tv Panel Discussion on Political Campaigns CSPAN April 30, 2016 8:01am-8:59am EDT
afterwards america online cofounder steve case looks at the future of the internet. plus the life of suffragist and abolitionist julia ward howe. a look at the marine corps university's sebastian on how to defeat isis. for complete television schedule, booktv.org. booktv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors, television for serious readers. we kick off the weekend with a panel on political campaigns for the recent annapolis book festival. >> good morning, everyone. for 27 years of politics, love this panel at the university of maryland, 31 years in lincoln office and love this panel even more since it is not elected
office and head of environmental group. the proud father of bree who loves the school as well. let me not only say welcome to you but panelists, this is american politics campaign off the rails, now it is time to quietly slip out. i do this routinely because after giving what i thought was a really great lecture at the university i ask questions as i normally do, someone put up a hand and said what does this have to do with sociology, no one was going to do that, it was the third week of the semester so if anyone wants to quietly sign out, now is the time to do so. my job is straightforward, introduce the authors, aggressively enforce time limit
so we stay within c-span's preference and to coordinate audience participation, so let's get started, my first guest is matt by sitting to the left, the most recent book is all the truth, the politics of what is happening, really interesting. revisit the gary hart affair and how it changed forever the intersection of american media and politics. as publishers stated in the release of the book, the crucial turning point in political media and politics itself when candidates's character begin to draw more fixation than their
political experience and issues, i will leave those questions for you all. matt bai is a political columnist for yahoo news, before that he was chief political correspondent for the new york times magazine where he covered three presidential campaigns in detail. matt lives in bethesda, maryland, with his wife and two children, one more interesting note on his biography, a man played himself in a recurring role in the second season of the netflix show house of cards. >> that tells you what people care about. >> i must tell you i love that because the fun things about
being governor was playing governor in the baltimore faced show homicide that some of you might remember, my friend kurt spoke played the mayor. it came out okay. let me turn to matt bai and i will introduce joseph cummins in a moment. >> honored to be with you, fantastic to be here at this book festival. all writers love book festivals. i love annapolis. i was pleased with myself for having that role on house of cards until somebody on twitter asked if the character was based on anyone and i realized -- i was not as well known as i thought. yes, based on someone.
i want to talk about this book which is close to my heart. i will start by talking about another book which is probably not the best marketing tool in the world but in 1985 a tremendous social critic named neil boatman -- postman wrote a book called amusing ourselves to death. have you read amusing ourselves to death? you should. postman had a theory at the height of the television aid postman said we had not as a country entered the age orwell had predicted, we did not live with big brother, we did not live in authoritarian rule, this is pre-nsa and wiretapping but he says we had come close to realizing of vision in a brave new world, the real thing to worry about was that we would entertain ourselves into oblivion. all the fun and games and narratives and storylines would
come to make a mockery, to obscure the important public business of the country. you can draw a direct line from postman's theory to where we are today for which i offer two words as evidence, donald trump. trump is a reality television -- trump is a television star, he is a celebrity candidate with no experience in governing and no particular interest in governing, no agenda to offer. what he offers is tremendous ratings and outrageousness and antics, here's a provocateur. i called him in my columns and emotional extremist. this comes close to encapsulating his ideology. he manipulates the emotions of an audience intuitively and brilliantly. for the purposes of capturing
attention and being compelling and that is his gift. that is what the political process is rewarding. to understand how we got to where we are at this moment and understand where neil postman's vision came to reality you have to understand the events of 1987 after we visit the story of gary hart which some of you may remember, many of you do not. if you go to a college audience and ask who gary hart is, absolutely blank which is remarkable. it is anomalous in american politics. gary hart was not just some senator and this wasn't 100 years ago. in 1987, by the beginning of 1987 gary hart was the hillary clinton, the presumed democratic nominee having lost narrowly to walter mondale in 1984, former vice president, almost all the nomination. he was running 20 points above the best democrat in any public fall and most democrats were not
even running and one of them was not even a democrat. remember lee iacocca? that lasted ten minutes. he was running double digits, 13 points ahead of george w. bush. gary hart was the guy to beat. he was a towering figure in american politics in the visionary. this was 1987, gary hart talking about energy independence as a national security issue, not just an economic issue. talking about failed states, the end of the manufacturing economy and transition to an information economy, way ahead of his time and a lot of what he talks about which was appropriated by bill clinton a few years later but only one corner in society he can't see around, and that is the culture that is coming to embrace politics as celebrity, the part of the culture that infected hollywood and come to
sports and business, treats people, everybody as if they are subject in people magazine where they personalize in personal behavior and morality become more important than what you believe or have accomplished. a lot of that owing to the echoes of watergate. gary hart can be made to believe that somebody might write about his personal life. he is known to be separated from his wife twice and date openly in washington for many years at which time he is reunited with his wife. but he can't believe anyone will go out searching for the evidence of his infidelity and that is what happens. tom fiedler of the miami herald is sitting at his desk when somebody calls up and says my friend is having an affair with gary hart. she convened in washington and you should go follow him. by the way i won't get into it here, there is no time, but gary
hart did not follow me around, the surveillance happened before anybody knew he said that and he didn't say it to all the press and this had nothing to do with the photos you may remember of the boat and the women, this came out after the race. this is misremembered. they put him under surveillance and watched this woman and there comes a moment on a weekend in early may 1987 where the most important democratic politician in the country, presume nominee of the democratic party is literally backed up against a brick wall in a back alley next to his townhouse in washington wearing a white hoodie with the hood on surrounded by three reporters and the photographer saying who is the woman in your house, how long have you known her and are you having sex with her and what is her name and i believe in that alley, then we'll stand alley next to his home the ground in american politics and american political journalism begins to shift. several days later he is asked at a national press conference have you ever committed
adultery, which no presidential candidate had been asked publicly. the people in that room will tell you they remember to this day a watershed moment. all the rules around politics and private lives changed in that moment. i follow the arc and lives of the people wrapped up in this, the reporters, the woman, donna rice, i look at how this reverberated in their lives which is something we don't do enough but how it reverberated through the life of the country and the industry i have been a part of for marco gosh, almost 20 years. a couple things shift in political journalism after that event in 1987 was one of them is the ethos of political
journalism changes from the illumination of world views and ideas and agendas to this notion of we know you are a fraud somehow, we just have to figure out how and about what and it creates an almost predatory culture that tends to put everything under this broad rubric of character wherever it is and tends to push behind all the governing substance that once really mattered in american politics and moreover it begins this process of making entertainment of our politics. when you create a process that is all about how compelling a character person is and how much they can evade the traps that are set for them and how much it is like a reality television show and a process that subjects candidates to such an intrusive process to go through that only someone who is absolutely dead set and focused on the prize
above all else would subject themselves and their family to it. a bunch of things happen. 1 is you dr. people from politics who have something to offer, often for very little reason. you keep other people on the sidelines who don't want anything to do with that, who have some sense of centeredness and self and perspective, and you allow a lot of people to glide through the process who have no business holding public office because if all you have to do is be entertaining and fun and evade the traps and avoid a terrible scandal and you can get to the office without ever having to really think through or explain to others what you believe, what your worldview is or how you came to it, you can be very successful in politics without having given any thought at all to the impact of your service or the consequences of your policies. when gary hart got out of the race in 1987 he gave a very fiery, defiant statement.
he wasn't supposed to. he was supposed to give a very contrite speech, he said it made him want to vomit, he tore it up and he went down and spoke from the heart, you can see it on c-span. i wrote about it in my column a couple weeks ago. among the things he said that day was take it from me, our politics is on the verge of becoming a kind of sporting match. he said i paraphrase jefferson when i say i tremble for my country when i think we may in fact get the kind of leaders we deserve. i find those words relevant and chilling in the current moment. i hope you will read and enjoy the book, thank you for coming and hearing me. [applause] >> we will have time for some questions or personal attacks, whatever you want to do in the few minutes. our second author is joseph
cummins who cummins who "anything for a vote: dirty tricks, cheap starts, and october surprises in u.s. presidential campaigns". in addition to having a longer subtitle this book is fun to read. not that yours is and. it is fun type reading was a publisher describes the book as a complete history of mudslinging, character assassination and other assassination and other strategies. "anything for a vote: dirty tricks, cheap starts, and october surprises in u.s. presidential campaigns" covers 225 plus years of smear campaigns, bad behavior and us presidential elections from george washington to barack obama. it shows the author of numerous works of popular history and several works of short fiction. he has an msa in creative writing from columbia university, his wife and daughter in maplewood, new jersey.
on a personal note the description of the book covering every election from george washington to barack obama may suggest a long, boring, historical tome that most of you may not eagerly run out to buy. those would be my academic books are, but i can tell you this is a fun read and to cover each of the elections it is normally only 5 to 6 pages per election so you can really go right to that. i haven't said that. when we turn to joe and ask him to talk. >> thank you to everybody for having me here at the annapolis book fair and thank you to matt for his topic which thankfully coincided with a lot of things i'm going to be talking about. the reason i started writing "anything for a vote: dirty tricks, cheap starts, and october surprises in u.s. presidential campaigns" is basically the idea began
germinating in 2004 during the campaign between george bush and -- let me think, george bush -- outdoor, 2004, john kerry. too many dirty elections is basically it. what happened was i began to realize people were talking about how uncivil our collective discourse had become with the swift boating of john kerry, during a presidential debate at that time, george bush being accused of being wired to a transmitter because he had a wrinkle in the back of the fabric of his coat, people claiming a sitting president of the united states was not able to speak at a public debate and i was wondering really? have things gotten as dirty or much dirtier in our collective
discourse or have things always been this way? i should have known that because i remember in 1960, the kennedy/nixon campaign. the day after election day my father coming into the room where my brother and i slept, flicking on the lights and waking us up and snarling at us your friend kennedy won. i should have known as a child that things were pretty bad when your own dad hated you for a moment because nixon did not win the presidency. so i decided to go all the way back to 1799, the book was all the way up to the 2012 to take a look and of course it has not gotten worse, it has gotten different. but basically american election campaigns are just as dirty as they have always been and
perhaps not as bad as some of the election campaigns that took place in the 19th century. there was a guy named thomas felder in 1840, he said passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed do about as principal and reason in a party contest. i would say they kicked principal and reason's but in american electoral history. when you go back to 1800, i like that people bring up thomas jefferson as the paragon of democracy, one of our founding fathers but when you go back to 1800 which was only the fourth election in american history with the federalist candidate john adams against republican thomas jefferson, it is one of the dirtiest campaigns we have
had into the state. thomas jefferson hired a writer named james calendar to assailed john adams as a hideous hermaphrodite with neither -- neither like a man or a woman, they attacked him as getting in bed with the king of england about the new american democracy back over to the king of england and the federalists attacked thomas jefferson for being an atheist, you had to hide your daughters from him because he was quite promiscuous. one of my favorite political attacks of all time where they basically said he was dead. [laughter] >> you can't vote for him, he is dead. case closed. as it turned out there was method to their madness because it wasn't of course thomas jefferson who was dead. it was a slave of thomas jefferson's whose name was also
thomas jefferson who was dead. what they were pointing out was the fact that thomas jefferson, the great republican, was a slave owner. the rumors about sally having had not come out yet by 1800. but they would come out shortly in the next couple of elections because james calendar, the writer thomas jefferson hired, was against jefferson when he refused to give calendar patronage and began to post diatribes against jefferson himself in the next election and was found floating dead in the james river and no one know what happened but he was an alcoholic. when i think of donald trump today, i wrote an article in politico wondering why people are surprised by the physical attacks -- that donald trump makes on people in terms of their appearance, if you go back to the 19th century they had no
holds barred about what they were saying about people. for instance davy crockett who many people remember was a congressman said that martin van buren was a transvestite. attacked him for many pages about how he was a transvestite. james buchanan was democratic president in 1856, he had a congenital birth disorder which causes head to tilt slightly to the left. you can see it in pictures was his opponents claimed it wasn't something congenital but he tried to hang himself and failed and therefore you wouldn't want to elect someone who couldn't even commit suicide right. in a more machiavelli and fashion they also attacked -- one of the president who was rumored to be gay. andrew jackson called him and nancy. william henry clay would lift when he spoke to him on the
senate floor, james buchanan, very difficult to be a bachelor and run for president because either you are gay like rabbi stevenson except that he wasn't, you are promiscuous, or you have a sexually transmitted disease like samuel tilden did in 1876, none of it true but in the 19th century they had no holds barred for attacking people that way. interestingly enough, one of the points i want to make about dirty elections, the average voter, white males in the 19th century, 70%, everybody voted in the 19th century. there is a very interesting book that came out a couple weeks ago called the virgin vote. that is what it was called in the 19th century if you were about to vote for the first time, a young man about to vote for the first time it was taken
very seriously. people would assure you to the polls and you would vote and do your civic duty but a lot of it was driven by passion and prejudice. that has always been a part of american elections. the american elections in the 20th century have been bad, but bad in a different way. 1964 is one of the ones i like to talk about, there was a great influence on american politics but most people in america didn't know how dirty the election was and that was lyndon johnson against barry goldwater and johnson running for his first term, he was going to beat barry goldwater but the question was he wanted to beat him by a landslide and get a big majority for his electoral society program, so he debated a group called the 5:00 club which met
after hours in washington and they did dirty tricks which ranged from actually creating a coloring book which portrayed barry goldwater in robes of the ku klux klan for children. to writing hundreds of letters to dear abby and ann landers, claiming to be from americans having nervous breakdowns at the thought of a barry goldwater presidency, said e howard hunt who at that time was an active cia agent to infiltrate the goldwater campaign and bring back statements of policy statements that goldwater was about to release, the white house knew about things he said before he said them, and there are some stories that they actually bugged goldwater's campaign, not sure if that is true or not but that is the story you here. what happened was, the press had not gotten hold of it, no one had found out about it but people inside politics knew about it. when you jump ahead to 1972 and
have richard nixon in a close election against kennedy, and after watergate when he resigned he says as far as i was concerned it was just a routine political bugging and people felt he was being disingenuous but in fact it was a routine political bugging and he was doing what had been done to him which is not something about watergate that is often pronounced but from a certain point, there were a lot of things going on with nixon that should had been going on but from a certain point of view it was politics as usual up to that point and woodward and bernstein changed at all and as was said after 1988 it did become a tabloid race. they attacked grover cleveland for having a child out of wedlock in 1884, headline saying he was the beast of buffalo, a foul lecture and all this stuff but he had the sense to simply say i am supporting this child,
who at that time was 10 years old. he had private doubts whether he was the father but all he said was i am supporting this child. that is all he would refer to, the woman in question would not give statements to the press also helped and he was able to put that scandal to rest. it took another hundred years before this type of scandal really took off in american history. finally i will say about this current campaign that occasionally in american history we have a perfect storm and we have a perfect storm right now because what we have, there is no incumbent running, no incumbent vice president running, you have both parties driven by internal divisions, you have a lot of terrorism going on in the world and other incidents around the globe which create zeno phobia, sina phobia is a potent force and many candidates especially on the
right encourage zeno phobia. you have a candidate like donald trump who has echoes probably of the most bombastic candidate since teddy roosevelt, although teddy roosevelt had much more substance than donald trump in my opinion, but teddy roosevelt showing up in the 1912 convention smoking a cigar, wearing a sombrero and referring to william howard taft, a sitting president you can see he and trump have something in common. he referred to his 1904 opponent who no one remembers, that neutral tinted individual which is the low-energy charge of its time. the neutral tension individual, there are some similarities to trump but there has not been a trump before. it is like he is not really a politician or interested in governing. i am not sure what he is
interested in and we will see what happens when we get to the convention. thank you for having me. [applause] >> let me thank both of our authors not only for their presentation in writing and insights but remarkably we are on time to have audience participation. we are not -- we are being directed from the floor. let me just add a couple of quick comments on this. as i said in my starting introduction i have actually had a number of different exposures to the political world. when i taught at the university of maryland for 27 years i taught political science, courses on the executive presidency and on elections, enjoyed it greatly.
i went through 19 elections counting primary in general. went through all the different elections and have been involved in one way or another starting with the street-level volunteer in every presidential campaign since advice stephenson. for many of you, you weren't even born and have no idea who advised evenson was but i did, and growing up in florida, went to the democratic office when i was 13 years old, county democratic office, i saw all the candidate and a big picture of dwight eisenhower. i said what is going on? advice stephenson, we are in the south here, that is where the campaign was run. had been a delegate to every national democratic convention since 1984 when walter mondale was nominated and the reason i say all this is i found given
all that background and perspective i found these two books very very interesting and i learned a lot of additional things, some of it might be that i knew, but things that really stand out including by the way i had forgotten this entirely, supreme court justices were often directly involved in politics, running as candidates, now they do it from a different perspective but it is interesting to watch all that so i urge you to go ahead and take a chance. i will turn to questions at this time but i would also make an observation is people are getting ready to question, speak closely to the mic. think about this a little bit. it was alluded by both authors, you hear this all the time.
is elections about covering personal life? so absolutely different, the bad language, bad politics and everything, or is it because we now live in the day of 24 hour news coverage, three major channels, i put news in quotes in a couple of those, and social media where something happens somewhere and instantly you have 12 million people texting and passing that on so maybe the exact same system but a different technology has inflamed the public. let me stop and ask -- >> that was a good segue for my question, great panel. for joseph, i agree with you and my daughter haller's alexander hamilton the musical playing all the time, these dirty politics
go way back. i would like to hear your take on the fact that our media, six multinational corporations run all our mainstream media today. the fact that trump has been so buoyed by so much press and these corporations have an agenda. they have a big part of washington, how is that different now? you have 24 hour news cycles but agenda based, backing certain candidates. >> in the old days you had newspapers that were completely agenda based, newspapers in terms of politics started out, were run not so much by candidates but people working for the candidates. in 1896 the new york times was so agenda based against william jennings bryan that they
convened a group of so-called alien us to discuss not whether or not he was crazy but what type of crazy he was. this convened and went on for a couple days and finally deciding he was just a common degenerate. so i think the difference, as the governor said is how large it is, and i really do think these news organizations obviously have their agendas as they did formerly in the past so the idea of impartiality has never been a part of it although that is always a façade but it remains to be seen after this election how big it is going to be because donald trump is the spectacle created candidate. >> my question is about the
current system of presidential debates, televised presidential debates but the ones for the general election, ties in with the idea of politics as entertainment. they are covered as -- treated as something between sporting and entertainment event, people tally up the number, who screws up the least is the winner. reflections on ways in which there are pros and cons to this, ways in which these are a help to the election process and ways in which they are a hindrance to the election process, anything you want to say about that? >> before i answer that question i want to say i wrote a series of columns on trump and media, one of which in december, trump and the media, made for each
other. i encourage you, you can look them up. i have strong feelings about that and i am very outspoken about it. i don't go to presidential debates anymore. i can't stand being around all that media. you watch it on tv with a bunch of reporters when i can watch at home with one reporter, my wife. i will say i think the debates by and large are good and every four years people say there are too many debates and they don't matter but they do. i think the most pivotal moment of this year's debate, this year's republican campaign period was the moment in new hampshire just prior to the voting when chris christie took marco rubio's legs out from under him and showed him to be very fallible and he went into the fetal position and had to be carried offstage practically. that was a real problem.
i was in new hampshire that weekend and marco rubio was on fire. he came out with a lot of momentum and his first event in new hampshire had 800 people crammed in with the fire marshal running around like crazy and all the excitement and that hit dropped him and what that did was enabled a bunch of people to stay in the race and would have been knocked out if he had caught donald trump in new hampshire which i thought was possible in that moment allowing chris christie to stay in and bush to stay in. they went to south carolina, the field remained fractured. absent that debate i think donald trump loses their in new hampshire and never recovers. these debate matter. they are not perfect. i share the concerns of people who think a lot of questions, you said this about this person and that about that person, that is important, making accusations like courageous people but there is a balance to be had, some are
better than others. the debate this year is a little different. i was very frustrated with the role that polling played in deciding who got to debate in the republican field and almost as insidious but not talked about, where people stood on stage, if you were polling at the bottom you were all the way at the edge by the door and if you were donald trump you were always in the middle and that sent a signal to voters about who mattered and who didn't. if you were john kasich you are always piping in from the edge. and not getting as many questions. polling has a place in a debate process. they introduce people and their arguments to the public, not have the public's judgment based on nothing factor into how those arguments are presented. it doesn't give people the chance they should get in debates and there are better ways to do it and that was a poor and ratings driven decision as have been many of the coverage decisions particularly in cable news this cycle. >> i would add something on
this. the first hundred years or so the candidates did not normally debate, they didn't appear in public or give public speeches. >> they let somebody else do the dirty work, we might have been saved a little bit by there were donald trumps in the 19th century but it was undignified to appear in a public forum if you were running for president so they did not do it. >> you said gary hart antedating was widely known throughout washington. historically there have been other political figures who were widely known, but it had been the tradition in the press to ignore that or give it a pass. what caused the shift on the part of the media to decide this was fair game to go after and when did it occur? >> that is a big question. i will try to answer is briefly,
you are right, there was a shift. i think the 20th century, people look at joe's stories as they should, they are fascinating, and say it was always like that because grover cleveland had that but in the 1800s a guy could get caned to an inch of his life on the house floor. we don't want to use that as a benchmark. the 20th century is where the modern media is and i look for comparisons and you had fdr and lyndon johnson, as i said when we argued about this when the book came out, he said why didn't anyone ask fdr about his affairs? i guess we could do that, we could build a time machine, get rid of fdr, we can find somebody else to handle the great depression and the nuclear bomb and the cold war and find somebody else to handle the cuban missile crisis but most
americans agree those were pretty well handled. i am not sure that is the answer. i think there is a series of forces in culture in 1987. my main point is this isn't something gary hart created. ever after people said if it wasn't for gary hart -- this was going to happen somewhere. if not gary hart it might have been bill clinton almost certainly but forces were coming together. there are moments when forces come together. you were now a decade past watergate so this idea of morality and politics, we remember woodward and bernstein bringing down a line president but the political media had failed. it was a huge failing to have followed richard nixon 20 plus years and not have known his
psychosis, what he was capable of. there is a new generation of journalists getting out of the campaign trail in the 1980s who were drawn to the business by woodward and bernstein and believe it is their prime directive to keep someone of faulty character from assuming the presidency. you have the birth of the satellite dish, cnn is brand-new, suddenly there is this ability to broadcast live from every scene whether it matters or not, the advent of punditry, crossfire is brand-new and you are changing attitudes about adultery on the left and right, moral majority and feminism, the personal is the political as the feminists say. suddenly that pre-martini lunch and the tryst with the secretary is not funny anymore. there is a societal attitude changing at the time too so all these things are coming together. gary hart doesn't create it, he stumbles into it. the story i tell in the book, about how ill-prepared he was,
how perfect the vehicle he was to find himself in that mess because he had come from another world. he was we 10 years older than the boomers and had grown up in the planes, grown up in kansas and had a very pronounced sense of privacy and was deeply conflicted about giving that up. in that sense he could not appreciate the moment he was walking into. >> around here you would have a large number of people who started their political career involved in the gary hart campaign. these events regularly. >> i would like to thank matt for his hard-hitting coverage of president underwood. for six split seconds or less, i thought i would be appreciated in my time. >> the actor and character, excellent reporters.
my question is if donald trump does not get elected president, a kind of chronic illness or breaking? >> is that for me? >> i don't assume he won't get elected president. i don't think anyone should assume he will not get elected president. i think he is running with strong historical current if he is the nominee because as we were discussing earlier only one party, outlawed third consecutive terms in the 22nd amendment in the 1950s and what i have written about, hillary clinton is a flawed candidate,
he is not going to pivot but will respond at some point. the question is whether americans care what you said two months ago. i don't this is an open and shut election. is it something anomalous? mostly the beginning of something. i have written for a long time between 2 party system is breaking down as a result of institutions in america, 70% voting rate in this country. people are not participants and creating a lot of dissatisfaction and people bound to one party or another, independent presidency is inevitable or independent takeover of a party is what we are seeing in the republican party now. trump is not quite anomalous but has a particular set, his celebrity, for ten years he had
a highly rated television show, what he stands for. i don't think just anybody can walk around and do that but do we see a string of outsiders with more viability than they had before the two party system more or less predictable than it was? >> let me ask joe. >> given what you heard me say, the history of presidential elections, donald trump is inevitable, this had to happen and the spectacle, politics, it is because in american history, every hundred years or something like that, there will be a bloodletting, people will be so dissatisfied they are going to seek answers. i am not necessarily certain he
is the harbinger of the future. i don't think he can be elected president in my opinion. i can't imagine he would. i could be wrong. there is enough for everything that has come before him point to donald trump. >> the great wall will be built, it will be built by candidates to stop america from coming here. i think we have time for two last questions. >> this may be unanswerable. journalists to competence and report on substantive issues because after a year and a half of this campaign, seems much
longer, seems like they are defaulting from the horse race, to gaffes, to character and we don't hear about substantive issues. >> i am not a journalist but i agree with you. going to the question about debates there were too many debates. it is extraordinary such ratings would be given to republican debates, it is quite incredible but too many debates, too many watch a moment and too many things, happening too quickly. a lot of substance to talk about. all this is happening too fast and not a lot there so look what they do when they file a story
very quickly. >> i would just say technology is changing obviously. i work for yahoo today. this change is that company and there was no yahoo news because we built a tremendous team, the digital, the print is all changing, in the wild west, i disagree with the premise of substantive journalism, there is outstanding journalism, the best political journalism that has ever been done, more responsibility on you to find it. there is more media, electronic and print, it is nonpartisan, cable, to the door every morning and the same package in the one stop shop, could be diligent
consumers but to look at that confusing landscape that so often seems shallow and i agree with you, to look at a landscape that feels so shallow and non-informative and conclude journalism is dead is just wrong. i used to work with the new york times and i work at yahoo, the washington post and many many other outlets in this country, better journalism being done about politics, more substantive, more data-driven and experiential and expensive to produce than i have ever seen before. >> let's take a last question here, the entire view based on wisdom. >> a lot of surrogate campaigning. the obama administration to limit the amount of negative
campaigning in media, how negative campaigning may have changed in the past. and targeted audience, targets women, and targets young people because they are using social media more than older people. and i would imagine that is a smart thing for them to try to do if they get away with it. the thing about negative campaigning is you take a lot of polls, everybody says they hate negative campaigning, they think it is terrible but the thing about it is it has an shown negative campaigning increases participation in elections which it did in the 19th century. with negative campaigning at its height, more and more people are tuning in and listening and
spending time paying attention to these candidates. it is a two way twist, we hate it but many people -- it is listening to it. in terms of entirety, negative campaigning. >> who is the expert on negative campaigning? >> if only my father could see me now. >> thank everyone for joining us here we will tell you i find this a fascinating election. i am one of the people who says we should not assume mister trump would not be president because what you have to do is take a step back and say how would you feel if he is? circumstances a long time between now and the election,
there will be another chapter to be written but it is viable but more importantly, both authors, the age of media celebrities, i can see where trump is, moving into the super bowl, announcing candidacy, someone winning a great artistic award for a song and a week later candidacy for presidency. >> that is because we never win anymore. >> it has changed, incumbent as citizens to seek out and get involved and put a rational balance to this as well. let me thank you all again, have
[inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here is a look at what is on prime time tonight. we kick off the evening at 6:30 p.m. eastern, with how to defeat isis. after that, charles leland on how banking and monetary systems work. at 8:45, widely felt to recognize and act on obvious dangers. on afterwards at 10:30 eastern america online cofounder steve case speculate on the future of the internet. we finish a prime time programming at 11:00 with a look at ali baba, the chinese e-commerce site that rivals amazon. that happens tonight on c-span2's booktv. here is a look at some authors recently featured on booktv's
afterwards, our weekly author interview program. sue klee bold, dylan klee bold's mother discussed mental health and how she dealt with the tragedy. ellen malcolm recalled her creation of emily's list, a political action committee who elects pro-choice democratic women to political office and former congressman jc watts talk about guiding principles he soloed in this professional and personal life. in the coming weeks, peter marks with robert benmoche who turned the company around at the height of the financial crisis. don watkins will argue that measures to alleviate income inequality actually end of hurting low income americans. also coming up, criminal justice reform and recall his 19 years
in prison. aol cofounder steve case will tell you how emerging technologies are reshaping the internet? >> the internet is shifting from being this interesting phenomenon like internet companies, internet enabled and at some point not not too distant future, electricity and enabled -- >> that is a great example. internet on a similar path, we know how to get there but we don't know the heightened way to get there. we call it email. someday we will just call it mail. we call it e-commerce but when they we will call it commerce. we are not there yet, it will take 10 or 20 years to get there but we are on that path, the next iteration, the next step, the next wave of taking the idea of the internet and shifting it from being a quirky