Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Sharyl Attkisson Slanted  CSPAN  January 10, 2021 2:00pm-3:00pm EST

2:00 pm
readers. your simple-- programs to look for tonight. cathryn flowers founder of the center for rural enterprise environmental justice reflects on her efforts to improve water and sanitation conditions in rural areas across america. investigative journalist cheryl atkinson offers thoughts on relationship between censorship and journalism. .. >> today we are joined by cheryl atkinson the host and an investigative reporter with cheryl i think, also the author of the book slanted, how the news media taught us censorship in heat journalism per thank you for joining us. you written several books taking a look at the media, what senses apart from the others? >> i would say a trilogy of what
2:01 pm
i call the news, the death of the news that we once knew it which is by most of the people who are listening and watching today but don't necessarily know what is behind it in the third book slanted, i talk about what's happening with social media and quite convincingly that this trend in censorship and social media of the same types of political and corporate interests that are successfully controlled news narrative of the first 15 years before they focused on social media and the internet because they saw in 2016 that the public could get unsettled access that what they don't want is deceit and viewpoints and people so they decided to figure out starting then and they did so successfully how to control the information we see online. >> we heard about social media leading up to the election, you are saying even before the trend were happening? >> i mark the moment, big tech for invading our privacy and
2:02 pm
having other problems was not interested in interstate between us and our information until 2016 when they were lobbied to do so by special interest by the certain narratives and storylines of others, it can be traced quite specifically to 2016 and really targeting donald trump because the interest the saw him rise in popularity despite the fact that pretty much all the news organizations were telling people don't vote for him, he is bad, these interest saw there were some other access to information that they were able to get that they could not control off the news on tv and the publication, then they started focusing. >> you are the special interest specifically. >> there are many and sometimes interest caught, then not always divided along ideological lines although sometimes they are that is the most obvious thing people have seen a point to but there are also corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical
2:03 pm
industry which lobbied our politicians in addition to the media organizations and control the narratives that we see every day, that was back in the early 2000, the first big industry that i saw successfully influencing the news in a major way that qualified as citizenship enter not wanting us to air them at all they did not want to steer certain viewpoint and the tactics in the pharmaceutical industry were later adopted at least i saw them used by other corporate and political interest. >> topics such as what? >> practice such as hiring global law firms, pr firms, crisis management, nonprofits using llc to figure out how to influence news from the corporate level as well as getting into the newsroom by lobbying with talking points and other narratives and then the other step that i talked about quite extensively in the smear,
2:04 pm
the industry which is a multibillion dollar industry of figuring out how to influence our landscape, we will get to the newsroom in a more direct way, they did not only figure out how to manipulate us and dictate how we talk about a story and what stories we talk about from the outside, we hired them into her newsroom and i talk in slanted about how we pay the political consultants and analysts six figure salaries to distribute their propaganda and we allow ourselves to be used as tools to distribute the propaganda and if anything they should be paying us to have the outlets of the talking points every day to get to the audiences but we actually pay them and we also invited them to work in the newsroom as reporters and editors in many cases not just his analyst. i kind of argue in some instance we are one in the same of the special interest in the firewalls have come down between the news division and the
2:05 pm
interest are supposed to be reporting on. >> the guest will be with us in our if you want to ask questions about reporting and her latest book how media taught us love censorship and hate journalism you can call 2,027,488,000, democrats 2,027,488,000, two here's what you call in the narrative you start by saying the narrative refers to a storyline that influential people want told in order to define and narrow your views, the goal of the narrative is to invest chosen ideas so there no longer questioned, those that questions are not permitted, can you expand upon that. >> what we seen, this was unheard of 15 years ago the notion or relatively unheard-of that a story should not be aired or a person should not be interviewed because their ideas were either wrong or dangerous, he used to be that we heard from all different kind of viewpoints but now the narrative has taught
2:06 pm
us and i think this is been quite successful propaganda effort that we in the news are to decide who is right and who is wrong even when we can possibly know the truth of the matter even when it's an opinion or debate and what we report to the public or what we seek by making sure the controversy lies those that offset narrative or discredit the people who are reporting like that or the scientific studies that are off the narrative and that we push a one-sided version of somebody's truth and if you dig behind that it is not a fair-minded write because we investigated it more this is what were pushing out even though we can't possibly know whether it's true or not. also the elections of the good example regardless of fraud or widespread fraud or whatnot, the so many news reports and social media within a day or two were declaring this that there simply was not, these reporters were not on the ground firsthand investigating anything and in
2:07 pm
any case that i know of and did not know whether there was fraud, they only knew what other people tell them which is what we should be reporting as journalist if we don't have firsthand knowledge, we claim to know something we can possibly no, something to be true and something to be false and then we turn out to be wrong and this contributes to the corrosion of public trust in the media, government and all of our institutions for this very practice that we've been engaging in. >> you add to begin with a narrative almost always present multisided issues in a distinctly one-sided fashion any notion of logic with judgments apply the target being smeared by narrative, i never apply to those advancing the narrative or their allies, if you have an example of that? >> you could call it the substitution game. there is one book about the narrative phrases without evidence were created to use
2:08 pm
against donald trump and his supporters and this is something that was not said previously at all commonly, if at all. and yet when the other side presents the same sorts of information as you would say without evidence, they are not called on it and when the media makes dictates and presents news without evidence, they seem to have no recognition that they are doing the very same thing they are accusing some videos of doing in their presenting contrary to the evidence that exists and again, was complete lack of self recognition of that is what they're doing. host: you go back to your own experiences and the idea pushing off the narrative and you write about reporting on swine flu and stimulus money in new york and the like, what were those lessons learned by pushing back question asked. guest: what were the lessons
2:09 pm
learned from pushing back? host: pushing back against the narrative, you highlight when you are reporting on the swine flu you encountered in new york you are reporting on stimulus money, whether lessons learned about what happened when you push back against the narrative? guest: let me be clear, for a long time we've been encouraged to push back against the official narrative. appreciated for most of my 20 years at cbs news and the time i worked at cnn and the news organization in 1990 it's reporting what exactly good bosses wanted, good journalist wanted for the people that work for them, they wanted you to go on the ground and figure out what was going on and to the extent it was contrary or an official storyline that applauded and appreciated. and it got to be in my later years at cbs ahead of my contract even though we did some of the reporting it was getting harder and harder to do some of the reporting depending on what interest was perceived to be pulling strings or being taken
2:10 pm
on such as a story i tell about blowing in the dreamliner, i was assigned to cover the story and then you can tell when you come up with a story with the legal department and so on and everybody loves it and somebody decides it should not air, that was happening more and more often at cbs, 2014 when i thought the trend was not just with cbs or industrywide became very untenable but a lot of journalist or dealing with the same things i speak a lot with them in the book and most cannot talk about and give up their livelihood and they have may be kids in college and bills to pay that this is a problem across the board, young journalist that don't like it and you have a new breed of journalist that are all in and classically trained with what i thought of a journalism and reporting to tax on the ground with a leave of type of thing, the new journalist today, they have different masters
2:11 pm
degree, there to put their opinions and stories to tell you what to take and get patted on the back if they say something outrageous or outlandish against the right person. this is the reporting that is applauded today and i think people have to understand, of lotta people already watching know, for these people the role of journalism is redefined something entirely different than what we were used to, when they report something that is wrong, something incorrect, something really, really bad in the past four years, the reason you don't see much in the way of apology or why did these reporters continue to get promoted is because their mission is accomplished, if your goal is to further the narrative for public opinion, your goal is not to represent the facts on the ground, it is okay for wrong if you accomplish a goal. host: the first call cheryl atkinson comes from carl in
2:12 pm
berkeley springs west virginia, republican line you're on with our guest, go with the question. caller: good morning, i am 82 years old and you are my favorite of all the news people that i watch and i'm a news junkie. i am very surprised that "washington journal" with the 214 an hour, it is a pleasant surprise, believe me. and i grew up watching brickley in the bunch. and i remember the very evening that walter came on and said the war in vietnam and is a vietnam veteran my jaw dropped and i thought this is the beginning of the news, that's what were getting up were getting more opinions mixed in with some news. in this laptop that they found
2:13 pm
in delaware, none of the so-called journalist i really curious, they don't want to know what's in it because if they knew what wasn't it they would have to report on it, they just sweep it aside. i want to tell you, you're my favorite and you're the most honest journalist on tv i reported europe program every time. host: let's honor guest respond. guest: i don't know what to say to that, he is obvious incorrect, i'm kidding. , i think people have noticed the same thing, i call it substitution, the game that we played mentally will we see a new story such as the hunter biden laptop not leaked from the fbi, not a peep when this is happening and anything about the other side seems to be leaked if it hurts that side by the intelligence agency and what we
2:14 pm
reported the things we should be curious about and to question and authority and what's under investigation and try to get her own information, for neutral and objective reap apply that to whoever is potentially under investigation in a trouble but too often people see and i think it's been demonstrated quite clearly the last four years that the one side is attacked and scrutinized and held to entirely different standards than the other side, i agree with that. host: our guest has been with us eight times, i just looked on that program talking with us on various topics, jim in highland park new jersey, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call, cheryl atkinson, i remember you when you were on cvs wasn't it?
2:15 pm
guest: cnn and pbs. caller: wow, it is refreshing to hear you and see you again. , i have comments concerning what is been happening for the past four years if i may present my statements and comments, it seems as though for the last four years we have been divided, not only by mr. trump the 45th president of the united states but members of congress on the one side of the aisle and that really irks me and a lot of people, when he became president
2:16 pm
in 2016 in the moment that the results came in, the following morning, i was on a local radio station, i was a regular caller and i immediately told the host that he is the coast of america and it has been proven to be so. host: specifically what do you want our guest to address? caller: what i want her to address, the censorship that the president tried to place upon the media. host: okay that is jim in highland park new jersey, go ahead. guest: i have not studied it from that field, plenty of people who have written more
2:17 pm
than anyone could possibly read and what president trump they think has done wrong, what they think he has done to the press, i focused on topics that are under covered in underserved people are not reporting on and from my viewpoint, the censorship that the media is responsible for and what i've seen on the internet particularly what we seem to obvious in the weeks building up to the election as farmer concerning in the political realm from what politicians try to do in political figures try to advance their narrative, talk about that in the book, it is their job but as reporters were supposed to be the great equalizer in some sense, this simply reporting narrative and continues to try to be neutral and objective when were reporting simple facts, warmer investigating something enough narrative to the extent that we can present something powerful interest is trying to hide and
2:18 pm
that's where we focused on insulin to do my other book. host: we have a viewer off of our twitter feed the asked, makes a statement saying i think the president is the one who hates journalism citing the fake news term and asked if it rings about? guest: i do but if you read my last book you discovered that fake news was not an invention of donald trump, the phrase in the modern context which a lot of people think that it is, how it was started, when it was started and by whom i think it was interesting, donald trump co-opted the phrase which was a great dismay to the people who tried to deploy against him initially, i call it a hostile takeover because people associate that with donald trump. , there is a lot to be said for how the media has allowed itself to be used in this equation and this is what i specialize in talking about and inappropriate in changing the definition of journalism in a sense is not
2:19 pm
good to us to undermine the public confidence, even when we do report the facts accurately and fairly i think too often is dismissed because so many instances in which the public would say we cried wolf in the not quite sure what we can believe out of us because of the reporting we've been doing. host: another question from noah williams if the definition of journalism affect ideological groups more than others and are there any mainstream media that are guilty and engaging in the segregation of journalistic integrity? guest: i spent a chapter going through cnn, i called the cable narrative network where i used to work when it was a news organization and i interviewed many cnn insiders and top executives who have run news divisions for all the networks of this book and you might be surprised to hear those who describe their leaning politically, most said the progressive orlean left but they were as troubled by the things
2:20 pm
that we are talking about in most cases as i am and they see the same things was happening in the industry and point to cnn as an example, when i worked there we would not have dreamed in 1990 inserting our opinions and to new stories, most of our reporting had nothing to do with politics, another consequence of the narrative, pretty much all you see on the high-profile news, the three or four stories that are political in the lot going on in the world in countries that don't have direct ties to washington, d.c. and the primary sense and that's what we used to do when i worked at cnn we had a half-hour political show at night and we started at one at 430 in the afternoon during the political election year. other than that was ordinary news important to people, talk about the devolution of the second chapter the book of the new york times. because i think considered a
2:21 pm
global leader and so disappointing that so many people including insiders that i spoke to what happened at the new york times which is very b bad, i spent two chapters talking about this news organizations because the downfall has been so egregious and obvious because there is such important news organizations. host: who does a fair job of reporting the way you would see. guest: i talk in terms not entire news organization but i talk so much not in terms of fairness because these places like cnn when i worked there don't exist, they make him back there's a market for them and even people who like their news one-sided and like to see something on the left are on the right, when i talked to them they basically said they would like to have a neutral place where they can check-in and know what they're watching they don't have to discount because it's on a place that might want you to
2:22 pm
lean left or might want you to lean right. the period of time where the paradigm is shifting we need to look for people and reporters and outlets on a particular topic that reports off narrative information in a way that may be powerful interest don't want, i point to people on the left and the right to do so and i do talk about some reporters and news organizations that are fair, i mentioned david martin at cvs, and mention pete williams at mbc and i got recommendation from fellow journalist who talk about those of pillars of objectivity and neutrality in the face of these trends that i'm talking about and journalism. host: this is jerry from somerset kentucky. good morning on the independent line. caller: along with everything else one of the biggest is numbers, this is something that the republicans have been ignoring, and the 2016 election, 56% of the republican voters were over 1 50 years old, whicht
2:23 pm
that time would've been 71, you can imagine in the four-year period how many of those have passed away. on the other hand, 50% of the democrat voters were under 50 years old a large percentage which was between 18 and 24. just imagine how many of those young people that were 14 years of age in 2016 were 18 years or older in the 2020 election is a something that's been ignored or censored or they just not aware of that, thank you for my time and i hope everyone stays safe. guest: that is not my area of expertise i cannot, authoritatively on that, one thing that you made me think about i am concerned among young
2:24 pm
people today that may start watching news now or the last couple of years or the next couple of years is a slow slippage of some of us would've thought of journalism as we once knew it, i think they become used to two things that are dangerous trends, one that they will get a one-sided opinion how to shove down their throat by many news organizations instead of factual information or objective information. in the censorship trends are going to grow used to it this is how it is people tell us what to believe in people make sure that we don't see certain information or hear from certain people that is not the way it was as you know, not the way i grew up in journalism works in journalism access in america, i'm afraid some young people today this is what they know and how things are. host: this is bill in georgia,
2:25 pm
democrat line. caller: i would like to talk about the defense authorization act and the fact that trump is threatened to veto it on the ground of confederate generals and having the name after them as well as the 203 liability shield for social media and is not tough enough on china, what is not being mentioned in this bill is the fact that offshore accounts and shell companies are going to be required to report the ownership of those companies, this is something that i think is being missed in the media and the biggest story in the defense authorization act. host: i don't know for guest one to talk about but they surely can if you wish. guest: think of her breathing information up i'm not familiar in a political generalist, i'm
2:26 pm
sorry i cannot, but thank you. host: what do you think about the influence of fox news on journalism? guest: there's a lot of that in the book because the journalist i interviewed in slanted, many of them brought up fox news and in fact some blame fox news with what happened to cnn and i thought it was very interesting when they criticized on one hand and some of these people i interviewed were on the decision-making in the discussions about what msnbc was going to become, what cnn was going to become these were executives that worked in that round and they see how the success of fox news when they came on the scene and catered to a conservative audience when roger was catering to the more liberal audience, they saw that success this is according to the interviews this is not first-hand information from me those involved in the discussion said they figured why not just
2:27 pm
go all out, yes maybe the other news organizations will perceive as leaning left, why not do something that was admittedly unfashionable he left in appeals in the audience that fox news has done and there is a lot to that i think in terms of why cnn became the way you did and how news and the success fox news had. all of the news organizations that i talked about and i talked about in the book are likewise subjective and perceive themselves in the middle because they've all been fairly well inundated by the narrative and the interest in talking about and make sure they stay effectively on point with the topics of the day that they wanted to talk about in the language in terms to talk about even if your hearing right and left, the fact that these are the topics in the language used to talk about them in any given
2:28 pm
day, it is a result of the successful application of the narrative. host: do think that applies to the growth of the organizations like newsmax and one american news. guest: i would say to some extent there are outburst of new places people are turning to because they become a dissolution and don't like the opinions they're getting from the places they are watching, if people are going to feel like the only get opinions from news to matter where they go, they're going to start shopping around for the opinions that they like and i still say there's a market among the same people watching the news organizations left and right, there's still a market for an old cnn the way it was where they can turn to to get a recitation of factual information and investigation to go where the facts lead without having to wonder because this
2:29 pm
report in this news organization or this interest wants me too think something. host: let's hear from new berlin wisconsin, republican line, carrie you are on. good morning. caller: good morning i share your guest died or concerned about the state of journalism in our country, i actually got a degree in journalism in 1985 from the university of wisconsin madison back then it was just a given, that you were neutral and nonbiased. and yet somehow i'm not sure exactly what happened i was in the wrong business i guess but at some point journalist that appears in the mass media got to believe that their mission in life and truly their sacred job to be citizens advocates and inform the people on the viewpoint that they may believe is in the best interest of the people but it's kind of social engineering. i got physically sick over the
2:30 pm
horrible bias in journalism in the last few months and if you want i want to be truly concerned and scared and troubled to turn back and forth between fox news and msnbc or cnn they are truly alternate realities and obviously the true reality is somewhere in the middle, i heard people say over the past six months or so that people need to go do their own research to find out what the real facts are. no, the free press, people who work full-time and have children and very busy should be able to turn in the national news and get the facts and only spend a half-hour day getting the best facts, i need to put a plug in, it is hard to find it. first of all cdc and other different shows are not as biased as american media but
2:31 pm
5500 euros from around the country's got a sick to their stomachs as i did and started the news nation sponsored by and shown on wgn channel nine out of chicago out of spectrum cable from 7 - 10 every night at central time and it goes three hours, every hour they do repetition but their mottos are balance, not biased in fact, not opinion. host: thank you. guest: i'm from your area and share your concerns about what is happening to journalism and i said the same thing, people have to do their own research but i understand they are probably thinking that is what should therefore, people don't have the time to go watch i recommend to watch c-span and original offense in their full context hearing news conferences. that's what i do and i get a different take away from what i
2:32 pm
saw on the news which is pretty frightening but people don't have the time to do that but this is an interim period where we have something better or more of the shows that you're talking about, i think the answer to do your own research or suspend your belief when you're watching the news i tell everybody and you see something reported particular everybody reporting the same thing and has all the sources and using the same language maybe it is true but maybe out of context or maybe it's not true all three are equally as possible the best question to ask when you see something reported who wants me too believe that and why and sometimes i think that leads to the more important story and it's wise to do that of the initial reporting of any story because how many are so different than what we were told initially. host: of you were asked what role do citizen journalists play and corporately enter media
2:33 pm
narratives and big tech center ships. guest: it's a mixed role and i just sat and slanted. there are good things and fill the gap because quite frankly journalist have not done their job in some respects on some topics, you citizen journalists with a partisan journalists. you're getting information that is good but if you think it is slanted or bad on the regular news you can imagine when there are people that have no pretense of a journalism mission and there there just to get whatever information they want they don't have any obligation to be neutral or fair and give the appearance of doing so so you're getting news that you have to say to yourself, am i getting the whole story, am i getting something i have to discount a little bit because it came from left or right so i think it's become important and i talk about those in slanted but everything else have become with a bit of peril because of the
2:34 pm
information landscape where people don't quite know what side or they know something that is coming from and they're not sure if it's an opinion or fact they don't necessarily believe what they see. host: here's carolyn from baltimore, maryland, democrat. caller: hi, good morning, thank you for c-span i go to get journalism. for your guest that would like to challenge her thought that censorship and narratives just started, when you said that my mind flashed back to 68 d&c when framing the hammer was speaking and it was cut away immediately because the media did not want to see her talking on tv, from an african-american perspective, the narrative has always been biased and biased against us, another thing they talk about trump more so because he tweets, i would like to stop and go a
2:35 pm
day without a tweet. they have to report on it because he is president. finally the black lives matter i would like to get your thoughts on how that was presented for african-americans we were saying give us a chance to celebrate, that is why we want black lives matter and we are protesting but in the media it is writing and in the media is they want to defund the police, that is not what we are saying i would like to get your perspective on how that was covered. >> to think they want to address come all answer your black lives matter in a moment, narratives in the shaping of news has always been there and i did not mean to imply it is new because i know this is true in the news even when we had a pretense of objectivity, there was always an element of us deciding as news organizations what people do and don't see there's always a half-hour in the old days for network broadcast most news was
2:36 pm
not reported we get to choose or took it upon ourselves to say this is what the public gets to see in this half-hour and this is what they don't get to see plenty of narratives and example over the, i think it's gone to a new level and i describe why i think it's different now in the book so you might be interested in that, as far as black lives matter i think you're right it was missing a lot of nuance and i'm not an expert in this and i'm not on the ground covering it, certainly there was violence and riots in there what appear to be very legitimate movement of people with grievances peacefully protesting and trying to draw attention to the certain things, it seems to me if you looked around you either got one of the other and they blended together, maybe the people saying this is a violent horrible movement, it's a legitimate and born of certain kinds of bad things in the other half staying there was none of that no such thing that was all made up and it was something different entirely, nuance is
2:37 pm
lost when one side of the other is trying to pursue a particular narrative because as i described in the book all the information and the contrary to whatever narrative you're trying to present has put them in the memory hole you're doing a one-sided debate and using the evidence for yoursel side rathen giving a rounded view of what is going on i think that was a problem. host: pennsylvania republican line anthony, hello. caller: good morning, first of all i would like to thank c-span for having ms. atkinson on i think what she is doing is so necessary we've been living for the last four years with nothing but narrative as she puts it in totally agreeable, narrative has become fact of some people and they will distinguish between what they are getting pushed to being fact that scares the hell out of me and a lot of people, what we have to do is figure out
2:38 pm
how to decouple that from a political cause. it seems to be -- i'm a news junkie i watch c-span every day and c-span is very good at trying to keep balance with the other channels do not, how do we decouple, cnn, msnbc c, washington, new york times, with a political party. it scares us. thank you. guest: i don't see even though i'm not an expert analyst and can obviously tell the future, i don't see the news organizations necessarily going back to what people saw them what they once were, i don't think that is happening because the interest that i talk about that a become very entrenched in news, this happened over a period of years it started many years ago, even though the impact is more obvious in the last couple of years, i think the answer different platforms where the
2:39 pm
news is in control where they can be neutral or tell the facts that are off narrative or hear from different news points and publish different studies without being canceled in the platforms, that is the key, right now the control is in the hands of the people that are influencing big tech to make these decisions to engaging censorship and for fear if you're not on the narrative something can happen, i quote a very high-ranking person in international news organization, very chillingly saying because of the fear of the organize backlash on social media are being canceled and discredited and controversial lysed, he said the news man in me wants to tell the truth but the businessman tells me too pull my shoes because what victory what i have if i got a story out and got the platform and nobody could watch and nobody could read. i think that is pretty scary.
2:40 pm
there are people working on a technical challenge of creating platforms that cannot be canceled by these interest were free in reporting can happen in much like it used to before this period of time that i'm talking about there are investors, i spoke with some of them, not so much to make money i'm assuming all investors want to make money but they're looking where can i invest money in this platform that cannot be canceled were news reporting can be done the old-fashioned way and there are journalists looking to do this, three groups of people working on the problem i think they will come up with something in the next four years, it's a difficult. in the meantime figuring out where to get your information. host: a viewer from twitter says to you, what you seem to be telling me a journalists responsibility is to report the narrative of each side through an actual journalists listen to the narrative and present the facts. guest: i am not saying that, i think we have a lot of reporting
2:41 pm
the narrative, something to watch a cable channel or read an article but they say the site says this and that site says that. you're getting the talking point from each party and we wouldn't because we learned in journalism school when people give you a press release for the talking point, that's what they want you to know it may be true, it may be partly true and it may not be true, your job as a journalist if it's newsworthy what the real facts on what's behind it, i think too often is a fairly new phenomenon i want happen at cbs, we used to not report into the government line on something if someone puts out a press release they might attribute it the government says this and then we might get context to or the other side or we might find out more and realize parts of it are not true, then it got to be a point where cbs where it was a
2:42 pm
fact because of government corporation but find out if any of that is true and basically advertising or propaganda on the news and i saw that drift away into the system that we have now kenai think that is troubling is no better to give talking points on both sides. host: san antonio, texas, catherine colleen and on a republican line, go ahead. i want to thank you so much for what you do. and i think what you're done i think personally and even for standing up against rosenstein and the things that you're done is very impressive, thank you so much. also i would like to say when you say there's a narrative, i
2:43 pm
kind of don't even see it's a narrative it's a must indoctrination with what's going on with corporate media or even what happened in the recent would trying to convince the general public that our president is a russian asset and there is still big proportion of people that believe that is true. , it seems a most criminal with what our media is able to propagate and get away with and what recently happened with the advection, if you're journalist it does work for corporate media and happened to say something against their agenda they will fire you. in light of that, are there any news sources currently available, independent ones that you would recommend to people, one of the caller said i do not have time in the intercept seems to be a good example but they become very, they propagate
2:44 pm
opinions and narratives and trying to push an agenda, is there anything that you would recommend in your professional opinion that people could go to currently that is available, independent journalist or sources? host: thank you caller. guest: some discussion in the last chapter and i think you would be interested in that, i do recommend individual journalists news organizations and i say in this odd time unfortunately it's a to you to find the reporters on a particular topic there may not be one outlet that you watch that covers all topics in the way that you would think is fair and accurate but there may be a reporter out a place that does you point to the intercept one of the most chilling things that is happened is that glenn greenwald starts an organization for the purpose of making sure there was a news organization off the government narrative of
2:45 pm
powerful interest in going greenwald has been a powerful voice of the same things that i'm talking about and for people who don't know he quit his own news organization when they censored the story about hunter biden and this is a left-leaning news organization that he created to make sure the news would be published in a unsettled way and he had delete himself. i still say he is writing and he's a great source of information on the topic that we talk about, maybe not on other topics but on these topics i like to rely and read glenn greenwald, i mentioned david that covers pentagon and national security, i mentioned individual reporters and a lot of different places and outlets in general, there's a discussion of that, it is up to us sadly because i know people don't have time to find their own outlets
2:46 pm
in all give a plug for my sunday show as for what we do, you can watch replays of full it is not political at all it's the old-fashioned way i go around the world and tell stories that are impacted us in the way people were used to seeing that there thirsty for today in a way that were not foreseen viewpoints down her throat and all kinds of people we don't censor anybody. host: in today's new york times as an op-ed by a journalist who reports for the guardian in the washington post she starts by saying this i am guilty of violating the espionage section 793 and 798 if charged and convicted i spend the rest of my life in prison this is not a hypothetical, the united states government is prosecuting a publisher under the espionage act it could set a precedent that would put me account with other journalism dangers and i confess alongside journalism in the washington post and other
2:47 pm
news organizations reported and published highly classified documents from the national security agency provided by the whistleblower are you familiar with espionage act being applied in this manner. guest: there are attempt to prosecute for this noting case and i do have thoughts about that if you would like to hear it. host: go for. guest: edward snowden presented a lot of important information regardless of how he is viewed and here's an example how i wrote about in the second book, i watched in real time as a really important national security implication of the things that our intelligence agencies were doing to american citizens to come into play in recent years because they were never fixed, i watched real time as we started covering that story and as a powerful interested not want us looking their shiny ball in another direction we played where is waldo every day the news conference instead of looking at stunning material that was exposed we started saying where
2:48 pm
is he going cuba, russia, what flight will he be on there is a 3:00 o'clock that will leave as such and such time in a russian flight and we forgot about, we were convinced of forgetting the content of what he exposed, i saw the same thing happened with his contact objection to powerful interest. we started being wrapped up and led by the no's as news organizations to cover only a part of the story of personality those being discredited and fair enough there's something to look at their, we can do more than one thing at once, don't forget about the material that does deserves scrutiny and we fallen down on that part of the job. host: democrat line, go ahead and. caller: and loves watching your show on sunday night, i found it one night after the news but i
2:49 pm
watch not your last show but the one before that where you are talking about these reporters putting forth their personal opinion, you showed clips that they showed donald trump that he said this and he said that, you showed the whole clip of what he really said, i think this is come down there trying to shut different viewpoints up, where whether you be democrat or republican, i think it is awful. i think everybody ought to be able to have their say and i don't think you should be able to be shut down by somebody playing the trombone trying to drown you out, i think everybody should have their say. and another thing i would like to hear you talk about of the vaccine court, most people don't realize we have a vaccine court, i didn't, i would love to hear more on it, i think people would
2:50 pm
be surprised to know that the taxpayers are footing the bill for a lot of these lawsuits and i would like to see you do a little bit more on the grants that are going out to different things, money that is being wasted. host: thank you. guest: all areas of interest that i have and i will continue to be on them some of the stuff that you're talking about if you go to my website cheryl there are ads that talk about that which are very popular always on spending. there is a health and medical tab that talks about vaccine stories some of my reporting i've done on that, i agree there is too much of some kind of reporting and not of another and you talk about donald trump being taken out of context there is a great book written by university of texas professor alberto martinez who was a
2:51 pm
bernie sanders supporter, he is definitely not a donald trump supporter. as an analytical thinker he wrote a book how out of context how much reporting on donald trump was, he looked up the entire and watched and found the facts and so many times the media misreporting and taken out of context of things that donald trump said, his argument he is not a trump fan, trump is bad enough in his own right without the media having to make up stories which undermines the media's credibility on other topics because people may see and often do see their reporting in an unfair way, it is not necessary. that is the position i come across, even if you feel a certain way as a reporter, you undermined yourself on all the topics that you're going to do when people see a slanted new reporting they're not going to believe the next thing you talk about even if you're not sainted about it. it's everybody's benefit if you can get outside of the reporter, to great intellectual exercise
2:52 pm
and report views that may vary with your own if you have a strongly held view or go out and find information to the extent contrary to the narrative that you thought going and that is a beautiful thing, usually you find a more important and interesting story if you follow the truth of the fact that you're discovering rather than trying to shape the story in a certain direction. host: you write about the coverage of the president and application of what a lie is all read part of what you wrote, light is a specific thing in short of a confession requires a reporter to claim to know the mind who is supposedly lying and when someone gives seemingly contradictory information or makes a false statement it could be for other reasons and you go on to is not the place to use a claim and what is in a person's mind and very few instances i can think of is appropriate for reporter to claim that a newsmaker lied. give some context in the book. guest: the thing of calling
2:53 pm
donald trump a liar is a new thing for journalists. when the new york times did in a headline, they were shared by the rest of the presta follows and shared on by journalism professors, when i quote my book who said this was a wonderful thing then dumped objectivity in journalism which i cannot imagine he is teaching journalism students, those are fundamental and it would be like going to a doctor and him saying don't worry about diet and exercise objectivity and neutrality or fundamentals of good journalism but they were abandoned in the air of trump so he can be covered a certain way of interest that did not like him. i think the whole use of the word lie really demonstrates the devolution of the news because it's something i say in the book i'm sure he been lied to many times as a journalist and i point to the case where hillary clinton said we were shot at by snipers, i was on that trip when she was first lady i have the
2:54 pm
first video with girls on the runway with flowers and so on. i never called her a liar because i don't know she was delusional or if she forgot, whatever the word i don't know what was in her mind and careful as journalist if someone admitted it were an obvious way occasionally you could say that was true because again the public hears that and they start to think you have an active grinder pushing one side when you use that language. it is not necessary they can see the perfectly capable of drawing back the conclusion if they say such and such happened this document can contradict, this is my view let them draw their own conclusion we don't have to force something down their throat in a way hits our way at their own credibility. host: independent line, michael, good morning.
2:55 pm
caller: good morning, it is amazing to me in 1982 ronald reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine were reporter reports something, you could go on the air in rebuttal what was said, if you did that they stopped propagandized news, opinionated news he didn't say why there was a car wreck, he was driving the car and reported the car wreck, and of story, bring back and stop the right wing propaganda news. host: okay, color, thank you. guest: i don't doubt you and i don't know about the fairness doctrine and as a journalist we never talked about it never came into play with me as a reporter, i really think it's going to have to come from within because first of all the government that
2:56 pm
benefits from one side of reporting for them to get involved and try to dictate i'm not sure is the answer, very little good comes from other interest who have donors and people who they work for ultimately decide this in many cases i think that's not necessarily the solution i think it has to come from the marketplace and within people talk about removing certain liability protection from the social media companies but once again i worry removing liability and protection would almost give them more incentive to censor more because they would say we can be sued for these things that we decided or other people say aren't true or harmful we have to censor more and i think that your answer would be to step back and say and they should've said this in the beginning we don't censor anything except which is illegal, young the tools to shape what you see online and yell filters, it is not up to a third-party to come in and be
2:57 pm
the arbiter of your information in your experience because i think they've gone down a slippery slope that they taken the view it is their job. host: three books on the media is there a fourth book as what changes in media reporting? guest: they practically write themselves, i love to write and i do that my spare time i can imagine i will stop. think about the topic and writing books i'm sure there will be more developments and it'll be interesting and controversial developments in the next four years. host: slanted how the news media talk to about -- to host a full measure when cheryl atkinson where she served as the host investigative reporter managing editor. thank you for your time today. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2. every week over the latest nonfiction books and authors. book tv on c-span2 created by america's television company, today we were brought to you by
2:58 pm
these television companies to provide book tv to viewers as a public service. >> deputy director of the program on extremism and george washington university talked about the threat posed by american supporters of isis, here's a portion of that discussion. >> isis had a message in a product of pala state moved to switch for american extremist and they were drawn to that idea, he did see a push on that aspect of it. the difference between al-qaeda and isis not only the message in the product but the people, isis had the ability and time and space to reach out systematically to americans and groom them over the course of weeks and months to encourage them. think of the case in upstate new york where a man was reaching out to another man with a mental
2:59 pm
health issue about the need to commit an attack and a nightclub in upstate new york, this individual who i think without sue donnie probably would've gone a different way whereas al-qaeda would've put the message out to a megaphone at effect. these guys were much more a one-on-one intervention trying to push the message in action. >> to watch the rest of the program visit our website use the search box new the top of the page to look for his book homegrown. >> next on bookkeeping author discussion on confronting prejudice on the recent virtual miami book fair, new york times columnist and hudson institute senior fellow discussed whether america society


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on