we talk about industry and there are a lot of people in our industry that are sitting on the sidelines of talk radio trying to make the sale that all of us are making a mistake by listening to politics at all. Thats another issue, ill address it. Theres nothing wrong with talking about politics but there are so many singles out there that dont have ratings, dont have business, why cant they talk about Something Else . Why does it only have to be politics . This twodimensional thinking is the people that are talking politics should stop talking about politics and Start TalkingSomething Else. Number you cant talk about politics too much. Its an important topic, it will never go away. People that apolitics, they dont know history. Politics is forever. But politics is huge, but when you think about all the frequencies out there, all the possibilities out there, even within your own shows, the diversey you could bring as human beings on the air within your show, as larry pointed out, it is a shame theres no other kind of talk radio in politics and sports right now. The great thing about this election, it has both politics and lots of sense. I want to say one thing and then i will stop, im trying to talk as little as possible but have you noticed we havent talked about that . The fairness doctrine, and illbe openminded about it. Im not looking for government and i dont want to seem insensitive to it. I just enjoy that critical thinking. I just enjoy listening to both sides. I enjoy being able to see both sides of it and being able to understand both sides of it. Then coming to a conclusion. I just miss those days and if a program is going to do it voluntarily, i really mean that but you dont hear that now. It just doesnt exist. Joe . You tune into the show and you say i think, i may be wrong. I do need to this particular frequency and itseems like , not just seeing things differently. Its like sports radio, sports homey is a talk radio thats supportive of the local team thats paying him or her for the job. We have a lot of homeys on talk radio, political talk radio but heres the problem in my opinion. We have a poll in which we seek victory at the expense of others. We seek victory at the expense of truth as opposed to seeking truth at the expense of victory and thats why debate and deception and the left and right for the sake of the productive result has gone out of style because nobody is listening to anybody other than what they think so i have a question for each of you, were coming toward the end. I have one question for each of you and some thought. We will start with, and im going to bounce around, im not going to do in order so you dont know where its going to go, be ready. If the election were held today, you think the result would be any different than if it were held six months from now, one month from now or two weeks ago . Do you think there is an Undecided Group in this country, this time around that makes a difference . Any of this discussion, all these debates is having any impact . Tom. Yes i do. I dont think there are undecided people within the democratic signal. Thats just whats happened since last friday. When the second debate went out about donald trump and now youve got not just voters but republican elected officials who are running for the exits so its not impossible, its something similar, not something similar sexually but something equally newsworthy i suppose where you would come out outside of secretary clinton or somebody out of the campaign, its possible something is coming out about donald trump. The old clichc is any journey in politics, its true. Its historically been true but personally i dont think it matters anymore. Weve heard it all. We have National Debates in which the commentators tell you whats going to be talked about and what the candidate should say in order to win. Its like sports. If tom brady has a good day throwing the ball, they will make more points. Great. If it turns out to be the case whether i or russia. Whether its in public, it is a disqualifying knowledge that they are going to make in the next month so it could change quickly. Chris . 100 percent agree with you on that. I wouldnt have taught a major president ial candidate would be caught on videotape sneezing and being lifted into a van three months ago. She was. Ive thought that was devastating and now thats all but forgotten. I agree, i think if secretary clinton has another Public Health episode it could be a game changer but anyone who is trying to predict whats going to happen in this election cycle is really playing the fools game. Ive only made one prediction early on in 2016 when i said on the air that bush would not be the nominee even though all the polls said that he would. Back to that quickly, if you havent seen this such as a giant frontrunner early on, i think mitt romney may have gotten back in. I think he thought jed had locked up all that establishing the money and he wasnt going to be able to compete so he stayed out and met ronnie running again, i think this would be all over. Interesting choice. We are on uncharted territory. If i can just make a protection and be accurate, yes. On the other hand weve never had so much early voting going on. If we can tabulate those results, it wont matter what happens in two weeks if youve already cast your vote. Im actually opposed to all this early voting for that reason. Joe . Its really overnight in your lifetime of politics. Overnight so its the event, no question. Sit tight. I want to introduce the gentlemen who is extremely important in this whole thing happening. He is an upandcoming captain of industry in our great industry. I wish there were more like him. He is the ceo and founder of the media group based out of pennsylvania spreading into new york state, and eventually the world. He has a bold old Media Foundation which im proud to be on the board of directors, which has raised money to support Student Broadcasting and to the of the constitution in that regard. And peace a great broadcaster, and we owe him a debt service, and that for his service. And that is thence. Would you come up and say a few words . [applause] i want to thank the panel. That was great, wasnt it . What do you guys think . [applause] and really a debt to michael harrison. Theres no greater defender of our industry, radio goodness and right here. Please give him a round of applause. [applause] i also want to thank him for making today he one of my worst nightmares come true, which is having to speak after six great radio talk show hosts. I love radio. In full disclosure ive never been on the radio, probably should never be. Im an investor in greater. I believe in the medium. I got out of the air force in 2003 and put a company together to start to acquire radio stations. Im a big believer in the medium, particularly the medium of talk radio. I believe its a modernday town hall. I think its worth americans gather to listen about the issues of the day. It is the ultimate example of free speech and what it must be preserved. I also believe that it has a fantastic future. That we are living in the golden age of audio. The average consumers consuming i had a record clip. More information and more audio every single day. This is radio principle wheelhouse. What we do is create content at the end of the day. Radio today is not just on air. Its on air, online, mobile, social, live and local. Weve got a tremendous a great future. A talk radio medium i think is uniquely important, the most demanding media news and talk format. Its the hardest of the greatest host and it needs a bench. I am a big believer in young people getting into this, young people aspiring to want to do with the great folks here on this panel have done. As such, ive been honored to work with Hillsdale College help them get their first in rare station at the main campus in michigan. Radio free hillsdale. We have two great students. Raise your hand. Up, ma up, up. You guys are why we are doing this. All of this is for you. But general manager acknowledged earlier, hes teaching them radio, and we need that bench. We needed to continue to flourish for the sake of our country, the sake of the medium, and im really proud to been a part of that and what you think all of of you guys are coming here today. Thank you, michael. [applause] thank you very much. Thanks to Hillsdale College. And thank you to this panel. Im very proud to have moderated this panel. Thom hartmann, jesuit, joyce kaufman, joe madison, Larry Oconnor and chris stigall. We made it through 90 minutes of discussion about the most contentious issues of our time. The election of 2016 and we took a very high road and i am so grateful to all of you. And im so proud of our industry, proud of this audience, proud to be social with hillsdale, and i wish you all well. And that concludes this conversation. Thank you all. Thank you, michael. [applause] [inaudible conversations] this event with talk radio host on the president ial election will be available later today in our Video Library at cspan. Org. Overnight another life event, this one of Police Surveillance and due process and possible reforms with intelligence and privacy specialists. And so when sort of nice feature about the use approach is that we the people with clearances come in from outside to look at how things work. When we look at section 702, this was in 2013 after snowden, one thing we found was looking at concrete cases that seven go to see my quite a useful program. In other words, we had real doubts about section 215 Medicaid Program and recommended it be shut down basically. We a different view about the usefulness of seven go to where we thought we knew target specific people that are not in the u. S. , that are not u. S. Persons and you go through the procedures and compliance things that exist, thats getting Important Information from foreign Intelligence National security purposes. Thats one thing. We also had some concerns, and the concerns were about the uses possibly overtime. So our set of concerns were really about ways this could be used against u. S. Persons and mutilatemaybe later and talk toe can talk more about how much the same concern should apply to our friends lets say in germany or england as we do in the u. S. There were three recommendations we made as part of our overall recommendation. The first one was that we should purge certain information when we find out about it unless theres a clear for intelligence value. We find personal information in the database, that seven go to the collected from, then we should purge it from the u. S. Person part. Talking to becky before it sounds like a five year retention is what applies to that. Ppd 28, president president ial directive 20 responded to that sort of thing which is we get rid of it after a retention period. The second has to do with i think something thats closer to the chainlink fence id. In the old days there was a wall between private and foreign intelligence. Chainlink fence is not quite as solid and well. A stepping you through a chainlink fence, as well as that image. We recommended that evidence against u. S. Persons collected under 702, because they were never targeted, you cant target u. S. Persons, so if you find evidence incidentally about u. S. Persons we say we should have a prophylactic rule. We shouldnt use that evidence in criminal proceedings against u. S. Persons. And the idea there is if you want to be paranoid about Law Enforcement people, and theyve announced their own pile about how paranoid they are in the space, you can imagine and Law Enforcement system that says this is great. Lets use 702 to the maximum, a huge database with lots of u. S. Persons and then use it to prosecute against u. S. Persons. Basically you would be using the foreign intelligence backdoor to get into this ability to do things against u. S. Persons. Oneway ticket that pakistan reduce the use of the because you couldnt use as evidence in court. And then the third recommendation, thats not been adopted, it would be everything i think if it were, and in the third of our three recommendations and i will stop, is that in this hypothetical were paranoid huge database of 702, that might be a fun place to go search it you were Law Enforcement against u. S. Persons. And so rather than treating it as a sort of we have corrected this, lets go search it database, we should treat it as it was incidentally about u. S. Persons. It wasnt supposed to happen about u. S. Persons. The whole thing targets u. S. Nonpersons. If youre going to go into this database about u. S. Persons then you should have a warrant, that the should be the right kind of trigger of the right level of cost for that. And began talking to you before, the administration adopted a reasonably likely stand or Something Like reasonably likely is what . Or intelligence spirit for intelligence value. Theres been a not go have fun rule in the sense of Law Enforcement playing around with it, but there has to be a reasonable short of it having for intelligence valley because of the database. The best standard for nsa. And people have been around these, and theres published standards for other agencies . Do we know what any other agencies have said speak with yes. I bet sharon will cover the. I dont want to take her just the last thing, i have studied this on and off for a love you and they keep getting confused. Its complicated, hard to say right. It might or might not be true for other agencies. Theres a complexity to it but i think the overall idea is theres a reason to have targeting against nonu. S. Persons overseas when we think of foreign intelligence value. Thats valuable. And that we built safeguards around isnt what the review group try to be got spill thats the perfect segue. What id like to start with is how has pclob thought about restrictions and what recommendations have been made to change things . Thanks. I also want to thank the project for inviting me to participate today. First of all for those of you who may not be familiar with the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board, our agency is a fairly new independent Agency Within the executive branch created based on recommendation of the 9 11 commission and our mission is to review counterterrorism programs to ensure that appropriate balance National Security concerns with privacy and Civil Liberties. And in 2014 the board issued a fairly conference report analyzing section 702 program. Which included 10 recommendations. I wont go through all of those today but two of them are really relevant in todays discussion because they can focus on the process of querying information that had been collected. As im sure you all are familiar, this was looking at once to the collected seven today than how can and must go through and look at that and when they conduct searches using identifiers that may be social with the u. S. Person, we call that u. S. Persons query. This was an area of particular concern for the Board Members, and a great amount of focus because asked that he has made clear, this program did not initially target u. S. Persons. It cannot. The u. S. Persons are collected incidentally because they are on the other end of conversation with a target, for example. So the board to recommendations split out the fbi on the one hand and the cia and nsa on the other because they do have different standards in different practices. With regard to the fbi it was a twopart recommendation. First the Board Recommends the fbis minimization procedures should be updated to more clearly reflect the fbis actual practices including the frequency with which section 702 data may be searched when making routine queries as part of fbi as